User talk:Tony Wills/Archive001

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Parvclassis

Hello, Tony Wills, please help me to learn. In the taxonomy you use the term "Parvclassis" for Neognathae. In WPs the scientific terms "Subclassis" or "Superordo" are usual. Greetings Orchi 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know the term as ranking. Greeting Orchi 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

re: gallery/categories

Hi Tony, thanks for your comment and {{welcome}} :)

The proposal didn't get enough community input that I would consider it 'accepted'. What topic domain are you interested in setting it up for, or helping out with sorting for?

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to try it out, I totally support that. Having a working example is the best way to show people and let them see the advantages and disadvantages for themselves. Just create a little template {{birds}} or {{tol birds}} (or similar) that is either blank, or has content like This file falls under the jurisdiction of WikiProject Tree of Life Birds. and link to a page somewhere explaining how it works. The template can always be "undone" simply by blanking it - no need to even necessarily remove it everywhere, if it is decided against using it. If you want some help, let me know. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Er. I strongly recommend creating project-specific templates instead of trying to just have one. If you intend to tag possibly thousands of files just within birds categories, I think the toolserver will like it better if it doesn't need to filter out another trillion files of plants etc. And why the need for the #if statement? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Ok, why don't I start a WikiProject Birds and make a template WikiProject_Birds containing no conditionals, just text (though an Icon or Box might be nice in the future :-)
Yes, I suggest doing that. The load on the toolserver (via Cat Scan, which is the point of all this after all) was what I was talking about. Don't be TOO elegant if then everyone else has to be inelegant to get the use out of it that they need :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Image:Zag_runway.JPG

Zagreb Airport, Croatia --Dtom 11:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Similar picture is Zag finish.JPG --Dtom 11:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I hope it is OK now :-)) --Dtom 12:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Redirects

Hi Tony, please stop reverting my redirects. In Euphorbia for instance you re-activated a long time obsolete page with 38 linked species (plus one blind link) while the current number of species in Category:Euphorbia is 342. As this page only fools any user I already reverted your revert. Please think twice before you produce more nonsense like this. Greetings, --Ies 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Quantity isn't everything, see my reply on your talk page :-) --Tony Wills 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kawakawa

Hi Tony. The English common name for this tree in New Zealand is Kawakawa, not Pepper tree, so I adjusted the text on that page while retaining the little-used and ambiguous 'Pepper tree' which usually refers to trees of the Pseudowintera genus in NZ. New Zealand English tends to prefer Māori names for native plants and animals; quite often the so-called English common name was one used in the 19th century but long since replaced by the Māori name Kahuroa 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

re Pepper tree for Pseudowintera spp. - see [1]. That same encyclopedia only seems to list Macropiper excelsum as Kawakawa. But Te Papa has Kawakawa with the alternate name Pepper Tree at [2]. But anyway what this shows me is that there is variation in common name usage, and so it never pays to be too dogmatic about it; even tho 'Pepper tree' for Kawakawa sounds odd to me, that doesnt mean it is so for everyone or in every region of NZ. By the way there are two more Macropipers native to NZ (Macropiper melchior and Macropiper excelsum psittacorum) which also need to be added at some point. Kahuroa 07:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Different bird representations

Categories

Category:Struthio_camelus how are those info boxes automatically generated?
Category:Anatidae large, too many subcats & pages
Category:Ciconiidae compact

Articles

Ciconia Taxonavigation, common names, gallery with examples of each species, belongs to category Ciconia only, interwiki links
Anatidae Familyname, selected random images, long linked species list (generus, species, common name), belongs to category Anatidae only

talk:ToL

I noticed you wrote: Thirdly - some people (and possibly ToL) advocate having different ways of dealing with categories (eg when to add/ remove cat tags and what levels should have categories) that is different from the general guidelines You may have gathered by now that the gallery vs category has been a topic of long discussions. Once there was a vote - in dont have the link on hand - on the topic. The conclusion was that we should have a merged system, and until we had both galleries and categories were ok. Since the vote some guidelines have been rewritten so that they no longer comply with the vote.

You will find throughout commons that some pix are in categories, some are in galleries, and some are in neither. Personally I got very mad when some category fanatics started adding categories to ToL pix after a long and heated discussion the village pump. I never understood why they started doing this when there are at least a 100.000 pix which are not organized at all.

It is not a matter of ToL vs the rest of commons, for example compare Gustave Dore vs Category:Gustave Doré. Ah, someone finally got around to expanding the category, but a few monthes ago the category only held some 20 pix, while the gallery held all.

Anyway, some arguments for both sides:

  • categories are easier to add
  • some of the newer guidelines prefer categories
  • our current uploadtools give better support for uploading categories
  • Images in galleries can be sorted
  • Images in galleries can be commented upon
  • maintenance tools from the wikipedias support galleries better than categories, for example galleries can be renamed.

kind regards,

Teun Spaans 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Project

I suppose this could be deleted now? Yonatan talk 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Resin from Pinus Radiata Stump.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Resin from Pinus Radiata Stump.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.

Quality image promotions.

NZ grasshopper.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NZ grasshopper.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.

Farmed Ostrich.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Farmed Ostrich.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.

Hawkins Hill Radar Station.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hawkins Hill Radar Station.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.

grendel|khan 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Talk:Psittacidae

A user has a question there - you might be able to answer re possibly misidentified pic. Cheers Kahuroa 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply. Good work. Kahuroa 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Wasp and spider 02.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasp and spider 02.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.

Quality Image Promotion

Futuna Chapel NW.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Futuna Chapel NW.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.

General Malacostracan

No objections (of course). Thanks. Lycaon 12:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blackbird

Hey Tony, thanks for your support for my blackbird pic. The weird bokeh (with seemingly doubled background branches) is from the lens (a mirror telescope with a circular apperture). I had to use a high ISO setting to achieve short exposure time as I was shooting without a tripod. I'll try selectively denoising the bg next time. --Dschwen 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of images belonging to a category and its subcats

Hi Tony; what tool do you use to find that Category:Fabaceae contains 1779 images? [3] Wsiegmund 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Microwave tower silhouette-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Microwave tower silhouette-2.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.

Image:The_Photographer.jpg

  • Interesting that you no-where note that this is a composite image, the silhouette has been over-layed on top of an image of the tunnel :-). Perhaps reading between the lines in the FP description one might have gathered this, but it is not stated explicitly. But very well done :-). My vote is that he is walking towards us. It's also a nice touch that if he is walking away his head is tilted up slightly so he is looking out into the light, if viewed as coming towards us, his head is looking down slightly as he enters the gloom :-) :-). --Tony Wills 11:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not a composite image at all (please note the shadows on the ground)! You might be intereste in reading the discussion about that possibilty in here. The solution to the puzzle is in the image discussion page in the English Wikipedia. Alvesgaspar 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Finally

Mating Grasshoppers-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mating Grasshoppers-2.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.

Quality Image Promotion

Yellow Admiral (Vanessa itea).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Yellow Admiral (Vanessa itea).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.

wiki project birds

Hi Tony, I'm happy to help out with the birds project if their are any photos that you need of birds around this area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensay%2C_Victoria in Australia where I live --Benjamint444 05:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

NZ Red Admiral Butterfly (Vanessa gonerilla).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NZ Red Admiral Butterfly (Vanessa gonerilla).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.

Quality Image Promotion

Orange Ichneumonid wasp 01.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Orange Ichneumonid wasp 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.


Tram car tally

Hey Tony, just to notify you, I recounted the tram car votes. My own vote was a bit unclear, but I am definitely in support. Also the very first comment by donald should not count as an oppose (check the diff I posted), merely as a question. Let's leave it on the page a few more days to discuss. --Dschwen 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized that I was the nominator. Stupid rule actually, as I didn't take the picture myself. Hmm... I guess I'll just have to ask cacophony to come and support his own pic then, do I? --Dschwen 12:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Fly Agaric.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly Agaric.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.

New consensual rev format

Several CRs are broken now. The whole discussion in a template approach is probably not the best solution. And the current state does not simplify parsing of the page at all. --Dschwen 11:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

Wasp and spider 02.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Wasp and spider 02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wasp and spider 02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Simonizer 16:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Thanks :-)

  • Patience, hard work (and a bit of talent) normally pay. Your bird pictures are becoming really good, congratulations. One day, you will be able to compete with Mdf ;-). Alvesgaspar 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. Featured picture candidates/Image:Stacheldraht 05.jpg

Thanks :) --Tano4595 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, I want to, here is the nomination page. I agree strong contrast between the wire and the green country side is a strong point of the photo, and I find beatifull in de simplicity of the object, that gives a world of details. Thank for your warning, --Tano4595 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Black backed gull.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Black backed gull.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.

Quality Image Promotion

NZ North Island Robin-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NZ North Island Robin-3.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.

NZ North Island Robin-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NZ North Island Robin-2.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.

Quality Image Promotion

Fly Agaric mushroom 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly Agaric mushroom 2.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.

FP Promotion

NZ North Island Robin-3.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:NZ North Island Robin-3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:NZ North Island Robin-3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Simonizer 08:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mist image

Hi Tony, The bottom of my drive is about a kilometer from the house so it's not too much of a trek, but I went up each morning for about a week waiting for a good day, hopefully that view will yield some more good shots later on in winter with some frosty mornings. I have now got a list of birds in my area which I will upload for you in the next week or so, if you still want it. Also, thank you for your consistent support of my images on QIC and FPC. Have you thought about contributing to the en:wiki FPC, the standard there is much higher and the feedback is more usefull --Benjamint444 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see your panorama got such unwavering support, the effort paid off :-). Yes upload the list, and we'll see what bird images are needed. I will submit one or two of my images to en:w:FPC in the hope that I can get one featured but I'm still working on my photographic skills and are not yet satisfied with the results. At the moment the camera I'm using is a borrowed Olympus C-750 which is very difficult to focus in low light conditions and on moving objects, I also need to buy a tripod (my favourite Robin picture was with the aid of a borrowed tripod). I've now got a better idea of what's required to produce good images and I know they should be better. When I've become skilled at using this camera, I might be able to justify the cost of buying an expensive one. --Tony Wills 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • thanks for your support on QIC#Consenual review, they're not nearly as bad this time as with the wrens image--Benjamint444 09:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NZ Trees update

Some time ago I raised the need for native tree pix at en:Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Tree_images_needed. Just thought you might come across a tree when you're out and about with your camera, since you're good at it as shown by all these Quality Image promotions, and trees can be surprisingly difficult to get a decent photo of... Cheers Kahuroa 04:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony - just letting you know I have pix (mostly foliage only) of most of these now - all except Black Maire and Black Beech. Cheers Kahuroa 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image

Hey. I was very surprised and happy to see that one of my images had been reviewed and promoted. I very much appreciate this and it encourages me to contribute more images to Commons. mnemo 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-2.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.

Barbed wire

Barbed wire

Hello Tony, thank you for nominating my picture of a barbed wire as featured picture candidate. But my first try was not so good. Now I took another camera and got a better result.--wau 09:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I appreciated your comments surrounding my decision to oppose Fir0002's images. Let me quote: "...clearly we are not going to win converts by badgering them". This is very important to me and is the reason that I will try to be very careful in how I address this issue. I know that you disagree with me and I disagree with you, but I hope we can live with that. It's just that I do believe that the philosophy is more important than the pragmatic concerns. It's similar to "free software" (philosophically based) and "open source" (pragmatically based). You believe that users do not have to agree with the philosophy of Wikimedia to contribute, and I respect that view. I believe that Featured Pictures should highlight those that match the project goals, rather than someone doing the minimum to get featured pictures. Of course Fir0002 doesn't game the system by trying to do the minimum to get by. He's very upfront about why he does what he does and if his pictures are not featured because of it, he doesn't lose sleep over it. Not everyone is like that. Still as a matter of compromise, I won't use "project scope" as a reason for opposition for images that meet the 2MP guidelines. It's a tad inconsistent, but the only other alternative would be to oppose all downsampled images. I think that the standards would have to be changed by consensus if we were to do anything banning downsampled images for the purpose of limiting commercial appeal. -- Ram-Man 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Weta

TreeWeta female 03.jpg

Hi Tony, your review: Great focus on face, but for a posed shot under controlled conditions it is let down by being very grainy. Why an ISO setting of 800? --User:Tony Wills 02:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Grainy? Wow, you are quite critical! Just to let you know, this was not controlled conditions at all, running around on my desk, its a photo by accident, took me 50 photos, mostly crab. BTW this was not a candidate for an excellent photo. When I am looking at some "Photos of the day", then the required level of quality is not supposed to be too high, quite frankly. Question: would it have been useful to have edited the photo? (I am a bloody beginner in wikicommons). All I did was to get contrast adjusted automatically (Photoshop Album 3.0) Cheers Wolfgang K 09:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony, just to let you know, I was glad to see your answer on my talk page, your way of answering is very pleasant and polite, your answer is very comprehensive and full of explanations, so thank you very much!! This encourages me to maybe get more engaged with Wikimedia Commons. And sorry for my grumpy statement above. (just one more word: the white photo's background is my white desk.) Kia ora, Wolfgang K 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Polychaeta anatomy en.svg

Hi Tony. I updated the information for this illustration. Care to have a look? You may (or not) consider changing your vote. Thanks Lycaon 09:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having another look. I'll keep your advice in mind for subsequent drawings (and I might still make a more appealing version of the current one). Lycaon 10:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kinetic art sulptors

Hello Tony, thank you for your message. And no, I don't agree. Let me explain it. In March 2007 I discovered cat:Sculptors and at once restarted cat:Modern sculptors (and cat:Modern sculptures). Both cats are rapidly expanding and in a healthy condition (be it that there are not enough images available in Wikimedia and the local Wikipedias). These categories are linked to cat:Sculptors by period and in the end to cat:Sculptors. All Kinetic art sculptors are therefor already linked to :Sculptors. Individually all modern sculptors are linked to their country (cat:Sculptors by country) and I like to relate all modern sculptors to a specific Art Movement (Kinetic Art/Conceptual Art, Land(scape) Art etc.). Linking them again to cat:Sculptors is in my idea not such a good idea. My concept was: Kinetic Art Sculptors linking to Kinetic Art linking to Art Movements linking to Modern Art and in the end to Art. Let me know what you think of it and reconsider your decision. Or let others decide what is right or wrong. Regards--Gerardus 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tony. Thank you for taking all this trouble to do the right thing. Yes, I recognise the pain in your head (I am a Migraine sufferer myself) and ask myself a few times a day: Why am I doing this? Is there somebody who will ever visit the pages I work so hard on? I thought I was on the right way, but I will rethink it now. Thanks anyway--Gerardus 11:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Red billed gull-02.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Red billed gull-02.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.

Here...

...you forgot to sign. Lycaon 10:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

FP Promotion

Red billed gull-02.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Red billed gull-02.jpg, which was nominated by D-Kuru at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Red billed gull-02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Simonizer 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This any good?

Image:TecomantheSpeciosa467.jpg - Kahuroa 05:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Is the orientation right - yep. The colour is subtle in these plants, varies a little from plant to plant it seems, from creamy white to slightly greenish white - yellow greenish tinge as well - the pix on Tecomanthe speciosa are all more or less accurate tho on second thought I think the very white ones are too white. The length of the flower is slightly less than an index finger - full technical description. It was a slightly compressed photo, so I have uploaded again - see what you think now. My camera is a small point and shoot, and I must admit the soft focus drives me a bit batty, and I have been thinking about getting something better... but whaaat.... the compactness of the camera is great but I do want sharp !!! Kahuroa 10:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Gymnopilus junonius-02.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gymnopilus junonius-02.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.

Gymnopilus.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gymnopilus.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.

Red billed gull-05.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Red billed gull-05.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.

Better Camera

Hi, I have exams next week so I havn't logged on for a while, there is a couple of good cameras at the moment, firstly, the Panasonic DMC-FZ 50 which is the next one up from mine (FZ 30). I suggest this because of it's excellent 420mm built in zoom which is great for wildlife shots. It was a $1 000 (AU) when it came out about six months ago so it will have dropped quite a bit since then. It's 10mp which is a big jump up from my model (8mp) and they both have a good built in macro capability although you have to get very close to your subject (1 - 2cm) and you can get attatchments for them to get around not being able to change lenses. I have found that the attatchments for them are a lot cheaper than buying an equivalent lens for a DSLR. And the DSLR equivelant lens to what it comes with is about another thousand dollars. Having said all of that the quality will always be better with a DSLR so the Nikon D200 is also worth looking at, it's a big price jump to somewhere between $1900 and $2300 and you would want a telephoto lens which is about another thousand, it's probably what I will upgrade to next, I don't know how much your willing to pay? fir0002 is definitely worth asking aswell.--Benjamint 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • They are fine with quick moving subjects and have quite a good burst mode, I've never had trouble with the focusing speed at ISO 100. It the longest it took was with my frogmouth and possum images (about 2 seconds, but that was in almost nonexistent light) but the FZ 50 has a faster focusing speed. Because the lens is a lot smaller than on a DSLR they can both focus quicker than a DSLR with a telephoto lens. There is one bad thing about them though, you really can't put the ISO above 100 or the noise is terrible, It can be fixed in Photoshop but I always leave it on a hundred anyway. All of my wallaby Wallaby images were taken either on a very overcast day or when the sun was below the horizon (they don't seem to like direct sunlight) and I've managed okay but the succes rate of the images is fairly low in terms of motion blur since the ISO stays on 100.benjamint
What edit software do you use?

Secrets

Bwah! doubleplus-lOl ... this is macroauthors business! and a miniminor sin :) :) --Makro Freak talk 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)</span
Is there a discussion about this in the commons? --Makro Freak talk 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about this? I have no problem to apply this template on every newer contribution, just to play fair :) ;)
Nuvola apps background.png
This is a postprocessed picture by Richard Bartz aka Makro Freak, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version like it comes out of the camera. Modifications: slight sharpening, de-noising and minor color adjustments.

--Makro Freak talk 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason why i dont agree with the term "retouched picture". There was only one case when i did a tiny copy/paste action and for that, the retouched picture template was ok, because it was a retouche. But for my usual workflow its just post processing, no retouching, that means i do nothing else which my camera not could do. My camera has a setup for noise reduction, sharpening and saturation but i want to adjust it after and more carefully and that was a part of the secret tips ;) i gave. I think my made-to-measure template says it all and thereby its fair .. :) :) ... about jalousy: what would you say if someone has a canon eos 1d markII ? This camera has moreless no noise because of a powerfull processor. I dont have 7.000 bucks but i know a workaround (described) to generate such pictures. Why does i should renounce if its 4 Klicks?

You are welcome to send me your future FP candidate pictures by mail and i will master/pre process it for you if you like, and then you put my template in your description and everything is fine. --Makro Freak talk 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 :) Just to play fair. You allways can come back to me if you are running into processing-problems, i will fix that for you if you need help ;) --Makro Freak talk 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I'll probably work on my editing skills. If a lot of the quality that comes out of those expensive cameras is due to their software, I wonder how they keep the price so high (as once they've developed the algorithms it'd be cheap to mass produce). Your photos are very good, it would be interesting to see the before and after versions of some of your images to see how much improvement you get. --Tony Wills 23:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re.

Well, Now I know. Thank you Tony Wills.--OsamaK 10:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Olympus_C-750 self portrait

Hi Tony, you described Olympus_C-750 as a "self portrait". What did you mean by that? Unless a mirror is involved, how can a camera take a self portrait? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 :-) A little bit of poetic license, it is taken by an identical camera model (see exif data). I also took some pictures of the back of the camera while it was displaying a picture of itself (swapped picture cards) which was a cute idea except the image of the image was so poor I just blanked it out :-). So ignore the description, it just makes it more interesting than saying a photo of an Olympus C-750 taken by a C-750 ... :-) --Tony Wills 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mass undeletion request thoughts needed

Urg. How annoying!

I believe these images were probably deleted as part of his mass deletion run which involved deleting all galleries without any images. Of course some gallery pages are acceptable without images (and I include ToL among those), but many are nonsense. So it's a bit of a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So first I would request that you discuss it with User:Szczepan1990. Since it is his action I feel he should be helping clean it up. I recently moved house and only have internet access at work, so I won't be able to help a lot for a couple of weeks.

If he's not responsive, before you do a ton of work by yourself, raise the topic on the administrator's noticeboard. If there was some way we could easily/automatically identify the ToL pages, it would be great...I can't think of one right now though. Maybe analysing links or something. Basically I don't think this work should be left to the ToL people to do. Either Szczepan should do it, or if he won't, the admins should. So if no one is too helpful contact me in a couple of weeks and I'll see what I can do. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that there's a policy against gallery pages without images, just that a gallery page without images is a very strong indicator for a nonsense page. Since we don't have very vigorous RC patrol junk pages are often created and left unnoticed for some time. So I think Szczepan's actions were kind of like a spring clean. Nonetheless putting at least one image in such pages is generally a good idea. If nothing else put a template like {{ToL}} at the bottom which says This page is part of the WikiProject Tree of Life. You can help! and have an image of a leaf or tree or something. :) cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW having images is a good idea generally to give the reader some context. While the ToL editor who creates the page may think it incredibly obvious what the page is about, it's important to keep in mind that readers come to the pages from varying approaches (search engines are almost like at random), and with varying knowledge. So taking the time to put an example image in is something I would generally encourage. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Undeletion request

done, it wasn't problem :) --Szczepan talk 09:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete template

I think it was inappropriate to block User:Tano4595 who appeared to be removing the {{delete}} templates in good faith and simply hadn't yet noticed the warning of a few minutes earlier. The deletion discussion would appear to have an in-evitable conclusion and his jumping the gun was doing no real harm. A block for any period is a serious and heavy handed action - I now understand your action in light of the discussion above, but think it was a reflex action on your part rather than a considered action :-) --Tony Wills 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are intended to be a preventative measure. They are NOT tools of punishment/discipline. Mass revert waring over the inclusion of the delete template despite warnings and a revert isn't exactly helpful to the project. But you are right and I did not believe for one second that User:Tano4595 had an evil intent, thats why he was blocked for a mere 2 hours so he can calm down and think rationally over this. Otherwise a longer block would be there.
By default delete templates shouldn't be removed no matter the circumstances while there is an on going deletion/rename discussion.
-- Cat chi? 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

VP comment

Hi Tony, on the VP you said: I suppose where I'm coming at this from is that this place is a community of people giving their time and creative work freely, but the environment is slowly being made more un-welcoming. This sort of message is a symptom of that. I've got lots more to say on this subject, but will collect my thoughts and find an appropriate venue to discuss them.

I just wanted to say that I would be really interested to read your thoughts about this, when you collect them. :)

I suspect the issue you mention is a kind of wiki "growing pain". When a wiki reaches a certain size, it's no longer true that all members feel part of a community with all other members. how the wiki community deals with this is then a very interesting problem that, I imagine, determines what the future atmosphere is like.

So anyway, please drop me a line if/when you write about this. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you make some valid points. I'll think about them and respond in more detail later. Don't worry, you don't come across as a "whinger". :)
As for Flickr, they do absolutely nothing. They only listen to copyvio complaints if you can demonstrate you are the copyright holder in question, not just that you know that the person who uploaded it wasn't. So in that sense we are more stringent in our requirements than any other photo-sharing site on the web that I know of. Hopefully that will eventually mean our database is higher quality with fewer copyvios. At the moment it's pretty haphazard still, though.
If you are a serial copyvio person I think they just shut down your account for violation of the TOS. Heh, that's an interesting idea - a Wikimedia TOS. :) Again we are more lenient in that we give people warnings first and try wherever possible to educate and rehabiliate people rather than blanket-ban them and just delete all their contribs. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will make a few comments about your notes now, while "user conduct" is on my mind.

I agree about the problem of a community growing too large to be considered a single community. I thought the figure was actually about 150, but maybe 300 is not that different. Where you no longer feel like you know everyone and have seen everyone around editing. We can see English Wikipedia has this problem in a very big way. My idea for helping to solve it in a wiki, is to encourage WikiProject membership very much. You can't keep abreast of what is happening all over a large wiki, but you can on a single WikiProject. (And if it gets too large, split again.) As long as each detailed project respects the spirit and rules of its parent project, they can go wild. (e.g.: if Commons has a policy "file names can be in any language", no WikiProject can make a rule "files concerning this WikiProject must be in English".)

Valuing volunteers - YES - I have thought about this for some time now. I want to introduce a systematic form of recognition. See User:Pfctdayelise/Commons:Awards. Hopefully I will get some time to start work on it soon (you are welcome to help :)).

It is as though one half of the organisation is working against the other half, one half uploading things as fast as they can, the other half deleting violations as fast as they can, and trying to stem the flow - a very competitive, 'us and them' arrangement. We want to believe that Commons is a community of people who share the goal of copyleft. But yet we are an open wiki that lets people join without any requirement at all. Dealing with the people who don't share the vision, is the price we pay for an open wiki. Is it worth it? (This answer may change over time.)

We shouldn't slap automated templates on the page of users who've contributed 100s of images telling them their latest contribution is missing some important info and will be summarily deleted when in fact there is very little chance it will turn out to be a copy violation. Well. I would like to see a lot of reform in our user talk templates. At the moment many of our templates have two functions conflated into one: notification - informing someone - and reprimand - warning someone. These need to be separated so that (a) community members don't feel insulted to receive a template warning, and (b) reprimands carry some weight. Notifications should be thought of as neutral information services and are appropriate to be delivered by bots or scripts. Reprimands should only come from people after consideration of the individual circumstances.

We shouldn't hold kangaroo courts examining the actions of users who are not being malicious or vandalistic but just have strong opinions of how things should be done. If you are referring to JL, I must say the "kangaroo court" was largely my idea, but there is a bit more to it than that that I won't go into here. :)

I have little flashes in my conciousness asking: is a wiki structure ever going to achieve our goals? Can a unified, stable category structure be created that will make commons useful?

These are very interesting questions. MediaWiki is missing a lot of functionality that is holding Commons back in many regards. It holds back browsers, uploaders, organisers, patrollers, admins -- you know, basically everyone that uses the Commons. I would be open to Commons using different software, if something open source existed that suited our needs better. But I'm not aware of anything that even comes close.

As for the category structure, again this relates to MediaWiki's poor functionality for categories. If functionality existed even for such a simple thing as automatic category redirects - that would allow multiple language names - imagine how much easier life would be just with that.

Does the project need stronger direction and structure imposed on it, yet be somehow more open ?

That one I don't know at all, but I always love to hear people's thoughts about it. best wishes, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Updating aesthetic and technical QI categories

  • On QIC_talk you mentioned "more important and useful that QI serve as examples of quality in the various themes and technical aspects", which reminds me that I have been meaning to ask for your help :-). I have been mechanically filing the QI promotions in the various QI subject categories and circulating the latest QI promotions through the subject categories on the main QI page. But I'm not really experienced enough to confidently add images to the various aesthetic and technical categories so have seldom done so. As you have a good eye for these things, do you have time to occasionally update those categories on the QI pages? --Tony Wills 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, you asked for my help in the discussion about the new rules and I let you down, I'm sorry. The problem is that my head is right now too busy with other important matters, that's why I didn't want to get involved (and now, I shouln't complain about the result...). About organizing the category examples, I'll see what I can do, but I won't promise anything. Anyway, I think you have a too heavy burden with the QI process, where are the other volunteers (I did it for some months and I know it can be hard!) - Alvesgaspar 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Common Gull

correct bird?

I've taken a picture of what I quite sure is a Larus canus (common gull), men not 100% so could you comfirm or dismiss the spicies? (as you seen to be into birds) Røed 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, see reply on your talk page --Tony Wills 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, and thanks for the reply : Røed 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Olympus C-750 front right-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Olympus C-750 front right-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.

User:Pfctdayelise/WikiProjects community

Hi, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about this. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kinetic art

Hi Tony, here we are, meeting again. I know it's the old discussion: category or gallery. The 4 images in the gallery were all placed in the category as well. To me it seemed obvious that that was a bit to much, but I appreciate that you think of it rather different. Deleting seemed too final, so I left the gallery empty (not a wise decision so it seems). If you think it is better to reopen the gallery with all the images I gathered from various Wikipedia's that is perfectly allright (Who am I?) My only goal was to present a broad variety of images from kinetic art(forms) and hoping that someone will use them elswhere. See you--Gerardus 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the day, 24 July 2007

Congratulations, Tony! North Island Robin-3 was a lovely sight when I stumbled across it (not being a frequent visitor here). It now also graces the Main page of the NZ Wikia and the User page of another North Island Robin. You're welcome to check the file info to say whether proper attribution is in evidence; I'm a beginner in the uploading images business. (You would also be most welcome to become an active member and upload copies of your other works.) Robin Patterson 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC) in Plimmerton

Answer

Hum. I am not Nicostella. Cordially Galagorn.

Quality Image Promotion

BlackTunnelweb head (edit).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! BlackTunnelweb head (edit).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.

Quality Image Promotion

Egg shaped mushroom.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Egg shaped mushroom.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.

Animals of xyz

Hi, I do not understand your reason for this type of edit? Are you assuming "Animals of xyz" categories are only for animals photographed in those countries? Rather than categories to allow people to find collections of species that are found in those countries? --Tony Wills 12:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Yes, that was indeed my assumption. The categories would become unwieldy. It is a good idea to do that in Wikipedia with articles (there is e.g. only one article about a lion) not with individuals pictures. It might also be conceivable here in commons with articles covering a single species. If we had to categorize every single picture of a lion (e.g.) under every category Animals of xyz which would be applicable together with every picture of every other species that occurs in that particular country, those categories would become huge and totally impractical. Lycaon 21:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

re: [edit] Can I just delete invalid licenses

Hi Tony,

Actually, Commons only requires that if people multi-license, at least one of the licenses must be an accepted free-content license. So people are free to dual-license GFDL with CC-BY-NC or whatever. It is a bit of a weird thing. But because of the way we use templates, we can't have non-free licenses as templates. So the best thing to do is change the template to just a text line that says the equivalent, something like 'This file is also licensed under the CC-BY-NC license' (+ links). cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

QI changes

Hi Tony. Due to some unfortunate votes of user:Frank47 (contributions), some of the vote counts have changed. Regards Lycaon 12:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. But from what I can see, it appears that someone else has simply used his computer to vote. The consistency and quality of his (Beyond silence) contributions and conduct and the fact that the 'puppet' hasn't for instance been used to vote on his own images makes me assume good faith. There is nothing wrong with two people operating from the same computer. I would in fact be inclined to re-instate the FP and QI votes made by Frank47. --Tony Wills 12:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, I see Frank47 claimed to be in the USA, whereas Beyond silence claims to be in Hungary (perhaps sharing a computer via a VPN ;-), but interestingly Frank47 claims to speak spanish whereas Beyond silence does not. Anyway if Beyond silence doesn't contest the removal of votes etc, that's good enough for me :-) --Tony Wills 13:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Gulls, Goldfinches

Hi Tony - I was working on that once identified, they no longer needed to be in generic categories (Cat:Unidentified gulls; Cat:Gulls in flight), also that the latter seems to be a rather pointless cat, I can't really see the value in a huge cat of flying gulls often without any indication of species. But if you think it's a good idea I'll not object.

Also saw you've sorted the Carduelis carduelis pics by sex; this is tricky even with birds in the hand with a ruler to measure the extent of the red and black. I'd not want to be so certain as to get all of them sorted (and I'm fairly certain you've got at least one wrongly sexed!), I think it would be better not to sort them like this, just to tag (Pic.jpg|Sex) the few where the sex is fairly obvious. - MPF 22:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll leave the Cat:Birds in flight set, just in case anyone does find them useful. Of grouping pics on pages, I'd say the most important is to group them by any distinct subspecies (as I've done at e.g. Larus canus and Larus fuscus), and then secondarily by any plumage distinctions, leaving exactly what open to the possibilities available with each species - with some, such as gulls, by age, others, such as ducks, by sex. Though there'll always be problem pics to sort like Image:Larus fuscus graellsii1.jpg with two different ages on! I guess the important thing is to remain flexible to the needs of the page. - MPF 10:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The is no size requirement -

You said "The is no size requirement" at Feather of a male Indian Peafowl on QI cand. How did you mean? Guideline: "2 megapixels is normally the lower limit"....--Beyond silence 01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand is not in Australia

Sorry that was my fault, cause in German the word for the land Australia and the continent are the same. And i thought this is in english the same en:Australia_(continent) ;-) --Simonizer 09:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) But i didnt know that they are not on the same shelf --Simonizer 09:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bryce canyon hoodoos QI

As far as I know, it was in Unassessed images. It was in Consensual Review in here. --Digon3 talk 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pixel magic

Hi Tony. We don't seem to agree lately, don't we? To illustrate my statement that you can "make anything look good at 800x600" have a look at this. "Everything" is of course an exaggeration, but don't we open doors for smaller and smaller images, while technology gets better and better all the time? Lycaon 11:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're correct about the butterfly, it was a cropping issue. But even then, it is such a difficult issue. Of course size doesn't equal quality, I'm very much aware of that. At the other hand, it is only one of the criteria. They all have to be more or less fulfilled to reach QI. And if one of them is severely lacking, the others have to be extremely good. So what I really want to say is that there are always exceptions possible, but within limits, and taking all other factors into account. I'm sorry but for me to qualify at 800 x 600, something has to be quite a bit more exceptional on all other criteria, and the microscopical images at hand do, imho, not. That is not to say that they are very valuable (speaking as a biologist) and pretty (speaking as a photographer). Lycaon 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mittlist Gfaell 02.JPG at QI

There are 2 support votes and 1 oppose. Ikiwaners promotion-vote was changed by Beyound silence to discussion status. Regards, --Simonizer 14:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Skeleton key hole

Key at Wikipedia seems to describe a skelton key as the key Skeleton key says is often mistakenly called a skeleton key. The keyhole would be for a key that, according to the Skeleton key article, is mistakenly called a skeleton key, but since it seems to fit the description at the key (lock) article where it is used, I'll leave it in for now. If you feel that it should be removed from use until this is clarified, please do so. As far as I know, the two articles contradict each other. Am I misreading something? Thegreenj 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually the skeleton key article seems to contradict itself, the second and third paragraphs describing this key, the first not. Thegreenj 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're right. I have a skeleton key that fits the lock, but it's new. The lock itself is actually a warded lock. Thegreenj 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting closing

I have some question to you at QI about why you closed to voting as soon the Gyps fulvus, Palácio de Estoi, Olympus E410, Macroeconomics diagram? Please consulting at QI page. Thanks --Beyond silence 18:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lycoperdaceae of New Zealand

I'm very much not convinced Tony. Have a look at this site. It should help. Lycaon 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Found also this Lycaon 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Try this and do view map. Regards. Lycaon 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Coral fungus.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Coral fungus.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.

Quality Image Promotion

Black backed gull takeoff.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Black backed gull takeoff.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.

Image:Male blackbird.jpg

Oh, my God, looks like you don't like using photoprograms! :) I made a better bill for you, what do you think?: Image:Male blackbird-b.jpg --Beyond silence 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there any feedback? That's nice! --Beyond silence 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I nominated it for QI (in CR section) isn't that feedback :-). Yes you are right, I am not very good at editing images and your edit is an improvement, thanks :-) --Tony Wills 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

QIC Image:Oie_14082.jpg

Agreed. Thegreenj 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Red billed gull-06.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Red billed gull-06.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.

QICbot

Hi. Did the bot fail here or is something else going on? Today's promoted images were not sorted, nor tagged AFAIK. Or am I seeing ghosts? Lycaon 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know what went wrong? Lycaon 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Dandelion flower 1001.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dandelion flower 1001.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.

Black shag 02.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Black shag 02.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.