Jump to content

User talk:MIckStephenson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Your images....

Hi Mick,
Just a little comment, you might want to modify the "Please be aware that, in order to secure a release for commercial use, you should contact me first." from your images - under the cc-by-sa they don't actually need to contact you before using the image commercially... --Fir0002 12:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fir, thanks for the nod. I was looking at the CC license the other day for that reason. I notice you don't use it and other regular uploaders are using the GNU one instead. I'm guessing this is for the same reason I put that waiver up - I'm happy with none of the CC licenses but GNU seems to be more for text-based stuff. I have a load of stuff I could contribute if I felt happier with the license. What's your thinking? mikaultalk 12:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, Mick. It's time you had a barnstar.

The Barnstar of Life
MIckStephenson, for contribution to food & drink related articles. Axl 18:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"Thanks, my first one! Do I need to make a speech or something?"
Hehe, no. :-) You might want to copy the code onto your userpage so that other people will see the barnstar. Axl 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First Edit

I just did my first edit, on the Tempranillo page. I expanded the "other names of tempranillo" sub-section. I have some new references to add but don't know how to do it. Awaiting your feedback :) --BodegasAmbite 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowt wrong with that edit, good stuff. There are somre red links which you can do something about, and I would be tempted to find a more concise way of listing the less region-specific names, to save space. I'll leave you some tips in the usual place regarding refs.
mikaultalk 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Train trick photos

Thanks for asking. I can make a small combination image of the two, and upload with a CC license. The reason I won't allow a large version is that the pictures will soon be published in a US magazine, and the editor doesn't like stuff that has circulated widely on the net - they want "fresh" pictures. You can use the links to my page in your proposal, and see where the discussion leads, but please let me handle the uploading to Wiki, thanks. (In fact, I'm the only one allowed to do that - my webpages are copyrighted... ;-) Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Grain

Thanks for your work on the FP criteria. I think it is much better now but not conviced by this sentence. "It is free from (...), image noise ("graininess"), and other processing errors;"

I would suggest something like "has no excessive noise or grain". IMO very few argentic photographies are really free of grain at least in 135 format. And some picture could be quite good technically and have grain. For instance I've uploaded this one Media:Carla-Bley.jpg. I don't think this picture is of low technical standard but it has grain (not much for pushed Tri-X).

Another point is that burning and dogging should be included in "typical acceptable manipulation" IMO.

BTW I visited your site. I like your work.

Ericd 08:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ericd, glad you like my pics, sorry it's taken so long to reply.
As with all of the criteria, a complete re-write might have been a good idea, had they not been the result of years of consensus; for this reason, I avoided changing the wording as much as possible. The main improvements I wanted to make were for a more logical and concise presentation, with examples etc taken out to galleries and footnotes. I do sympathise with your argument about film grain and digital noise and defintiely agree there is room for improvement in the wording; your version sounds better and I can't see there being much opposition. Why not WP:BE BOLD and post up the amendment with maybe a short notice on the discussion page?
Maybe also consider contributing to this discussion if you feel strongly about WP image quality obsession!
The manipulation criterion was changed quite recently following discussion on that same discussion page and elsewhere - I'd say burning and dodging were already covered by the "colour/exposure correction" wording and any additional wording should be as clarification, using <ref>clarification</ref> to make it into a footnote.
Thanks for your input, it's always good to have support!
mikaultalk 09:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Taj Photo on WP:FPC

Yes, please do contact the source for a better photograph. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Licensing

Hi Mikaul,
Just noticed this line on your images "Please be aware that, in order to secure a release for commercial use, you should contact me first" and thought I'd remind you that under the license you have used anyone is perfectly free to use the image commercially. You should probably remove this line. Thanks, --Fir0002 06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mick, sorry for the delay - exams! Umm I only license under the GFDL because I think it offers the best terms (keeping in mind the boat i'm in :-) because you can only use the image commercially if you include a copy of the GFDL with the work - something many publishers aren't keen on doing! I sympathise with you, but yeah you should really change the wording a bit! --Fir0002 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mick, again apologies for the delay. Yeah exams where a real pain - have to go through it again at the end of the year too :-(! Yeah was really interested in Diliff's news - he should sue them for a fortune i reckon! Yeah you can make customized templates - do it on commons because on en they'll delete it for being a useless template ;-) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Fir0002_20D is mine, and there's of course a couple of derivatives for the different lenses. --Fir0002 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll check it out now :o) mikaultalk 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti FP Candidate

Hi Mikaul,

I imagine you've been watching events unfold with this particular candidate. It's a great image, but copyright is sort of a hot-button for me, so I'm taking a stronger investment in it than usual. Your latest comment mentioned that you had reverted your support for the image, but your vote is still listed as a "support." I just wanted to make you aware, and if this is intentional I apologize. Thanks! SingCal 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I did that just to wind you up ;o) somewhere between typing that comment and checking out the Fair Use policy, I forgot to change it.. I'll go now and sort it out, thanks for the tip. mikaultalk 17:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Whipped Slave FP Candidate

Just wanted to let you know that I've uploaded a couple of new edits of the whipped slave image for consideration. MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the candidate page, with a load of reasons why I can't support either edit. I'd looked at doing a retouch myself (especially where there seems to be a load of detail missing around the eyes) and decided it was just impossible to retouch without "inventing" new detail. I sincerely appreciate both your efforts and the note here to inform me of them and hope you don't take my response too personally! Best wishes, mikaultalk 08:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bourne Taj from River

Hi, Any luck with the British Library people on a decision about the Bourne picture? Look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just rattled off a reminder. Looking again at their reply, they did say they'd get back to me by Tuesday 7th at the earliest, so I guess it's as opportune a moment as any to rattle the cage. I'll let you know as soon as I do. mikaultalk 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Just sent you an email per yr request. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Chinesechildsoldier.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 09:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 09:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vietnamese child soldier
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:VietnamchildsoldierEdit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

in the RAW

  • Thanks for your interest. I think it is just the human resistance to having more work. I never used raw files and I'm afraid it will represent an awful amount of extra work since I shoot a lot of photos each time I get out. I'll ask for your help when I start... - Alvesgaspar 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Spain as a kingdom

Hello. We had the same discussion on the Spanish version... On the Spanish Constitution they use the word "España" alone. I wrote a comment on the Spanish discussion page and changed the text; some people agreed whith me some didn't. Eventually someone found and linked sources were they referred to it as "Reino de España", including sites of the European Union and the Spanish government. I still think we should follow the Constitution, but as they were majority pro "Reino de España" I accepted it. I don't know if there exists a law were the official terminology is explained and established. I was just passing by when I changed it and am not interested on further development so just let it be. I hope my answer be useful. --Reply here 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Marmot picture candidate

A Yellow-Bellied Marmot near Princeton, British Columbia
Uncropped version

Hi Mikaul,

I'm thinking of nominating this picture for Featured status. As I took the picture and am not by any means a photography expert, I was hoping you could give me your unbiased feedback on it before I subject it to the FPC spotlight. I didn't make any changes other than cropping. Do you think it's worth submitting to FPC? And are there any edits or re-crops you'd like to make to improve it? Cheers and thanks! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! It's a fine shot, first and foremost, I can see why you would want to submit it. The uncropped original is a bit subject-central but the colours are great and it has a really great geometric layout. You cropped to the subject in a way that shows you have a good eye; you've also captured a real "moment", which for me is the most important point of all. As an 800px picture, the cropped one looked to me to be FP material. The sad truth is that to get to crop in like that and maintain a crisp, sharp-looking image at 100%, you really needed a much higher resolution original to start with. As a rule of thumb, you should downsample your originals from 3 to 2 megapixels to "firm-up" the sharpness, but to do that here you will end up with a crop too dimensionally small for FPC. The is one of the real advantages of 6MP+ cameras!

Given the very "technical criteria first" character of the average FPC critic, I'm fairly certain it wouldn't make it, simply due to this inherent softness all cameras exhibit at 100%. Without a really expensive lens to counteract it, this factor will always preclude cropped entries from selection at this level. On the other hand, it's a superb contribution and a stand-out shot in your gallery, so congratulations, not commiserations, are in order!

Keep shooting, keep contributing, and I'm sure we'll see the results on the main page one day :o) mikaultalk 08:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mikaul for taking the time to give such constructive and precise feedback! I'm inspired to learn more about photography now. It's always great to talk with you. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Docklands FPC Vote

Hi Mick. Thanks for your vote on my Melbourne Docklands pano. I have just updated the caption and summary for the pic. Was just wondering if you would like to take another look at it and see if you feel that I've addressed your concerns re lack of encyclopaedic value, and if so perhaps reconsider your vote. If not, or if you still don't think it meets the FPC mark in general, then no worries. --jjron 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MIckStephenson/Archive_2&oldid=1143367141"