Jump to content

User talk:Moondigger/Archive 1

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


Archive 1: 22 May 2006 - 23 October 2006


Copyright, licensing, etc

Okay, after reading through some of the many pages on image uploading, copyrights, and licensing, I have a few questions that I hope somebody can assist me with.

I'll try to answer, though don't take my replies as written in stone.

I am a hobbyist photographer, and I have many images that could be useful here on Wikipedia. However, I have some concerns:

  1. I do not want to release my images for commercial use. The license terms required by Wikipedia seem to indicate that I must release my images for any use, commercial or non-commercial. Or am I misunderstanding the license terms?
  2. It also seems that I must be willing to allow images I've created to be altered by anyone in any way. True?
    • Mostly, yes. You can licence your images under Creative Commons, which allow certain restrictions. You can also keep it copyright, and add it to the article as Fair Use - though you can only do this in the main space.
  3. I'd appreciate it if somebody could point me towards a tutorial on how to add an image to an article, from the first step to the last.

Thanks --

Basically your understanding was correct, Wikipedia requires a free licence that allows modification and commercial reproduction. The only non-free images we include are fair use, but this is for album covers etc, it is unlikely your own images will be fair use. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Free_licenses for a list of free licences. Also consider uploading your images (if you are going to make them free) to Commons - so other language Wikipedias can use them (all free images should be uploaded to Commons, and will be moved there eventually).--Commander Keane 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have some followup questions.

  • Why does Wikipedia require licenses that allow modification and/or commercial use of images? Honestly, without some logical rationale this is a self-defeating policy. There are likely many fine images that will never be included on Wikipedia simply because the copyright holders don't like the idea that their images could be used to earn somebody else money, or be modified in negative ways.
  • An ideal license would be one that grants Wikipedia (and/or other non-commercial entities) the right to publish images without modification (see note below) and with the condition that any use must be non-commercial. Does such a license exist?

Note: I guess "modifications" would have to be defined so as to exclude reasonable modifications, such as display at various resolutions.

Moondigger 18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires licences that that allow modification and/or commerical use for two reasons. One is the GFDL, which Wikipedia is licenced under. It requires that material released under it is free to be modified. This material is also free to be used for commerical purposes. Commerical purposes are also why we require licences that allow commercial use. We plan on releasing a paper version of Wikipedia, like the German Wikipedia has done. If we allowed non-commerical images, we would not be able to use them.
As for your second question, you could probably use Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5, but for the reasons stateed above, this won't be allowed.--Shanel § 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia accounts, IP addresses, etc

Thank you to Bertolotti for the answers to questions 1 and 2 below. Does anybody have the answer to #3? Moondigger 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to ask these questions, so I guess I'll post them here with the "helpme" tag and see if I get a response.

1. I edited several articles prior to setting up a user account, and the edits are showing up accredited to my IP address(es). Is there any way to remove the IP address attributions and replace them with my login name?

2. One or more articles on the site contain the following warning: "Because of recent vandalism, or to stop banned editors from editing, editing of this article or project page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. Please discuss changes, or request unprotection." I have no desire currently to edit any of these articles, but I am curious: what criteria are used to determine who a "new" user is? i.e., At what point will I no longer be considered a "new" user, and therefore able to edit such articles?

3. One last question. Can login names be changed? If so, will all attributions be updated, or does the old attribution stick to an edit?

Thanks...

  1. Sorry, no. Actually there is no way to move edit from IP to users. This is a matter of software and not a matter of good will.
  2. This page contains some indication on semiprotection. Among other thing it is stated that new user is defined as user that are registered since less than 4 days.

I hopo I was helpful :-) --Bertolotti 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

as for 3, they can be changed if you have less than 5000 edits. See Wikipedia:Changing username. All attributions will then be updated. Sasquatch t|c 18:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

FPC images

I read your entry on FPC talk, and looked at your photos. They are definitely FPC worthy, if they could be just a little larger (you do have the originals saved? ;-) If you could re-upload the two images at, say, 1400 x 1000, I'll volunteer to nominate them on FPC and do the coding work. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 07:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, they are great. Are you sure you don't have higher res versions?-Ravedave 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I do have higher resolution versions that I would be willing to license if the license could be limited to Wikipedia and related services (foreign language Wikipedias, Commons, Wiki print editions, etc) only and no-derivs. I outlined some of my feelings about this on this page, in the "New stuff" section above. The "assume good faith" philosophy is a bit hard to subscribe to given past experiences.

As to the FPC stuff... the guidelines specify a minimum of 1000 pixels. But it appears there's an unstated, de facto higher minimum. If featured pictures must be 1200 pixels minimum, then that should be the stated minimum. If they must be 1400 pixels minimum, then that should be the stated minimum. Telling somebody their properly-licensed, guideline-matching image is too small leaves a bad taste.

Either the licensing should allow me to specify non-commercial (except Wiki and related) + no derivs, or the stated guidelines should be adhered to with respect to acceptable resolution. Note here that I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of Wikipedians; higher-resolution images would already have been posted if my licensing could be limited to Wiki and related only. Frankly I think it's naive to assume that outside commercial entities won't exploit the contents of Wikimedia Commons for their sole commercial benefit without giving anything back to the Wiki community.

I find Wikipedia to be an amazing resource. That's why I decided to contribute my time and writing. Obviously I'm more wary about contributing photographs, and I doubt that will change.

Sincerely -- moondigger 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One followup comment. There seems to be a trait of human psychology which dictates that what's acceptable isn't really acceptable. I can best describe this by example. Let's pretend the stated guidelines were changed such that they specified 1400 pixels as the minimum. I believe that within a short time after the guidelines were changed, FP candidates that met those guidelines would be dismissed as only meeting the minimum, and that they should actually be larger -- say, 1800 pixels in one dimension.

In my way of thinking, it shouldn't be that way. If the stated minimum were 1400 pixels, then any FP candidate that was 1400 pixels on the side should be met with enthusiasm. "It's illustrative of the subject, technically sound, aesthetically pleasing, and meets the minimum resolution requirement. Support!"

Given that the stated minimum is actually 1000 pixels, there shouldn't be any debate about 1000-pixel images either, and they should be met with the same enthusiasm described above. That's not to say that even higher-resolution images wouldn't be welcome or garner even more support, but those that do meet stated minimums should not be dismissed. -- moondigger 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bigger is better". :) We love your work and are hungering to see it in greater detail. I am guessing your pics would indeed succeed as they do infact meet minimum requirement, so please do nominate them. Every pic is it's own discussion though and some images need bigger size than others. As far as copyright goes IANAL but I belive size cannot determine copyright. I do know though that Non-free images (other than fairuse) are not allowed on wikipedia, and the copyright you specified wouldn't meet the "free" criteria. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Adding_images -Ravedave 02:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1000 vs 1400 px

You said (on FPC talk): I'm not going to nominate my photos. First, because doing so looks complicated; I don't want to screw up the other candidates somehow with poor formatting. Second, because if there's a de facto requirement for featured pictures to have resolutions higher than the stated 1000 pixels, the nomination will be voted down anyway.

Nobody says a FP has to be any exact size. 1000 px is the accepted "norm" stated on the nomination page, but as our comments clearly indicate, larger ones are preferred. However, your images are so good that I see no reason why they couldn't get featured status in their existing size. As for the complicated nomination procedure, don't worry, I volunteer. In fact, I'd like to nominate the two you mention on FPC talk, but since you seem to have ambivalent feelings about it, I'd like to have your permission first (not that it is needed, since the photos are uploaded under GFDL... ;-) Greetings, --Janke | Talk 11:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Janke, I'm glad you like my photos. My concern about the nomination procedure is related to the topic right above mine on the FPC talk page -- What's wrong? If the page could malfunction due to an incorrectly-formatted entry, I didn't want to risk screwing it up with bad formatting. If you can point me to a step-by-step tutorial, maybe I could do it and save you the trouble.
My comments about image size are not intended to be critical of anybody here, and I apologize if that's how it came across. I was a bit wary of uploading any images in the first place, which is why I made them the size I did. After considering things for a couple days, I've been thinking about uploading slightly higher resolution copies of my photos. I figure it's reasonable to upload something in the 1 megapixel range, around 1200x800. Not a lot bigger, but big enough to bring out more fine detail in the images. Is it possible to replace an existing image on Wikimedia Commons, or will I end up with two copies of each image there? I'd ask that you hold off on the nomination process at least until I can put the higher resolution images up.
BTW, I linked to two articles, not two images on the FPC talk page. I actually have five images uploaded. You can see them all together on User:Moondigger. Four of them are in the article Antelope Canyon, but there is some discussion on that article's talk page about cutting down on the number of images in the article. So I'm not sure which of the four, if any, will remain in the article once the edits are made. --moondigger 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
To replace an image on Commons, just go to the image page, and upload a new version with exactly the same name - it will replace the old one. Yes, I've seen your other photos, and they're as good as anything in National Geographic! --Janke | Talk 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you are hesitant about your photographs I was wondering if you sell them. Some people here relase certain images into the public, and make sure they link their site on the image page as well as on their user page, hence generating sales for other photgraphs. So you might want to consider doing that. Also I belive the selling of prints of public images is perfectly legal. -Ravedave 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done paid assignments in the past. However photography is not my career, and I haven't done a paid assignment in several years, by choice. I have had at least two of my images used without my permission in the past, without compensation -- copyrighted images, not released under a free license. Hence my hesitation about posting large resolution images here.
In the end I decided to post some images here under CC-by-SA because I have found Wikipedia to be such a useful resource, and wanted to give something back. (I would have preferred it if Wikipedia would accept a Wiki-only license with no-derivs attached, but they won't -- so I'm forced to use a free license.) The resolution is about 1 megapixel, which is more than enough to be useful as reference material for Wikipedia articles, but not so large that they could be used for full-page ads. Selling prints of public images is (of course) legal, which is another reason I'm hesitant to release my work under a free license. It seems philosophically wrong for somebody else to use my work for profit.
FYI, I did replace the 1000 pixel images I posted a few days ago with new ~1200 pixel versions. It's actually a pretty noticeable improvement, if you compare the originals with the new ones. -- moondigger 02:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

FPC tutorial

I really have seen no other "tutorial" than the one on the FPC page itself, int the "Nomination procedure" section - and I must admit it took me a couple or three edits to get it right the first time. But never fear - if you mess it up, someone else will fix it for you, that's how things work here on WP... PS: Re the "unauthorized commercial use" you mentioned: Did you ever pursue it further? Basically, at least here in Scandinavia, an unauthorized use of a copyrighted image entitles you to at least double compensation. Happened to me once - I got a nice wad of dough when an ad agency used my animated characters without permission. But, they paid voluntarily. Going to court for something like that would be insanely expensive, at least in countires where lawyers never keep their hands in their own pockets - here, it has to be 40 below for them to do that... (I hope you're not a lawyer... ;-) --Janke | Talk 05:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't pursue it further because the guilty party stopped doing it after I threatened legal action. Unfortunately U.S. law requires copyrighted materials to be registered as such to collect damages beyond 'actual' damages, which are very hard to prove. All my images at the time were copyrighted, but none were officially registered.
Nope, not a lawyer either. I'm a professional computer geek and part-time writer. -- moondigger 18:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Antelope Canyon

Sorry for the delay in reply. No, I've never been. My comment that it wasn't good as an FP for the Canyon itself reflected that there seem to be many other shots of different parts of the canyon that equal yours as depictions of the canyon. Yours, however, DOES do the best job (a VERY good job) illustrating the composition of sandstone, and in a natural formation as well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurasian Nuthatch refit

Hello! I really appreciate your opinion about my Eurasian Nuthatch photo. I've seen your edit and got a question whether you could help me in refitting that picture. Personally I've got only little experience in digital graphics edition, so it would be awesome to have someone willing to help. I could send you by email or place in Wiki the original caption that is in better quality. Jojo 1 08:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Image PR

Thanks for your comments on Image:March on Washington - Reflecting Pool.jpg's peer review. Have you given the photo the once over you suggested? I tried last night, but I (somehow) only have Photoshop 5 on my current home desktop computer. Worst case I'll just do it tommorrow when I go into work (as a photo tech, much nicer copies of Photoshop) just didn't want to duplicate your work. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
After you excellent edits (the level balancing cleared it up a lot more than I originally thought it would) I've listed the image at WP:FPC. Please vote however you feel! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Monitor Calibration

Hi Moondigger,
Thanks for you comment, but I think my monitor is pretty good actually. It's a Polyview V17E 17" LCD. I can see three of the four dots on the FPC page. I do find bright photos better than dark ones, and this may be part of the reasons my edits are "bright", but I think probably the main reason is that I'm used to getting photos ready for printing, and brighter is generally better in that respect.
Anyway glad to see you around FPC, you've got some nice photos! --Fir0002 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

FPC promotion
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Lower_antelope_2_md.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!

Seems vaguely silly to inform myself that my image was promoted, but this is part of the procedure. -- moondigger 01:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely? Heh! Don't take procedure that seriously...it is generally recommended that procedure be discarded when it serves no useful purpose. See WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. Stevage 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

FPC promotion

The cricket fielding positions image is actually stored at commons, so the page at English Wikipedia doesn't have any text or anything. That's not a problem - simply add the tag to the blank page, and it will behave as expected. The image and description comes from Commons, then the tag will come from the local page. Stevage 09:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

About the cricket fielding thing, can you please pop into WT:CRIC please. I believe that there are some errors in the labelling. Many thanks.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurasian Nuthatch refit photos uploaded

Hello! I've just uploaded my two Eurasian Nuthatch photos. Unfortunately I've got only jpegs not raws. These photos are not cropped so you can cut them at your convenience. Thanks for help. Photo 1 and Photo 2 Jojo 1 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wave Cut Platform

I think Wave Cut Platform may be a 'not promoted'. See FP talk page. --jjron 11:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Walt Disney Concert Hall

Hi Moondigger,
Thanks for your edits on this nom, however they did not gain support and are not used anywhere else. Do you mind if I delete them? Thanks, --Fir0002 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation, I've done so. Just for your information, you actually have to become an administrator before you are allowed to delete images. Thanks again, --Fir0002 00:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

An image you uploaded, Image:March on Washington edit.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture. Congratulations, and thanks for uploading it. Raven4x4x 05:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What filter did you use to take down the noise in the cemetery image?

I actually took down the contrast in photoshop in order to make the skyscrapers closer to the headstones. But I like your image as well --Plowboylifestyle 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

and how do you feel about taking the helicopter out? Good or bad idea? - Nunh-huh 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll reply here because there are questions from two people, and I think it might get confusing to split the questions and answers onto three different talk pages.
For noise reduction I've never been happy with any of the various tools built into Photoshop. CS2 is better than the previous versions in that respect, but for ease of use and best performance I like Imagenomic Noiseware Professional. It's a third-party add-on. For many images (particularly high-ISO), the default settings in Noiseware work well, or one of the presets. But for this image the defaults and the presets both were too aggressive, eliminating noise at the expense of detail. I started with the default settings but dialed it down until I found a happy compromise between noise reduction and maintaining detail.
I thought that might have been what you were doing, that the low contrast was a conscious decision to change the mood of the photo. So initially I downloaded the image and pulled it into Photoshop just to play with it, not intending to post an edited version. But I ended up liking the edited version enough to change my vote from a weak oppose to a support, so I uploaded it. That said, I think as an art image intended to convey a mood, the original lower contrast version is superior. But for an encyclopedic image intended to convey information rather than a mood, I like the edited version.
I considered cloning out the helicopter, but decided to leave it in. I think it adds to the juxtaposition you mentioned in the nomination -- the land of the dead in the foreground and the land of the living in the background. The helicopter drives that point home -- the dead don't need traffic reports or news helicopters, but the living do.
In any case, good luck with the FP nomination. It's a great image, IMO. -- moondigger 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think an encyclopedia can have a little bit of art in it. Especially something so subtle as low con. But I do like the edited image as well. Hopefully one of them will win ;) There are three different ways I printed the image originally on my site: hxxp://www*ianbloom*com/blog. (replace xs with t's and *s with dots. That photo was taken on a Nikon D70. I'd be curious to here your advice on in camera image settings. I don't have CS2 and I'm wondering if the D70 is 16bit in Raw mode. Oh yeah and the helicopter is my favorite part. I couldn't get inside the graveyard that was the best angle I found through the fence. --Plowboylifestyle 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that an encyclopedia can contain artistry. The problem in this case is that the value of this particular image to the encyclopedia is not artistic but informational -- it is a depiction of a place. When artistry obscures (however subtly, as in this case) the information, the folks around here will always go for the information over the art. I saw the same kind of reaction when this image Lower Antelope 2 was a featured picture candidate. People initially opposed it because it's more artistic than informational. They wanted an image that told them everything there was to know about Lower Antelope Canyon. Unfortunately, that is impossible to do: unlike Upper Antelope Canyon, the character of Lower is such that no single image can accurately portray it. Having been there, I thought it was a great image, even if it was kind of abstract and artistic. It was only once another user decided to place the image in the article sandstone that it garnered the support necessary to be a featured picture. If it's not a good source of information about something, then the artistry won't save it. And it is a good, informational image for sandstone.
Back to your image. If the low contrast in your image makes distinguishing the gravestones more difficult than higher contrast would, they'll insist on higher contrast. If I hadn't uploaded a higher contrast image early on, others would have either voted "oppose" due to the lowered contrast in the original, or somebody else would have uploaded a higher contrast version. That said, the juxtaposition of the dead in the foreground and the living (including the helicopter) in the background lends the image some artistry no matter whether it's a low- or high-contrast image. I checked out your website and the various versions you posted there. If I was going to print and frame one of them to hang on my wall, a lower contrast treatment would win out. But I think around here it would be criticized as 'unencyclopedic.'
Re: In-camera image settings. I'm not familiar with the options on the Nikon DSLRs, but I can speak in generalities. When I'm shooting in a normal- or low-contrast situation, I leave the image settings close to the defaults. I'll even shoot in JPEG mode for things like kids birthday parties, etc. However if I'm shooting something with high dynamic range, where it's easy to blow out highlights or lose dark shadow areas, I always shoot in RAW mode and meter more carefully, trying to get the highlights to just touch the right edge of the histogram. That means blowing them out slightly, but the in-camera histogram is generated based on the in-camera JPEG settings, not what's possible to extract from the RAW file later. Usually that means that even though the highlights are blown on the camera LCD, they're not actually blown if you process the file carefully later. (This is all true of the Canon DSLRs; I'm not sure if the Nikons work the same way.) Unfortunately I don't know whether the sensor in the D70 captures any greater than 8 bit/channel RAW information or not. Check to see if the RAW processing software that came with the camera has an option to convert RAW images to 16 bit TIFFs. I doubt the option would be offered if the sensor wasn't recording more than 8 bits/channel in the first place. If I remember correctly, most DSLRs capture 12 bits/channel in RAW mode, which is usually dithered to 8 bits/channel by default, but can be mapped into the 16 bit/channel space that Adobe Photoshop is capable of working in. -- moondigger 14:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Havasu falls

If you don't put your Havasu falls pic up for FPC I will, its awsome, looks like a painting. -Ravedave 03:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you are on my watchlist from my earlier comments to you, and I saw you added a pic so I had to check. I'll nom it as soon as I get some time. -Ravedave 04:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I should take you off my watchlist otherwise I am going to comment on more random crap all the time :p. I noticed you trying to arrange your images, it's a PITA to make a gallery of odd shaped images. To do it without the <gallery> check out the table at the bottom of Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. -Ravedave 19:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Looks much nicer. That method works pretty well, can't remeber where I stole it from... -Ravedave 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Petrified forest log 1 md.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.
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueens edit.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.

Congratulations, and thanks for taking them for us. Additionally, since your original Cavalry Cemetery image, Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueensNY.jpg, wasn't promoted it isn't used in any articles. Would you mind if I deleted it as a redundant image? Raven4x4x 08:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, cancel that request. I just realised that the second one was just an edit of yours, and you didn't take the photo. Oops. Raven4x4x 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi moondigger... thank you for you coaching in Adobe RGB vs sRGB. I am still getting the hang of Wikipedia, and will follow advice.

By the way, your photography is excellent... upload some more!

--tomascastelazo 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Constitution Pg1 edit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Constitution Pg1 edit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Moondigger, I enhanced one of your images under "Milky Way" to bring out details. Unless somebody has their monitor adjusted just right, your image is difficulty to see. Feel free to remove it if you object to an enhanced version. --tablizer

Follow-up: I saw your message. Thanks for adding the license tag. For some reason it did not prompt me for a licensing category this time. If you want to replace the image with one enhanced from the original (non-compressed), I won't mind. Take care, -tablizer

I saw you added a beautiful pic to the Water article.

Would you mind taking a look at that articles talk page? There is a poll there about which image should be the main image for the article. It's gotten a ridiculously small response, with only 5 or so votes we'll never reach a consensus. ONUnicorn 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Natural

I've been reading your comments on FPC and... well, I don't always agree but I know very little about photography. (referring to Image:Pangong lake by martinl.jpg discussion) How can I tell when colors are natural? Also, is it always a better looking picture if it's natural? (or is your argument that if it's vignetting or blownout, etc. for artistic effect it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article?). Also, if you know of any little reference on this kind of thing that could help me become a better judge then please do tell me. Thanks. gren グレン 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Zebra Heliconian

Marumari - I'm getting ready to nominate your Zebra Heliconian image. Given the current tension on the FPC page and my tendency to be a stickler on image quality, I have a feeling any nomination I make will be heavily scrutinized by some of the participants. I have no problem with 1000 pixel images -- all of mine were 1000x667 originally, until I was strongly encouraged to go larger. I just think it would be prudent to go a little bigger with your Zebra Heliconian image prior to nomination, especially given the comments made about the resolution of your Mexican Wolf image.

Also, I'm thinking it could be improved with a bit of edge sharpening. If you'd like, I could give it a go... just supply me with a file to work from. (I can handle pretty much any format, RAW included.) If the thought of somebody else working on your images bothers you, then just let me know if you will be making a bigger version available. Thanks... -- moondigger 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I've got a version here at half the normal camera resolution (ie, 1504x1000), all USM'd. The back wings still are a little bit fuzzy, and I don't know how to fix that easily. You have any good ideas on how to do that? I don't have any particular problems with others working on my image, but I'd like to learn this stuff myself. Gimme a buzz on AIM @ marumari2002 or Yahoo @ soylent_mean_2022, and perhaps we can talk it over, and/or I can send you the image? Thanks! --Marumari 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I've been moving this week (and for the next week or so.) Let's deal with the Zebra Heliconian thing when I get back. Thanks! --Marumari 13:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The move went well, and I've finally located my external HD's. Give me a few days to get things uploaded. If you want, I can email you a png to edge sharpen? --Marumari 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower

What this fellow is saying is that a copyright on such a thing as lighting may well exist, but it simply doesn't apply or exist in the laws where Wiki is published, thus can't apply to Wiki itself. Does it, and can you answer this clearly? I've asked him for an example of what he states, so I guess I can ask you too for factual confirmation. If you can, please do, as without solid proof this will be a neverending circle of 'what if?'.

BTW, this contributor had no say one way or the other on the photo; his question was on the basis of the copyrigth vs. US law (and by his perso page and references he seems to know what he's talking about) so there was absolutely no question of 'like' or dislike. Let's stay rational in this. THEPROMENADER 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice you had concerns about the copyright of the image on the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider delisting page. I've asked the original uploader of the picture, Jmcc150, to comment on that page so you may wish to discuss the issue with them. If we can get this cleared up once and for all it would be great. Thanks. Raven4x4x 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WB

WB, I see you got some good vacation photos. I have nominated Havasu Falls 1 md.jpg like I said a would a long time ago. I think its a great pic, we'll see if you support or oppose :). -Ravedave 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The egg photos are a great addition. FYI I made some edits to Crop factor which I got to from your talk page. Can you review the 1st sentance? [1] -Ravedave 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

(moved barnstar to user page)

Despite my opinions on your Havasu Falls photo, I decided that this was in order after I took a look at all of the other photos you've uploaded. Keep em' coming! --Nebular110 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Havasu Falls 1 md.jpg

Hi, you put a speedy deletion tag on Image:Havasu Falls 1 md.jpg at Commons. Do you really want it deleted while the Featured Picture discussion is still open? User:Angr 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Horseshoe Bend 1 md.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!

Congratulations again. Raven4x4x 09:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Horseshoe Bend 1 md.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on October 25, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 16:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work

I came across your userpage and saw the images you've uploaded – wow. Just... wow. You're so talented! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pi Unrolled

You commented on this animated GIF's Featured Picture nomination. I'm considering a redesign to incorporate concerns raised but I need more clarity. Please see User talk:John Reid/Pi/Unrolled#FP?. Thank you. John Reid 08:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Upsampling & sharpening

Unfortunately I cannot access your wiki e-mail, so I answer here. Yes please, I'd like you to make a try... The image in question is here - the editor of Live Steam magazine loves it, wants it on the cover, and we have discussed the low resolution. The problem is, she wants to crop it to a vertical format, thus using only half of the available pixels... If you can do something with some specialized software, it would be great! (I've done what I can in Photoshop, but need something even better...) You can find my e-mail address low down on this page. Thanks, --Janke | Talk 06:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. You got it better than I could ever have! Greetings, --Janke | Talk 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just got word from the editor, the quality was improved enough for them to use it - she said it will be "a stunning cover"... So, thanks again for your help. --Janke | Talk 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the Jan/Feb 2007 issue, which will be on the newsstands sometimes in early-to-mid-December - my subscription copy usually arrives in Finland around the 20th of the month preceding issue date. In any case, if you can't get hold of a copy, I'll scan the cover for you. Regards, --Janke | Talk 07:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lower antelope

THis picture is sweets. This is my new background for my destop. Thanks, Leffer/Moondigger!

I Have a Question

It's obvious that your a professional. How do you reduce grain in the picture? Because i saw an image that you've reduced the grain. I'll be glad to know and what is the program you use. Thanks a lot. Arad 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)\

Thanks, I'll try to read and understand. If it's possible and you've had free time, I'll be glad if you reduce the grain of my photography at my page. But again, if you feel you have free time and you want to do it. I appreciate it. I'll try to do it myself. Arad 19:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot man. The program you introduce is greatly efficient and simple to use. Very fast too. Tanks again m8. Arad 04:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know as a courtesy that I used your gallery as a template for mine. Hope you don't mind - finally got around to putting my featured images into a gallery. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

POTD

This is to let you know your Featured Picture Image:Havasu Falls 1a md.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on October 19, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

FSM FPC

Hi Moondigger - Just wanted to let you know I didn't think your closing the FSM image nomination was fishy. Even if the image had 80% supports, with those lengthy arguments, it was clear no consensus had been reached on it - and consensus is, after all, what the 2/3 threshold is supposed to reflect. Debivort 04:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-ordered the pictures because I noticed someone had changed it to newest-at-bottom again, which it hadn't been for a while. Now you've changed it back, I won't revert it again until I explain why I put the newest at top. Firstly, it's because all the other lists are in that order, secondly it's because I'd have thought it just makes logical sense? As it's a page about newest whatever, surely the newest things should be at the top, as that's where people are going to look. HornetMike 10:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's taken a while, but I've replied on the new featured content discussion page. Cheers, HornetMike 00:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated your photo Image:Flounder camo md.jpg for Featured Picture status. Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Flounder camo md.jpg for discussion. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Lake Fryxell edit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lake Fryxell edit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Pi-unrolled

I recently cranked out a new and greatly improved version of Pi-unrolled.gif and (why not?) nominated it for FP. Since you commented on the nomination of the previous version of the same graphic, I'd like to invite you to comment on the new nomination. Thank you. John Reid 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

FPC Promotion

File:Flounder Camo md.jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Flounder Camo md.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Fir0002 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations --Fir0002 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

pi calc

Yes, inadvertent. Jclerman 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moondigger/Archive_1&oldid=1148696998"