User talk:Colin/Archive/2015

Happy New Year Colin/Archive!

Happy New Year!

Colin/Archive,
Have a great 2015, and thanks for your contributions to Commons! --The Photographer (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wilfredo and Happy New Year to you too! -- Colin (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This year will be a year of new challenges, however, the problems are insignificant to brave people like you. Best wishes to you and your family, I hope you can achieve all your goals, good health from the hand of the Good Shepherd, our Lord. --The Photographer (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II San Pietro, Rome, Italy.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II San Pietro, Rome, Italy.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

November Photo Challenges voting results

Hello, Colin! Need a helping hand with the November Photo Challenges voting results? I made a T-SQL script to count the votes and I created the result pages for Smoke and Leaves. Please check if they are OK and update the main page of the Photo Challenge, when you have the time. Razvan Socol (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Razvan Socol, I'm impressed. How does the T-SQL count the votes on a website? Do you extract it into a database? I think you got the counts right, but I have changed the vote pages this afternoon to remove some invalid votes. I've updated the results pages. Perhaps you want to run your script again to see if they match now. In addition to counting my program also:

• Checks voters make a vote clearly that I can count and they have signed.
• Checks voters do not make too many votes.
• Checks voters do not vote the same number twice.
• Checks voters have made 50 Commons contributions (though I then look at the user contribs to see if they have entered the challenge (which is allowed) or have been on Commons a while so don't look like a sock).
• Checks voters do not vote on their own images.

Does you script spit out the wikitable or did you have to do that by hand?

Do you want to have a go at creating:

• Commons:Photo challenge/2014 - November - Smoke/Winners
• Commons:Photo challenge/2014 - November - Leaves/Winners

That would be a help as I'm about to busy with family tea. You can copy the example from previous winners. I take the "Title" of the winning images from the entry page (the text after the | in the gallery).

I copy a previous one like Commons:Photo challenge/2014 - September-October - Light on the move/Winners and then replace the fields. The "#expr: 240*2048/1366 round 0" sizing bit has to be done by hand, by getting the width and height from the image description page. I bit a of hassle and I keep meaning to write a program to do that. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was also busy (including this morning), and I see that you already created the Winners pages. I'll try to do those for the next challenge, if I will remember in time. I should also try to do some of the checks you mentioned above (my script only verifies that each voter has only one 1/3 vote, one 2/3 vote and one 3/3 vote). I simply copy-paste the wikitext into a variable, then the script parses the lines of text into a table, and then I use some string manipulation functions and GROUP BY to do the counting, and then it outputs the body of the wikitable (without the header). I wrote this script because I was curious if my photo (File:Fallen leaves on green grass.JPG) will make it to the top 3 (and it almost did it, before you removed some incorrect votes!). Well, there is always the next challenge... Razvan Socol (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Rsocol, One thing I keep forgetting to do is to run the voting program earlier in the voting month to catch the incorrect votes earlier. That would help to remove/fix these before the end of month. And, of course, this month I forgot about it completely. It will be harder for you to check the 50-contributions rule, since that needs you to fetch the user's contributions. And sometimes a person's signature doesn't correctly and directly link to their Commons account (grr). For the "can't vote on own image" you should see that the "creator" is mentioned on the page, though this is hidden with an HTML comment until voting is over. My program is written in C# and I keep meaning to polish it a bit and find other people who can run it. But ideally, we'd get some developer time from WMF to help make the whole challenge submission/voting experience fully automated rather than the clumsy wikitext voting we do right now. If you are still interested in polishing your script, then you could create a result page during the next voting month, and publish it but with a bit HTML comment round the whole text too keep it hidden. Then Ping me and I'll compare (if you say which revision yours is based on).

And, sorry about your image just failing to get into the top three. Good luck next time. Btw, I don't see the diff you give changing the votes on your image. It only removes a vote for Meyer P's own image. Or did I screw something up? -- Colin (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

“Canvassing”? Really?

I’m not one to take crazy offense over any little thing but really? You’re going to accuse me of canvassing a nomination? I didn’t even say anything to a single person. And sorry but your comments are sounding really condescending (which is fine) but you’re sounding like I’m cheating for stars or something. The first nomination failed with unanimous support and I felt it did not recieve a thorough review. You have to wonder how many people are taking the time to download the SVG and flip through its layers when photo reviwers are scrutinizing pixels. I don’t renominate bad images over and over until something sticks. && please don’t go out of your way to say “meh.” about my image. That’s just rude and uncalled for. How would you feel if someone went out of their way to say that about your church pictures?—♥ Kelvinsong talk 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kelvinsong, I think the first nom failed more due to holiday season. I'm aware that the talk page discussion was not created by you; but it affected your second nom in a bad way. The truth is that there is no fixed rule on re-nominations; only an understanding to avoid quick re noms as much as possible. We are occasionally ended up in heated arguments; but hope they all melt like ice. :) Jee 05:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kelvinsong, I suggest that next time you nominate your diagrams you don't start with something like "Really getting tired of this fail-because-people-dont-bother-to-vote thing" which sounds like a 7-year-old being upset because he wasn't picked for Joseph at the nativity play. You might get more support in future if you explained why you think your diagram is among the finest. In what way have you drawn something original and how does it explain concepts better than most other diagrams? Simply nominating a diagram and expecting praise isn't working for you. And re-nominating with an hostile attitude sure isn't winning any friends. Just creating a technically proficient diagram is not sufficient for FP: we have thousands and thousands of technically proficient QI photographs. Have a serious think about what you believe should separate an FP diagram from a QI diagram. Perhaps if you can come up with examples and concepts that distinguish the two, we can codify it in the guidance and this will encourage people to be confident about voting. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don’t make fun of how I talk. The warm front image I think is original because there are very few illustrations of the cloud bank viewed from any angle other than a 2D side cut and it can be insightful to see the structure from an aerial view. It also makes clear the movement of the air on both sides of the front, and the pressure trough, which you could not do on most of the “better diagrams on google images” unless you know how to read station models. And artistically I was proud of the shadowing of the cloud bank, the rain effect underneath the cloud base, the cirrus clouds, and the mottled altostratus right ahead of the nimbostratus shelf. && I thought the screen filter made the red and blue annotations look better against the backdrop. I also put a great deal of effort in making sure the diagram was readable, aligning text to pixel sizes by using magic point-sizes, and sorted it neatly into twelve layers, three of which are invisible—two to preserve text data for translation or editing, and one to store assets like front symbols, clipping masks, and cloud patterns should any other editor want to make a derivative of the image, or perhaps remake the companion cold front image which I am really questioning whether I should upload after this.

BTW something like what you’re talking about has already been attempted; in fact I wrote most of the proposed guidelines. But naturally it went nowhere and simply gathered dust after a few weeks.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-related—a long time ago on that SVG guidelines page King of Hearts said “"wow factor" is essentially "Is it publishable in a magazine/journal?" For photos, that would be "Is it National Geographic worthy?" For illustrations, "Could it have plausibly come from a copy of Science (or similar)?"” which I think is a very succint and handy rule of thumb we might want to use in the future—♥ Kelvinsong talk 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry

It was not my intention to saturate the challenge. Sorry. The pictures were taken by my wife who doesn't speak English, and I put them all there to help her. My mistake. We will put just a few of them, as you suggest. Thanks for your kind remarks. B25es (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We have left just six pics, one for appliance. B25es (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Outliers theme

Hi Colin- Given that this is one of the examples for the January competition, can I enter a scan of several objects?--Godot13 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Godot13, I don't know how that example crept in. I've removed it. It is a "photo" challenge. The intention is really to motivate people to get their cameras out and take new pictures and be creative. I think scans of other artwork or diagrams would be just so different to the other members of the challenge that we wouldn't really know how to compare them. I'm not sure what "objects" you intend to scan. If natural things like leaves then I suppose a scan could be considered a form of photography, but if you are scanning someone else's work then I don't think that's really what the challenge is about. You are welcome to raise the point in the Photo Challenge talk page (I think it is mentioned in the archives, such as video too). Can you think of a challenge aimed at those who scan/restore images or those who create diagrams? Would there be enough participants to make a competition? -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I had prepared a scan of 5 banknotes at the Smithsonian meant to illustrate the theme this month. It is an "original" so to speak, but I really only did it because of the image that was part of the examples (and because I didn't have a camera with me...). I may load it to commons and ping you to have a look.--Godot13 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Godot13, probably best to copy/continue this over at the Photo Challenge talk page. It should be a community decision rather than mine. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Château d'eau du Peyrou, Montpellier 07.jpg

Hi Colin, I found this vertical shot in my (too) many RAW files, do you think it deserve a delist anf replace from this one? -- ChristianFerrer 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The foreground under the water is a bit distracting, but it is useful to have plenty sky. I suggest you link them as you've done with the others. That way anyone who comes across your FP can choose the crop they think suits their needs best. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked your opinion then I'll listen, good evening ) -- ChristianFerrer 20:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Trolling comment

WTH is that?. Are you writen that? what happend? :( --The_Photographer (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What Alchemist did with the ownership/attribution was wrong, and I've explained that. What you/Béria did with the licence "change" was wrong, and I've explained that. The nasty comment you made to my friend Jee was very, very wrong. The bullying remark and edit-summary Béria made was also very wrong. You and I both struggle with conservative voting at FP (such as your cow environmental portrait and b&w) and I campaign with you against that. But I am very sad to say I can't say you are my friend after what you and Béria have said to Jee. I worry that both of you have got into a dark place with bad friends. I hope you can understand this hurts me. I will try to remain fair with you and continue to campaign as I have done. But please try to mend things with Jee. As for Esby, I don't know what his game is but I don't play games. -- Colin (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have problems with my goberment in Venezuela and thats is the raison of my name changed and this, Jee insulted Beria by mail, he is a wolf dressed obelisk like others over there (I have no proof that my word to you) thats why nasty comment. There are people who pretend to be good friends, but they are not starting from WMF. I do not expect to be right or you believe in my words, though, so good friend who you have been, it was my responsibility to write this. You must be stronger and more emotionally intelligent, do not get carried away by the trolls, not blindly trust the people here. The trust will kill you or make you free. --The_Photographer (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

According to my mail log, I had sent only one personal mail to her which was on December 20, 2013 when she accused me on the controversial DR: ""And, for the record, since I was already cited here by Jkadavoor when he tried to dismmis my husband vote.." - Could you show me where I cited you other than a generic comment? I don't want to reply there; as I respect Wilfredor much. - Jee" Jee 03:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what grave offence Jee made that would possibly justify telling him to go f**k himself with a baseball bat. Or what exalted Admin cloud Béria inhabits that permits her to think "all the licenses will be changed or all the files deleted, whatever happens first" is in any way achievable. And if I were to call Jee "boy", as a patronising insult, I'd be blocked for using racist language. I can only go on what I see, not what is passed around in private by email, etc. And what I see you write is inexcusable if you wish to be regarded as a gentleman.

As for your name-change, that just appears rather naive since your old account it trivially linked to your new one, and you went and used your new account with your old name on one of the most trafficked pages on Wikipedia. It is most awkward having to refer to you as The Photographer -- you could have chosen a much better and less pretentious pseudonym! -- Colin (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Huge, but of course great quality. Imho a bit too much blue at the top but still very good. --DXR 20:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Paul's Cathedral - Lantern and Ball and Cross.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--ArildV 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Paul's Cathedral - Ball and Cross.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Also seven meters? Wow! --DXR 18:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change - Square Crop.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change - Square Crop.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens announced I remember we talked about this lens some time ago, perhaps still relevant for you. I still think that the 18-35 is probably more useful for APS-C sensors, though. --DXR (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DXR, thanks. No announcement of Sony A-mount, though. It takes Sigma a long time to release A-mount versions. I'm sure it is a great lens. The lenses I most use for landscape/stitching are my Sony 30mm f/2.8 macro, 50mm f/1.8 and the 16-50 f/2.8. The first two are excellent primes if rather cheaply made (I stick some Sellotape on the focus ring to stop it moving during stitches). The "kit" zoom is a high quality fast zoom that is also highly regarded. I haven't seen any official reviews comparing the Sigma 18-35 with these so don't really know if it would be better. Someone once said "The Sigma isn't as good as the Sony in the 36-50mm range" :-). I tend to find my sharpness issues are usually not lens-related but shutter speed / support / iso. And the limitations to my images are mostly due to the limitations of the spongy thing between my ears, rather than the expensive box in my hands! -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course you make really good points and that does indeed seem like a pretty useful lens lineup. I forgot that you have the 16-50 and I agree that its flexibility is much more useful for the kind of shooting we tend to do  ;-). --DXR (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

precision

Hi Colin, as my english is not the best can you precise to me if that is some irony please? don't worry if it is, I will stay calm, it's just curiosity. -- Christian Ferrer 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, I'm afraid I don't understand the comment either. -- Colin (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I will ask them so -- Christian Ferrer 21:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of precision, and at the risk of making too fine a distinction, on the Village Pump you wrote, "Of the 1000-odd photographs Jee has uploaded to Commons so far, more than half are illustrating Wikipedia articles, which is a strong measure of high quality educational photography." Without at all shorting Jkadavoor's excellent work here on Commons, it is an indicator of high-quality educational photography, but I would hope we would not use it as a measure. Here are several ways someone would increase such a measure, all of which would be counterproductive to Commons' goals:

• Never upload more than one picture of a person, building, etc., since probably only one of them will be used as an illustration.
• Always put your picture in an article, even if someone else's is berter. Contribute nothing to correctly categorizing any "competing" work, because then it would be more likely to be found and used rather than your own.
• Add your pictures to articles to which they are only tangentially connected. Even if the article is already well-illustrated, and even if your new photo adds little, try to sneak it in there somewhere.
• Avoid contributing photos in areas where articles do not yet exist. For example, if no one is actively writing Wikipedia articles about historic buildings in your home city, avoid uploading photos of those buildings.

Again, I am not suggesting for a moment that any of these apply to Jee, whose work here has indeed been excellent, but I certainly do not think my own work here would be improved by striving to meet this "measure." - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you've put a lot of work into how to game the system. I wasn't really proposing this as the standard way of measuring the quality of contributions. It is quite possible, and indeed likely, for someone to upload lots of educational content that stands little chance of illustrating WP. WP does have its own editors who can reject inferior images, though how efficiently this is done will vary. I'm well aware of the problem with educators thinking they can use WP to effectively mark their students work and use edit-retention as some measure of quality. So these sorts of statistics should be taken with some salt. Still, I think in Jee's case, his images probably are the best illustrations for any given article. And I hope this coming year he will replace some of them with better ones. -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a strictly "white hat" approach to the study of gaming the system. Part of my professional work over the years has been developing metrics, and one of the first things you have to look at is how someone would game them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Vatican

Hi Colin,

Does this remind you something ? ;) Was obviously inspired by your shot, and I just managed to find the trick to get rid of the tourists in post processing (sometimes the ideas just pop into your mind). But I think it may work better with a single tourist in. Btw, just came back from London. Spent three days there, but only had like half a day to actually take photos. Managed to spend a whole early morning by myself, so I may have some shots to share soon (or, very likely, later), even though you and Diliff only left a few "unvisited" spots to shot ;). A very beautiful and photogenic city for sure. - Benh (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Benh, I can hardly take credit for that, considering it is probably the most photographed spiral staircase in the world. Look forward to seeing your London photos, of which there is no shortage of opportunities. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

London does have its charms, but I can't say it's in the same league as Paris when it comes to being photogenic! The beauty of London is in the individual buildings and little quirks, but the architecture is so mixed that it's difficult to find sweeping views that are intrinsically pretty, unlike Paris. :-) I'll be back in France in a few weeks (in Oise mostly, but I will hopefully have some opportunities to visit Paris and the surrounding cathedrals). Diliff (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Size of panoramas in Photo challenge

Hi Colin,

May I suggest altering the default size of panoramas in Photo Challenge voting gallery? Please look at this one: Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - March - Black and White/Voting#Cardona March 2015-5bw. Although it is the largest image in contest, it has the smallest thumb! Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar, you are right, that one ended up way too small. You can be bold and change too, as long as it looks fair! I've fixed it by hand -- hope the new size is ok. I'll see if I can change the program that generates the images so that it tries to give each image the same area rather than just use 400x400 which favours square images. -- Colin (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Colin! I would have been bold if it weren't my own image... Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Top of Monument to the Great Fire of London.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Baresi franco 22:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Northern and Shell Building - Detail May 2014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Slaunger 13:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Base of Monument to the Great Fire of London.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Top of the Shard.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

File:Cheetah at Sunset.jpg

Have a look at the new upload over it (by somebody else). I doubt whether it is an improvement. Jee 05:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sky Garden - Workmen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support good --Christian Ferrer 18:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gherkin from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

RE:Photo Challenge

I already changed my votes, thanks for warning! --Gilc (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg and Photo challenge...

Hi Colin.

I'm not really sure your picture matches with the definition of a panoramic photo with a ratio of 1:2 (as this one doesn't match too)... Other pics have less or more 1:10 ratio and that's what I call a panoramic.

--Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 21:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed that other picture. A panorama is 2:1 or narrower. That's the definition, for example, that Epson International Pano awards use. Mine is a vertical panorama. 1:10 is pretty extreme. -- Colin (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

1:2 ratio is too close to a "classic" view and I do really think this criterion is out of scope. What do you think about some restrictions as 1:5 minumum ? --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 21:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And we don't have a bigger page in French as in English for fr:Photographie panoramique... --Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no absolute agreed definition of 'panoramic'. 2:1 is perhaps approaching a 'classic' view, I would have probably selected 3:1 but it's just a matter of taste. I agree with Colin, 1:10 is very extreme. Even most 360 degree panoramas don't approach 1:10, unless they have a very narrow vertical angle of view. Diliff (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I went with 2:1 because that's what Wikipedia said and what the Epson International Pano Awards use. this source also confirms 2:1 and 3:1, as does this. So when I researched a ratio, 2:1 was the most likely option. Tastes will differ, but we've got to set a ratio somewhere and the challenge currently says 2:1. Certainly, plenty people, including the makers of panoramic medium format cameras, think 2:1 is fine, whereas nobody thinks 6:4 is panoramic, say. There is such a thing as a vertical panorama, and for that, going much more than 2:1 is unlikely. Even 16:9 only really is common for landscape format rather than portrait. So I'd expect landscape panoramas to be more extreme than vertical ones. I'd find it hard to change the ratio to 3:1, say, given that the worlds biggest panorama photo award contest thinks 2:1 meets the definition. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

winner notifications

Hello Colin,
I just wanted to ask this months winners if they'd like to help with the selection of our June themes, but realised that there wasn't any winner notification for TheJerboa (see talk). Did you just miss one or is there a reason?
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Anna reg, I've added it now. I can only think that since his user page is a red-link that I somehow failed to navigate to his talk page, and missed him off. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I just asked them to participate in the theme decision for June. --Anna reg (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

ICM

Hey Colin, I'm glad somebody finally brought up this luckily also rather lively discussion on abstract photography and obvious artistic limitations on commons - though I don't really expect it to show serious results at least in the short run... Anyway, I also noticed you created a new category for ICM photography. I suddenly remembered that I took a similar picture a couple of years ago. It's definitely not as good as yours, and I won't even nominate it at QIC. But maybe it's a start and helps fill the cat with life. Cheers, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, and I like your photo. I laughed when I discovered that Category:ICM was for trains! That tells you all you need to know about Commons. There's a very conservative bunch of amateur photographers on Commons, with all the failings that most AP have such as obsession with gear, techniques, pixel-peeping and limited creativity. Unless that gets challenged, we will fail to attract and retain people who have a spark of artistic creativity, who can create images that elicit any emotions. I do wonder sometimes, if some people here haven't seen any "educational media" since they left school and think Wikipedia is what an "educational" is -- Wikipedia is very poorly illustrated. Well, the nomination is on a knife-edge at the moment and many more days to go (crossing fingers).... -- Colin (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"s" or not

Hi Colin, I need just a little help for English, in this sentence "Exemples of others galleries where you may find other featured pictures of people", is "other" take a s or not? -- Christian Ferrer 08:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Christian, no "s" required. However, the "other" is unnecessary as there is one later on in the sentence -- you only need one "other". Also, I'd say "examples of" was not quite right since you aren't really giving "examples", but listing actual galleries. On the principle that the best writing requires the fewest words, how about "Other galleries containing featured pictures of people:". -- Colin (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, my cousin show me this site, as soon I have the time, I will go there to improve my English. -- Christian Ferrer 15:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I can't speak any foreign languages. I did French at school, but can't remember much more than "where is the railway station?". -- Colin (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question, the railway station is in the midlle of the image at the 1/3 left level. I have two question, 1 : is the latest version an improvment? 2 : is it an issue to have upgraded the first version by an image taken exactly only 22s later? -- Christian Ferrer 10:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

:-). The second image certainly appears clearer with more contrast/saturation which is an improvement. And I prefer the crop. I'm not on my good PC just now, so can't judge it that well on this little laptop's screen. Commons:Overwriting existing files is the guideline and I don't have any problems with your edit/switch. I guess the test is whether you think anyone would have any reason to want to use/link-to the first version rather than the second. Otherwise, it just clutters the category and search results with an inferior image. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Monitor calibration

Do you think the factory-color calibration is not enough? I need X-Rite i1 Display Pro for via the Dell UltraSharp Color Calibration Solution software, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the calibration tool I have. It is something to consider, though they are expensive. Are you using Windows? What "profile" have you got each monitor set to? The simplest might be to set both monitors to their sRGB profile and tell Windows to use sRGB for both. That would give reasonably accurate colours for that colour space.

If you really do want to gain the extra wide gamut that one of your monitors has then you will pay for that with complexity. Each monitor should have come with a CDROM with its profile file. This is a *.icm or *.icc file I think. Alternatively, you may be able to download it. I think you use these files with the monitor's native/standard profile rather than with a named one like sRGB or AdobeRGB. You need to install these and tell Windows which one to use for which monitor. However, only Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom (and perhaps some other professional photo tools) will respect both profiles. No web browser currently copes with two different monitor profiles -- they just use the profile of the primary monitor. And even then, most browsers don't handle monitor profiles at all well. The best solution I have found is Firefox, but even then you need to tweak some settings. I will try to write some more about this on a page so everyone can read it.

My best recommendation for you really is probably to set both monitors to sRGB profile on their on-screen-menu and then tell Windows to us sRGB. But if you want to buy a calibrator then be prepared to put in some work to configure things, and accept that probably only one of your monitors will show the correct colours when browsing the web. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Colin
Thanks for the information. Today and tomorrow I might be busy so It's difficult to find the icc CD or download from the wab. A few days later I will try it. Thank you. If you have some advice, feel free to write my talk page, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am mainly using DELL U2413 and setting sRGB with Dell Display Manager and I guess display prifile is correct. Should I do some more with this CD or download some files from website? --Laitche (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That should be fine, if you are happy to work in sRGB. It certainly keeps life simple. -- Colin (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. For now sRGB is enough for me, even only sRGB I am occasionally confusing with differences of each browser, if I have to handle AdobeRGB, that would make me exhausted... --Laitche (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Cinematic

FYI --The Photographer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Photographer, thanks. I like it. Very moody. It has a combination of some streaky blurred parts and some still sharp parts. I read today that we only see sharp and with good colour accuracy in the centre 2-degrees of our vision. The rest is blurred. So, perhaps my bluebells photo is closer to reality that we want to admit :-). Shame it failed. I was hoping to win the award for the FP with the most oppose votes! -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a strange effect on your picture, I tried for five minutes to move my head up and down in a straight line, I got to see more details in the picture as a normal view. --The Photographer (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that is similar to how you can make a pixellated picture look clearer by squinting your eyes. Perhaps Adobe have a "camera shake removal" tool that can restore my original? -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure Adobe is remarking your works! --Laitche (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - May - Panoramas

I'm afraid I shall have to remove File:Ambérieu 5000.JPG as it was uploaded before the challenge began, which is against the rules. I hope you can take more images for future challenges. -- Colin (d) 20:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

y'a pas de soucis, mais c'est dommage.--Classiccardinal (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - April - Back side/Voting

Hi, I didn't do any vote, I just renamed a file. --Sailko (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! The Sky Garden.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 06:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Section headings

Hi - just a comment about Commons:Village Pump#Why an admin allow a banned user to edit here? - section headings need to be neutral and can not include any editors by username/name. I removed "by Russavia" for that reason. Delphi234 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Delphi234 thanks. I thought my heading was completely neutral but if usernames are not allowed, then I agree it has to change. The previous text, by russavia, was not neutral. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Delphi234, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the edit war over the sub-heading. I see now you've made another edit to the main heading. Well, the whole point of the "by Russavia" was to poke WMF in the eye. What silly games people play to defend someone who really really needs to find another hobby. -- Colin (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully removing the "by Russavia" will blunt the poke. I was commenting on the subheading suggestion and only then noticed that the entire section was inappropriately named. Delphi234 (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair use content on Wikimedia Commons

Hi. I closed the conversation on my talk page because it had grown unproductive, however, one thing needs to be made explicitly clear. 'Fair use' content is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, in any form, in any namespace. The Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy explicitly prohibits Wikimedia Commons from developing an 'Exemption Doctrine Policy' that would allow fair use claims to be made. Period. Full stop.

Whether or not a specific work falls into the definition of fair use is irrelevant, and I made a mistake in allowing the conversation on my talk page to get sidetracked into arguments about whether or not a specific claim would be valid if it was allowed to be made. IRC logs contain material that is copyrighted by it's particular authors, and cannot be posted to Wikimedia Commons without the explicit consent of those authors to release it under a compatible license. Revent (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: (pinging Jkadavoor so as to avoid repeating this)

And yes, you can consider this to be a formal warning that you will be blocked if you post further 'fair use' content to any Wikimedia Commons namespace. Revent (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Revent, please consult an experianced admin like Odder before adding more nonsense. I had many previous communications with OSs regarding posted private communications on talk pages and they confirmed that nothing against policy there other than some privacy violations which are duly rev deleted. You can see the rev deletions in my posting too. Jee 03:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments. Revent (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see below for my clarification of the case from an oversighter's perspective. odder (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Revent, I shall ask someone more knowlegable than either of us to reply to you. If you cared to read the text I posted to your page, you would find examples where we make fair use in quoting copyright text on our policy pages, talk pages and discussion forums. Could you explain how else we are able to quote copyright material on those pages? I am no lawyer, so prepared to accept I am wrong if shown by someone who actually has the first clue. If you persist in these threats to block due to your misunderstanding of law, I may be required to make a formal request to remove your admin bit. -- Colin (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In general, such excerpts fall under 'de minimis', as legal text isn't particularly original (this was discussed by WMF legal at one point, though I don't recall where).

The statement stands. You cannot claim fair use on Commons, in any namespace. It is prohibited by the WMF.

I'm not even accusing you, Colin, of doing so. I'm just making it explicitly clear, since you chose to argue the point at length. Revent (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi @Avraham, Odder, and PierreSelim: @Rama, Raymond, and Tiptoety: , please look into this matter. If Revent's argument is right, why you didn't remove that mail content at User_talk:Trijnstel/Archive/2014#Serious_issue_which_needs_your_immediate_attention and warned the user who posted it? If that happened, I would have learned from it and will not repeat from my side. It is puzzling to learn "admins mistakes" are always ignored; but small fishes like me are always caught. I remember and re read the replies I got from OS list when reported this. Or, if your early decision was right please correct Revent. If I'm missing something, correct me too. Jee 09:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  I understand that I have been invited to join this discussion in my role as an oversighter, since I was the one to respond to Jee's e-mail regarding that particular talk page thread and its content. The global oversight policy is clear in only allowing oversighters to remove copyrighted content on the advice of a Wikimedia Foundation counsel. Even if the leaking of private e-mails in the talk page thread linked by Jee can be considered copyright violation, the oversight team have not been contacted, or indeed given advice, by any member of the Foundation's legal team, and therefore could not perform any oversight actions in line with the policy. Whether copying non-public e-mail conversations onto Commons constitutes fair use and whether it is in line with current Commons policies regarding licencing of content is, I believe, a matter outside of the remit of the oversight team. It remains, however, a very interesting subject that is definitely worth pursuing, and I would invite everyone to discuss it without unnecessarily referring to threats of blocks or, indeed, threats of removal of admin privileges: escalating this and getting off-topic won't get us anywhere. odder (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks Odder for a very reasonable reply. So I think no admin action is possible without an RfC to make a Common policy or advised by the Legal Counsel. I think we can drop this topic. Jee 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I have left a message for User:MichaelMaggs. We widely quote copyright text on Commons forums and talk pages. Whether that is legal text, rulings by politicians, comments by journalists, or advice by legal experts we have contacted by email. It will indeed be news to most of us that this is a blocking offence. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes; I remember I posted a mail from CC Communication manager in an early discussion. I posted mails from many Flickr users granting permissions too. During my OTRS term, I posted contents of mail giving permissions (without revealing any private data) so that non OTRS admins can process those cases. Glad to see I didn't blocked so far. Jee 09:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For those joining the discussion, this started at User talk:Revent/Archive 1#Ignorant threats where I rebuked Revent for making threats to block Jee over Revent's misinterpretation of law and policy. Initially he claimed such quoting wasn't fair use. He's now changed his story to claim the fair use isn't permitted. I am sorry to see a new admin has such poor understanding of law and the scope of our policy pages, most of which are clearly applicable only to the media content we host. -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe that you are, as you did in the conversation on my page, mischaracterizing my statements. I initially said to Jee, politely and without any 'threat', that he should not post IRC logs because fair use is not allowed on Commons. I then repeated at least twice that I was not threatening to block him. As I noted above, the discussion got sidetracked into a dispute about whether or not the particular post would be 'valid' fair use. That is irrelevant. Material that is hosted on a webserver is 'content', and all content hosted on Commons must comply with the WMF licensing policy, which does not allow us to host material under 'fair use'. Our distinctions between content in this namespace or that namespace are purely internal. Commons has been specifically prohibited by the WMF from developing a local policy that would allow the use of 'fair use' material in certain contexts.

If 'fair use' material is posted to Commons, it should be removed as a violation of the licensing policy, regardless of where it is located. If an editor repeatedly posts material under a claim of 'fair use', or edit wars about the removal of such material, then they can be blocked for repeated violations of the licensing policy, or edit warring, until they agree to stop. You are now aware that this is my interpretation of the situation. I'm quite willing to reconsider my position about this on the basis of well-reasoned arguments, or a community consensus that I am wrong. Telling me that I am ignorant is not the way to start such a conversation.

As far as complaints about my using the term 'grave dancing and demonizing', that is a common idiom, and was intended in the context that I used it as a specific reference to the fact that conversations about anything that can be even remotely connected to Russavia tend to immediately get sidetracked into discussions about his personality, quite commonly by people that never edit on this project unless he is mentioned. If you took it as a personal statement about you or Jee, I'm sorry, as that was not what I was saying. I thought it was clear what I what I meant in the context. I could link to many examples of exactly what I mean, but would rather avoid doing so as it would probably be taken as a selective criticism of certain editors.

At the same time, I would personally ask that you avoid, in the future, making inflammatory statements about other editors and your perception of their motives, as you did on my talk page, and have repeatedly done other places (and no, this is not in reference to anything you said about me). While there is no civility policy on Commons, such statements do not contribute to a collegial atmosphere. Revent (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at previous discussions

As with most issues, three is nothing new under the sun. The quotation of copyright text was discussed here and here. User:TeleComNasSprVen raised the question both times. What one can conclude is that while we have explicit policy on media files, we lack clear policy on text quoted in discussion or policy pages. The response from Luis Villa (WMF) was largely unhelpful, as is often the case where users ask WMF legal questions. In the first example used, Luis took pains to discover the text was public domain, and so while it made that instance legal, it didn't really answer the question. In the second example given, (an email of around 300 words, which is similar in length to the text quoted from Russavia by Jee), Luis appeared to lose patience. Sadly he then went on to give a rationale similar to one for discovering if fair use was reasonably applied, rather than indicating if such fair use was permissible on Commons policy discussions. So we are none the wiser.

In practice, our policy pages typically quote only tiny snippets of legal text which may be permissible as de minis. However, our discussion pages are not so terse. It is not uncommon to see an email quoted. It is not hard to search through our forums to discover quotations of advice from websites that consist of a paragraph or two of text and a similar size to the quotation by Jee that sparked this. Even on Wikimedia projects that have exemptions, the specific policy is routinely ignored for text quotations on discussion and other forums. For example, the Signpost newsletter frequently includes significant quotations from the media concerning Wikipedia or legal issues.

So my conclusion is that Commons policies and the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy are currently written to clearly describe our position with regard to media files such as images and videos. Both policies refer to "uploaded" "media" or "files". They are largely silent on the matter of text and especially on text in areas outside of what one might regard as our "hosted content". If one takes a hard line, then I suppose most users have broken this policy at some point. WMF do not seem interested in clarifying fair use of quotations in discussions or policy documents. Indeed, as with many things legal, they push the responsibility onto the writer and the community.

I suggest our admins have better things to do that threaten to block users for copyright violations for quoting a couple of hundred words, most of which consist of the words "fucking" and "idiot". In addition, I remind Revent of the promise he made at is RFA: "I would not try to avoid becoming involved in any kind of drama such as blocking people in any kinds of controversial cases." and his advice that "where good-faith contributors get into conflict it is mainly because of a lack of communication". If he wishes to be regarded as an "impartial voice of reason when such issues arise", he would do well do avoid characterising the post-russavia-block situation as "grave dancing and attempts to demonize him". For in doing so he is no longer impartial and imo quite unreasonable in his interpretation of the facts. If Revent wishes to instead be a drama-fuelling administrator who threatens people on the flimsiest of contexts, clearly manufactured to meet an agenda, then he should start by apologising to those who supported him at his RFA. -- Colin (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Image description

Hmm; I did some search and found free text for my new uploads. But I don't think it is practical in all cases. Moreover it is difficult to check all file pages and remove non free text as we did in Wikipedia articles. Any thoughts? Jee 17:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take this issue (text on image description page) to the copyright village pump for help. The site you link to has CC BY-SA 3.0 license and I am not clear you are attributing it correctly. Further, it isn't clear you are quoting someone else's work rather than just using them as a reference. It is usually better to write in our own words, but this not always easy for scientific text where the sources are terse. It may be better simply to add a few words of your own and to link to the wiki. After all, Commons is an image repository, not an encyclopaedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm; I'm already very tired by the repeated en:WP:HOUNDING against me, so not going to open any new discussions. "Write in our own words" is pointless and makes me a fool as I'm not a subject expert and my subjects are highly scientific topics. So the better solution for me is to avoid detailed descriptions and use only links and referrals. The disadvantage is they may end up as broken links when those sites die which is very common nowadays. Jee 02:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand the difficulty Jee. I was involved with medical articles on WP for many years, and am no doctor (highest qualification: Scouts first aid badge). Since fair use is not allowed on image description pages, one cannot quote extensively. Without clear quoting, one risks a charge of plagiarism when the text is identical or very similar to the source. It is only really possible to avoid this, in my experience, if one is either already a subject expert or can draw on multiple sources that themselves are quite independently written. And it is only really possible to condense such text, since attempting to put everything into one's own words leads to disaster in my experience. An example is where students are tasked with going onto Wikipedia with one source and asked to add a paragraph of new information: they nearly 100% plagiarise the source. So my advice is to not attempt it other than perhaps a one sentence summary of key facts. Basic facts aren't copyright (e.g. length) but how they are presented is. It is possible to solve the broken link problem. I'll try to find how to do this, but I believe you can request a page be stored in archive.org (or similar) and then link to that. It's documented on Wikipedia somewhere. -- Colin (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I removed those texts. I tried to save the webpage in https://archive.org/index.php; but it says "robot.txt" in that site prohibits crawling. Jee 07:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment...

Hey Colin, I just wanted to drop by and tell you that I think that this is one of the better banner proposals I've seen in some time. Really nicely done. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Philippe. You are welcome to use the File:Tower Bridge view at dawn FOP.jpg for any campaigning. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• DP REVIEW: Photography in public places across Europe threatened by harmonization proposal
• PetaPixel: Petition for Saving Freedom of Panorama in Europe Passes 300K Signatures

Vehicles challenge

Bonjour, see vehicle and after you do what you want, you have experience and I have seen french definition [1], and I have not written : exception ship in the presentation, now it's your problem. Have a good day --Doalex (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Doalex I looked at Wikipedia and your French definition and both allow for water and air vehicles, as well as land. In your [2], see definitions C and D. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's correct but if you like to discuss, you can add air and space vehicles, why only ship ? Hasta luego. --Doalex (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Doalex, of course they are also included - as you can see in the sample gallery. They just weren't included in the list of what we don't want because in a challenge restricted to unfamiliar vehicles - and while there may be 'common planes', you simply can't talk about everyday space vehicles...

Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	BEAUTIFUL PICTURE Sharaf wolf (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ZoomViewer

Hello Colin, I just talked to one of the Labs admins about ZoomViewer. It is running now, and according to them should continue to do so without further intervention. I wrote a new restart script just to be sure. Please let me know if it goes down again. Sorry for the trouble. --Dschwen (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dschwen. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Visit Brazil someday!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Hello, Colin! I recommend you visit Brazil. This vast country is home to unique natural life. It is abundant in splendid landscapes. Visit Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Brasília and many other cities! Visit Brazil someday! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

help

Dear Colin! Can you help me, is this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kornel Mundruczo signature.svg really so? I's a living someone's signature not licenses-required? (sorry for my english!) Fauvirt (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fauvirt. I'm not a copyright expert. There is some guidance at Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag which concerns whether the signature has any copyright. Are you concerned with copyright or with misuse (e.g. personality rights)? You might like to ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright where someone more knowledgeable than me could help. -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not, but user Váradi Annamária works with Kornél Mundruczo, so i tell her this. Thank you! Fauvirt (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

COM:AN/U#Russavia (talk · contribs)

Hey, so I'd like to ask you to help me dismantle tension in this discussion. Tension in such discussions tend to be very counter productive. I am happy you noticed how your remarks concerning Odder sparked an unnecessary discussion angle that could have been avoided. All I am suggesting is that you be more considerate of your posts and what unintended impact they may have. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your statement about me being "prejudice"

I just wanted to make note that your statement that I am prejudice at ENWP is offbase. I have absolutely nothing against the project or the community. What I do have a problem with are admins on the projects that make decisions like banning people with guesses and causing the projects to lose positive contributors. If the admins on ENWP would follow policy like they are supposed to rather than impose it on others and ignore it for themselves I wouldn't have a problem with them either. The fact they rarely enforce policy on themselves and the community and the WMF lets them get away with it is the problem. Reguyla (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - July - Unfamiliar Vehicles

Hello Colin:

He retirado dos imágenes de "Photo challenge/2015 - July - Unfamiliar Vehicles". Ahora sólo tengo cuatro fotografías. Un cordial saludo:--Raimundo Pastor (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Essen_Germany_Interior-of-BMV-Church-01.jpg

I have no idea, what is happening there. My camera color space is set to sRGB to avoid the AdobeRGB. Usually, I set the parameter for CameraCalibration in LR to "Camera Standard". That is all, I don't have an idea, where the AdobeRGB color space should come from. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

CEphoto, Uwe Aranas, it definitely has an AdobeRGB colour profile embedded. If you are processing raw files, then the camera colour space doesn't matter (it only affects JPGs, and if you only ever shoot raw then the most it affects is the histogram on your camera is based on the JPG). The camera calibration also doesn't affect this (though does affect the colours, etc, in other ways). I think the problem is at export. On the export dialog, have you chosen AdobeRGB colourspace rather than sRGB? That still wouldn't explain why the colorspace tag disagrees with the profile. One other possibility ... have you ever fiddled with the profiles on your PC? Is there any way that the sRGB.icm (or sRGB.icc) file on your PC has actually been overwritten by an AdobeRGB one? Have you installed any plug-ins to Lightroom that might affect this? You can download the EXIFtool to examine JPGs in details (or use this website). The profiles that Lightroom uses will either be in your Windows folder or perhaps the Lightroom/Photoshop folder in "Program files". -- Colin (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI --The Photographer (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Photographer, thanks. I had seen that before, and it is a bit out-of-date (Windows browsers do now cope with AdobeRGB files, but they don't cope with wide-gamut displays). However, no mobile browser copes with AdobeRGB and that is an increasing audience. I do sometimes wonder if MediaWiki should fix our images on upload or when presenting them on Wikipedia -- to add any missing tags or profiles. -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your hint, that the problem should be searched in the export, was right. The LR export parameter was set to AdobeRGB (don't know why). I changed back to sRGB and exported a new version. Should be ok now. However, I had to empty the cache before Jeffrey's tool successfully extracted the new profile. Thanks again, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Still strange that the photo was tagged sRGB, though. Oh well, at least you can fix your images now. -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fancy photos

Hiya Colin!

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:2013_Ahmanson_Cup_Regatta_yacht_Zapata_II_b_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Liberty_Island_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Rockefeller_Grove_Redwoods2.jpg

For this last one (my first, only and last attempt to nominate one of my own photos)... the best was "Everyone visiting this place could take such picture at any time without much effort". The commentator's remark was hilarious - but sad. Had he looked on a map (the image is geolocated to the parking lot)... It's a minimum 6 hours from San Francisco. The parking is way off the freeway... Then there's a 2 hour hike. The sun is actually OUT in this photo; there's a bit of mist, but there's sunshine in the Redwoods ! I live up there, the locals found this photo utterly amazing like rain in the desert, or eclipse darkness at noon but if those were put to FP (sarcasm follows) they'd be unacceptable due to darkness, damp spots and grey light. Besides that there is no "everyone visiting" this grove; this cathedral grove is like the Nave of Notre Dame in the Redwood World and the commentator doesn't know what he's looking at and making a snappy brush off. It's similar to the comments about "it's just a boat" for the first one, and "bad, bad, bad" for the second one... some user flying by with no attempt to be helpful or work on stuff just opinion. It was a big turn-off for me and I decided to focus my efforts back on images without a source. We're down from the 60-ishK mark to something around 43,000 by this week. It's much simpler to look for broken templates and spend hours looking up obscure 18th and 19th century people in pictures than to worry about very critical critique with no help. Thanks for asking about FP. Please feel free to make more drama cards, we could end up with a whole set! Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz, I'm just about to set off in the car to go on holiday. So I'll be offline for a while. And if the cottage has no WiFi (it should have) then I'll be offline for longer! So my response may be delayed. -- Colin (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll give my two cents in Colin's absence then. I agree that potentially ignorant comments are frustrating to deal with as a photographer/nominator, but I think Pofka had a point in his review. He didn't say that that it was easy to get to or that anyone could visit it on their lunch break. He said that anyone who was already there visiting it could take the photo you took. In other words, there was nothing outstanding about the photo itself - all it would likely take is a talented photographer with better camera gear to visit the grove to improve on it. The location may be fantastic and deserving of a Featured Picture quality image, but that doesn't automatically guarantee yours any special privilege because of its perceived rarity or difficulty of access. If the sun is indeed out in that photo, it's really not obvious from the photo because the background is just an overexposed white (which could just as easily be the case if it was overcast, due to the difference in brightness between the sky and the foreground forest), and you gave no explanation about why it should be considered a rare event in your nomination or in response to his comments. While many of the comments in the nominations you've cited could be considered a bit rude and blunt, consider how the project functions. We're reviewing large numbers of images on a regular basis and most of the nominators are not expecting 'first time nominators' who might be turned off by the brusque comments and not tip-toeing around fragile egos. The vast majority of us are just evaluating the images honestly from a mainly technical and compositional POV and with minimum verbosity if possible and that can come across as blunt (and then add the fact that many reviewers are not native English speakers). We're not necessarily able to evaluate the notability of an obscure subject, or the rarity of it. If there is a strong case for that as a mitigating factor for a technically weak image, it's important that this is raised by the nominator. We're not mind readers. If there's no discussion, all we can do is evaluate the image as we see it. As for comments like "it's just a boat", I agree that it's not the best way to express it, but the point that I suspect was being made there was that there's nothing about the image that makes it stand out beyond other basic images of boats. No amazing composition, no amazing event being captured. It's a functionally useful photo of a boat but that makes it more of a QI image than a FP image. But if you feel that FPC is not for you, fine. It's not for everyone, just as looking for 'for broken templates' and 'obscure 18th and 19th century people in pictures' isn't for everyone. :-) All I will say is that if you felt you had to deal with very critical critique and received no help then you should have asked for help. Sometimes you have to be a bit proactive and raise the issue for anything to be done about it. Debate the validity of the vote with the person you disagree with. Ask them to elaborate their position. I'm not saying every nomination needs a big debate. But I think we'd all learn a bit more in the process if we questioned things we disagreed with. The sense that you have an unalienable right to a vote but nobody else has the right to question it is part of the problem with some people on FPC IMO. But for that to work, we all have to remain professional and patient. The problem is that (as per the original complaint that gave birth to this discussion here) some people like Livio are not very patient, and do not remain professional. Diliff (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, I experienced that lack of patience and professionalism first hand in the above nominations. I read all the instructions on how to nominate, and several of the points in your paragraph above are NOT included. Perhaps the section needs to be rewritten to help newcomers? I think you are over-reacting what was to me a simple toe-dip in the waters and a lack of desire to participate after that due to the behavior of the other participants towards a new contributor. I feel we are judged by the company we keep, as well as changed and molded by them and thus walked out without a backward look. I'm sure you've done the same in taverns, restaurants, casinos or churches... walked in, sniffed the air or looked at the people, turn, exit, close door gently. There is an oft-used Polish expression which captures the feeling perfectly, Not my circus, not my monkeys. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC) PS Colin: No worries, the only reason I replied was because you asked.

I am reminded of a comment made by someone on a photography forum about entering photo competitions. If you win a prize, the judges were discerning and enlightened; if you lose, the judges were ignorant idiots. I detect a bit of superiority about your response that is an understandable reaction to rejection. I think you had perhaps the wrong expectations, both on what images might be featurable and also what kind of engagement you'd get from the reviewers. Simply reading the instructions won't enable you to take or select an FP. Why do you think the reviewers at FP would be "professional"? And what does professional mean? A professional who reviews images for a living, for publication or for selection in a gallery or for competitions, is unlikely to have the time to give any feedback. And we've had some professionals help judge competitions like WLM, and discovered that their measure of a great image doesn't really align with Commons' mission.

For better or worse, the review crowd at FP is largely dominated by amateur photographers who are both learning how to take better pictures and at the same time learning how to review pictures. Everyone is at different stages. Like any random assortment of people, some are talentless and have no eye; some are gifted in their own image-making but a poor judge of other's work; some know what makes a great picture but are unable to achieve that (reliably) themselves; some are friendly; some are rude. There are language, age, culture and personality differences. Some take criticism (of their nominations, or their reviews) well, and others really, really, really, don't. By and large, people are there to review the images, not pass comment on other's "behaviour" -- unless they feel it is far out of line.

As for being judged, changed our moulded by the company we keep, while that may be fair and true for social groups that one makes in life, the FP page isn't really a social occasion nor a like-minded group. There are some good and bad characters who participate at FP just as there are at Commons.

All I can suggest is you participate as a reviewer for a while, to get a measure of what tends to succeed or fail. It is more of a game of chance than one might like, though. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think my reaction would have been the same if the photos were accepted or not. In fact 1 of the 3 photos was accepted and I know I don't have very good digital camera gear so I didn't expect a lot for my photo. I told you of the humorous answer I got on that one and why I thought it was so funny. I even used the word hilarious ! Please whenever you read what I write, don't read anything into it? I write really simple sentences. The "but sad" was a reference (as described) the the lack of understanding of the geographical situation of the location. As for my moldyness... I don't want to force my artistic opinion into the minutae of "you shouldn't have used f22 for an outdoor shot because it ruins the _____" (from memory not an actual quote), or "do you really think 1/250th of a second is enough (not enough) time for this picture", or "No WOW." I just can't get that into all those details, it's just not my thing. But I did remember the situation and when discussion happened, I plugged in two cents. You asked for more info. I tried to explain at some small level what happened to make the situation memorable - and instead was judged. I'm sorry. It wasn't really that big of a deal. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellin, and I told you why your 'hilarious' comment from someone wasn't actually that hilarious, you simply misunderstood it. You never responded to that part of my message by the way - the part where I explained why I thought the evaluation wasn't unfair or unreasonable. Their lack of understanding of the geography had nothing to do with it, because they weren't talking about how difficult it was to access. They were talking about someone taking a better photo of it, had they been there. You might not be into the apertures or the shutter speeds, but understanding it is a vital part of good photography practice. I certainly wouldn't say that it's more important than compositional or artistic qualities, but one without the other is unlikely to make a particularly good photo, certainly by the Commons definition anyway. As I said originally and you've pretty much confirmed, maybe FPC just isn't for you. But that doesn't mean it's inherently unprofessional or rude to newcomers. Diliff (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellin, I am puzzled by your "don't read anything into it". Perhaps you do use simple sentences, but I see sarcasm, wit, idioms and (like any other conversation between people) an attempt to convey feelings and reactions using a few dozen ASCII characters. Of course I have to try to interpret what you are saying: you are not facing me and I don't know you very well. I appreciate if, as an admin/'crat, you make a special effort to be understood simply over the internet and across language barriers, but don't criticize people for being human: as with any conversation, your point may be misjudged and unappreciated, and if both parties wish to understand each other, then both need to make more effort, not less.

Other than LivioAndronico's weirdness on the boat FP, I don't see anything that would justify your comment about "unprofessional behavior of some regular users in that part of the project - and the lack of protest about it by most of the others.". Perhaps I could echo back: the reviews at FP are often very simple sentences; don't read anything into it?

I do find some of the people at FP to be rude, ignorant and frustrating, but I can't ban them from that forum for that? When it gets exceptionally out-of-line, like the post I made to AN/U, I think it worth dealing with. But I think a far worse crime is to write-off a whole group of people, to clump them together, and insult them as one. We see that with some people bitching about the admins on WP as though all the hundreds of people with an admin bit are like minded and synchronised in their evil ineptitude. And we see that when people on en:wp bitch about the folk at Commons, as though we were all Russavia.

Where I agree with you, and where Commons is generally poor, is protesting about and dealing with bad behaviour: we get patronising lectures about being mellow, or are told how many uploads (or featured pictures) the bully has, and how Commons would be so worse off without their great contributions.

I went to AN/U with a user-issue that was entirely user-related (a whole deal of bad faith attitude by one person) and got three admins choosing to use that forum to bitch about FP. That was a fat lot of use. So I might say, that what I see from AN is a very unprofessional response from those who the community expect to deal with them in a professional manner, and who brought to the discussion their own personal issues and grievances rather than helping to resolve mine. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong comment

With this comment, you acroos the line, good bye --The Photographer (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lessons learned from crowd funding

Rhinocypha bisignata male. (The equipment used to produce this media are acquired through community support)

Hi Colin; it's been ages, but I finally got round to writing a short blog post that I contacted you about the other day. You were kind enough to allow me to rephrase your text a little bit but requested to have a look before the post is published, so here I am. Take a look at Crowdfunding in the Wikimedia world and let me know what you think. (I'm also including an obligatory ping to @Christian Ferrer and @Jee since they're mentioned in there.) Thanks, odder (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• odder and Colin, thank you very much to both of you for having mentioned me  :). The human factor is crucial in this kind of campaign, the involvement of participants is so much greater that the result is thereby succeptible to inspire and motivate potential donors, the question is how to reach a larger audience than recipient friends. I hope Jee is happy with his new equipment. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks odder. The text looks good. Let's hope some other people benefit and that enables them to contribute more and better images for Commons, or write articles for Wikipedia, etc. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi again @Colin and @Christian, and @Jee; the post has now been published on the Wikimedia blog. Thanks to Colin for his involvement and I hope you enjoy(ed) reading the text. odder (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks odder, Christian and Colin. Thanks Slaunger and Steinsplitter too who worked silently in background. Hope it will insight more users whom have a need. BTW, you can see here, how helpful that campaign to me and to Commons! Jee 02:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Award barnstar

	The Helping Hand Barnstar
	Thanks for your advise for choosing a new camera. Exploringlife (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your unacceptable conduct

Don't come to discussions and accuse me of trolling just because I agree with you. There is no need to be a bully and make baseless accusations on these projects just to participate in a discussion. That behavior is completely unacceptable behavior and no one should even have to tell you that. Reguyla (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I also decided to leave a complaint about your accusing me of being a troll here. Reguyla (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Airbus AS355F1 Twin Squirrel Helicopter with Buachaille Etive Mòr.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Airbus AS355F1 Twin Squirrel Helicopter with Buachaille Etive Mòr.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Photo challenge watchlist message for September

Hello Colin,
just wanted to tell you that the watchlist message is ready and waiting for the voting pages.
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Anna reg, Sorry, I forgot about it tonight and have a guest staying. I will do it tomorrow evening. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! South over the Quiraing, Isle of Skye.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! North over the Quiraing, Isle of Skye.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ellishadder coastline, Isle of Skye.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Mealt Waterfall with Kilt Rock, Isle of Skye.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mealt Waterfall with Kilt Rock, Isle of Skye.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Attacks

Hello, it's not acceptable to attack a user, with a calumny such as «someone the community does not trust to be fair and honest». You do not represent the community. I hope such an incident won't repeat itself.

Also, it's the third comment you make on that page, for a total of about 7 kB, so you may consider that users had enough of a chance to hear your opinion on the matter. Endless verbose broken-record reiteration of your accusations against a user leads to harassment. --Nemo 09:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nemo, it is not a "calumny". There's plenty evidence of Fae's dishonest and unfair approach to engaging with others with whom he is in dispute. You are welcome to not read my opinions on Fae's candidacy, just as Fae is welcome to not request such opinions by creating endless RFAs on himself. It is quite clear from the RFA and the previous ones, that Fae lacks the trust of the community. Nemo, you may disagree with my opinion, but to try to claim that I'm somehow doing something against policy or saying something I should take care not to repeat.. grow up and stop playing games. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Glamaig from Rubha nam Brathairean, Isle of Skye.jpg

I've given it a quick try from your unprocessed JPEG. It really was noisy to start with, I guess because of the haze itself. There's nothing to be done with current state of software. What you tried to achieve should really be reflecting the lighting conditions as you witness them, and not be added by post processing (IMO). But the composition, with the bird, is really beautiful on the original crop. Save the RAW somewhere in case something like that is implemented in LR one day ;) - Benh (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Says the man who took a long exposure to bring out the barely-visible milky way while painting a church with a torch :-). Unless they want the grey silhouette effect of atmospheric haze, photographers have often tried to reduce it through lens filters. And applying a graduated filter to bring out the clouds in the sky and reduce the dynamic range of the scene is an ancient technique. Or a polarising filter to magically see through reflections on water. So we often aren't happy with reality or at least with what the camera might capture unaided. And the argument of faithfully "capturing what you saw" vs "making an image" is an old one too. I wasn't really intending to create a documentary photograph for Wikipedia but something closer to an artist's rendering of the mountains, and the layers of landscape. So I liked the grainy effect. The ISO was only 200 so I wonder if much of the "noise" that gets drawn out is due to the atmosphere rather than sensor-noise. I took a gamble that there might be enough wow to make up for the likely technical objections, but it seems not. I took several shots and yes this one worked because of the bird. I'll extract the original crop as a separate image on Commons, since it is a better composition, but retain the bigger one in case anyone finds the picture of the whole mountain more useful. The unprocessed JPG isn't a good start from which to try to extract something since, as you know, too much information is lost already, and it isn't a fair starting-point either since we all process a raw file to some degree. If you want the raw file to play with out of curiosity then I'm happy to send it to you, just remember that it is not CC-licensed so you can't post the results without permission. We're a pretty conservative bunch on Commons -- plenty photographers do much more processing than we do, not just global adjustments and the odd graduated filter. I don't have a problem with Commons having "processed" images -- educational media wants eye-candy photographs just as much as anyone else -- as long as we aren't dishonest. -- Colin (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Those 'haze filters' have always been a bit of a joke though, certainly in the days of digital anyway. All they do is cut down the UV light which in theory gives a blue haziness to film, but digital cameras have a UV filter anyway and are largely unaffected. They've never actually cut down actual atmospheric haze in a scene though, although I'm sure some photographers bought them thinking they would. ;-) As for the noise, I think sometimes Lightroom actually creates the noise to some extent. What I've occasionally found when processing an HDR outdoor scene is that areas without much texture such as sky tend to become much noisier than I would normally expect given the ISO I used. I don't quite know where the noise comes from though, because with HDR merging, you can never quite be sure which exposure has contributed to a given part of the scene. I know your image isn't HDR so it's not the same situation, but I only mention it because I suspect similar algorithms are in play in the dehaze and tone mapping, and essentially the contrast is decreased and then increased (except in your image's case, the low contrast was the starting point, rather than introduced by HDR processing). Just something to think about anyway. Diliff (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Do what I say, not what I do ;) it's not quite the same though. One can achieve what you show with no noise when conditions are good. No one can achieve milky way shots with ground component without noise. What you show is very different from what your camera caught. My raw material is still close enough to the final result IMO. Even though I had to add artificial lighting, it's still been caught by the camera. So my point is only "try to get the best raw material you can to begin with". And yes, I agree the folks at FPC are very conservative, which I find very frustrating sometimes. This is how we end up with no real novelties. - Benh (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Diliff, I agree the UV lens filter is really a case where film was potentially worse than eyesight and I don't know they were very effective. The default sharpening setting on Lightroom (+25, no mask) introduces some noise into the sky. Applying a strong sharpening mask can significantly reduce this, but of course that's a global operation. Local adjustments with -ve values can be used to cancel-out global values, so hmm, I wonder if a graduated filter with -ve sharpness would work, or if it merely blurred the sky. I guess you could experiment comparing the result of setting global sharpness to 0 with attempts to cancel it out. I agree that anything that increases contrast is bound to emphasis the luminance variation due to noise and make it more visible. The Lightroom dehaze tool is interesting and perhaps has a role when used very modestly. Strong amounts do lead to something unnatural but not necessarily unpleasant. In large amounts it can significantly shift the colours, though, and I think best applied first before then adjusting colour temperature, contrast, levels, clarity and possibly then even applying colour-specific saturation changes to reduce any shift. Perhaps, Benh, if you apply it to your night sky you will see more distant nebulae? :-).

Saying I could achieve better results in good conditions isn't quite fair. I think the visibility was excellent that day. Perhaps a small improvement would be possible in different weather, but ultimately 20 miles at sea level in Scotland is never going to be a clear view. In the Himalayas or in the Gobi desert it may be clearer for further! A similar noise-free accurate photo of the mountain could be better taken from closer (though one would be positioned out at sea to get the same angle), but it wouldn't then include the layers of headlands. As I said, I wasn't really aiming for authenticity. Benh, your "raw material" is the result of 30s worth of electronic processing in the camera, not what the eye saw. All I'm saying is that you employed some artificial means to enhance the view achievable by eye. And the effect is nice. Apparently the same is true of the Northern Lights, and the blue hour, which all get enhanced by our digital sensors. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've nothing against artificial lighting. My point is, again, that it's better to get as close to the result you intended from the start, so you don't risk introducing artifacts with heavy post processing. And I trust you that the weather was clear. But to get that intended composition of yours with several "layers which seem on top of each other", I think there are better conditions, maybe not possible on this scenery, but certainly on others. And I'm not talking about a "clear" atmosphere. That wouldn't have worked either. I'll look for examples tonight, but I'm fairly sure you have seen pictures like that already. - Benh (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As I noticed a while ago, the local adjustment brush noise reduction seems to work differently to the global noise reduction, at least with my HDR images (it could be the interaction between the tone mapping and noise reduction). The adjustment brush was inferior in removing noise, and left ugly artefacts. I can't remember where we discussed it (pretty sure it was on wiki somewhere) but I did give screen captures at the time. I also noticed recently (I think it was when processing my Chapel Royal images) that even the global noise reduction gave me a weird blurry glow around areas of contrast. I ended up having to turn noise reduction off in that image to avoid issues. I agree that the dehaze tool can be pushed too far. In moderation, yes it's useful, but it doesn't seem that much more effective than increasing contrast, perhaps with an adjustment brush rather than global. I did notice in your image that the clouds seemed a bit patchy and off-colour. Perhaps you could try to create multiple images with different levels of processing in Lightroom and combine them together in Photoshop, since the dehaze filter can't be used as an adjustment brush. To be honest though, I'm not sure that the image itself is worth the trouble. It didn't grab me, personally. The view wasn't quite dramatic enough. As for the conditions, it could be that it was pretty good for being 20 miles away (probably so), but that doesn't mean the shot works. It may be that you need to climb the Black Cuillin range and wait for sunset for a truly spectacular shot. ;-) (yes, I know, not the sort of thing you do on a family holiday!). Diliff (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish dehaze was an adjustment brush -- on land that is close-by and already saturated and contrasty, it overcooks too easily. I would have thought the first step in a global "dehaze" tool would be to intelligently determine which areas of the photograph require it. Yes, the clouds got some colour and I couldn't eliminate the patches even by reducing saturation on certain colours (which makes me wonder if dehaze is applied after those controls). I was hoping to climb one of the easier mountains on Skye with my daughter, but doing so really requires a reliable forecast of good weather and high cloud. We got neither. A week later we climbed Ben Lomond (a very easy Munro) on a hot sunny day and the views were amazing. Whether my camera has captured anything amazing will have to wait till I finish the Skye photos. On the way back down, early evening, we passed a lady who was just going up in order to see the view at sunset. It was such a nice day I'm sure she was rewarded. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm reading this fork very quickly so I hope I get it, but to "locally dehaze", you can create a copy, dehaze it, and in Ps, blend the two layers together. Then just paint the mask layer of the dehazed one so that the dehazed appear only when you want to. Same for selective NR of the clouds. Maybe you knew the trick already... just in case :) - Benh (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, but one could make that argument about any local-adjustment feature (brush/gradient/radial). One wishes to be able to do general photographic improvement in Lightroom, and leave Photoshop to handle compositing and other artistic manipulations. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, precisely. I did already in the comments above suggest you could merge two different images with different processing, but as you say, that's not the point. It's much more desireable to have all the tools available in Lightroom where they're independent, adjustable and reversible. I don't really understand why Adobe hasn't given us every adjustment as a brush/gradient/etc as well as global adjustment. Maybe there's a good technical reason why not, but I don't see it. There's still plenty of room to expand the functionality of Lightroom, for sure. Diliff (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Btw, Diliff, did you get my email about Open House London this weekend. -- Colin (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, yes I did. I thought I'd replied to it but just realised I didn't. Once again this year I haven't really got very organised and looked at what properties there are. I'll try to do it tonight and get back to you though. Diliff (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Lightroom 2015.2 CC. Benh, Diliff, dehaze is now an adjustment brush. Slaunger, looks like they fixed the EXIF bug too. -- 14:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fae for admin

Hi Colin,

I would be interested in understanding what you are expecting to see from me before you would support another RFA. Perhaps you would like to expand on that here, away from the current RFA, and I can have some time to think about it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fæ. There's no fundamental reason we have to be at loggerheads so often and most people here have more in common than apart. Both of us can get hot-headed in argument so it would help if we were each inclined to get on with each other than to fight. There are several areas where we disagree, some aspects of your discussion style and some attitudes that I have problems with. I don't think we can resolve these quickly and do want to try an approach where we try to understand one another. Since it is Open House Weekend in London, I'm busy planning a photographic weekend and don't have an awful lot of free time.

As an initial issue, let's taken an area where I was quite hurt. I think it stems from Abd's observation you have "high sensitivity combined with high confrontation". After a couple of failed FPC nominations of gay-themed photos, including a naked one that I strongly preferred to choose when to view, you attacked me (and the rest of FPC crowd) for supposed anti-LGBT bias. I believe I'd have taken the same approach had images been posted with female genitalia on display. Regulars at FPC will know plenty professional portraits fail when pixel-peeped, rightly or wrongly, so their failure wasn't really unusual to most of us. The LGBT issue was also conflated with a misguided use of our not-censored policy to try to wrongly try to apply our policy on image hosting to that for forums like FPC. My stance is that while Commons' image repository may not be censored under threat from external powers, the Community is always free to define our educational scope, and additionally each forum on this website is free to choose its own approach towards the display of images. An editorial approach to our curation of images or discussion forums is quite separate from censorship and confusing the two is unhelpful.

Anyway, without wanting to re-open that debate, I don't believe I have an anti-LGBT bias either in my general attitude nor displayed on Commons. Nor do I think FPC has a sexuality bias either -- we get the images we get and these reflect the photos people take either professionally or amateur.

As you will know, such bias is very much considered socially unacceptable among progressively-minded people, and as damaging to one's reputation as accusation of racism or that they are a 'creep'. So I find this difficult to just push into the past and forget.

-- Colin (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As it happens I'm taking advantage of the open house weekend, I'll have to remember to take my camera.

The systemic bias question is a good one. I probably assumed too readily that others would understand my technical meaning of the word, which in my mind is not the same thing as presuming that the individuals taking part in any decision making system have a personal or concious bias. In the particular instance of my previous RFA, it is obvious that Russavia went all out to wind you up, which I think was 90% of the problem.

As an example from my experience, a long time ago I worked for a very large bank with 40 "vice directors". Not one of the 40 was a woman, and not one was openly LGBT. In later years, after a well publicised court case and a large settlement, it was recognised by the management that their recruitment systems were at fault even though there was a good proportion of women and women-friendly people in the recruitment process. In the background there was a tendency to measure "rising stars" within the organization by their time commitment to the job (working 100 hours in a week was not unusual), along with the expectation of endless socializing every evening in local bars (and lunch-time in pubs and oyster bars). The unintended result was that those that more strongly valued their home life, or those who were not prepared to ensure their out of work social activities were of a certain type, tended to be a lower preference for the highest promotions.

The response of the bank was a healthy one, rather than just employing recruitment consultants and training for diversity, they encouraged professional networking groups, first for women and soon after for LGBT employees. I was part of the team founding the LGBT group and as a volunteer team we gave plenty of feedback on unfair pension schemes (where same-sex partners were excluded), encouraged better advertising for recruitment to actively attract LGBT employees, etc. The feedback was listened to and the systems changed. To be honest it would have been hard to pin-point exactly where the systems themselves tended to have a male and hetero-normative bias, but after a few years of relying on the professional networks, the bank became recognized as having successfully dealt with the problem. Even today, the numbers show the number of women making it to the top are disproportionately low, however recognizing there was a problem with the system, rather than the people using it or within it, was key to moving on.

My deductions about the systems we have for FPC may have been unfounded and unfair, I would approach the question differently now, and attempt to express myself more sensitively. However it remains true that of the 6,000 (? maybe it's a lot more now) images that I checked through having reached FP status on Commons, none stood out as being about LGBT topics even if a couple were in relation to LGBT people. Maybe the issue is that we don't do enough to attract high quality LGBT photographs to Commons, or encourage newer uploaders to try FPC. I hope that by creating the Category:LGBT Free Media Collective, it's a step to improving this, but I have yet to go back and try to measure that aspect, or encourage FPC candidates from that pool of images.

I'm sorry that my approach to this important issue was combative, at some point (not now though ) I'd like to look at this question again and see if there are agreeable approaches to make our FP pool of images more recognizably diverse in nature. --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Fæ, thanks for the reply and I am glad we are talking. I think I need to dig out the relevant conversations because my memory is of this being more than simply a semantic misunderstanding. The issue of identifying if there is a bias in our system or in any individual is perhaps a separate matter from the personal problem. I'll create a separate sub-section for that because it is an interesting issue. I hope to have some time to do this tonight. In the mean time, I'd like to know what percentage of people a scientist would categorise as LGBT, whether they are open about it or not. I appreciate this isn't a hard category but presumably there's a definition that social scientists use when conducting their studies. A source would be great. Also, do you have reliable figures for what percentage of adults in the UK today would describe themselves as "openly LGBT". I assume that one doesn't have to go far back into the previous century for that figure to become negligible, and that there are plenty countries with much smaller numbers of "openly LGBT". The question is relevant to Commons, because if one considers that Commons should be utterly free of bias, then it needs to represent humanity, and perhaps, over all of humanity today, the numbers of openly LGBT are just too small. Clearly, one doesn't expect commons to have more photos of Chinese and Indian people than European -- it just isn't a reasonable expectation -- so this immediately shifts our expectations of other bias too. -- Colin (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a good source for what numbers to expect. Something like 5% of participants self-identifying as LGBT is often taken as normal (see Demographics of sexual orientation, numbers range from 1.5% to over 10%), though internet communities tend to have higher LGBT participation than real-life communities, probably because even if you are not out in real life, you may have an anonymous account where you are openly LGBT. Keep in mind that we have participants from countries where being a homosexual is a crime, this distorts the figures for an international site.

I'm not sure that fixing expected percentages as targets is all that helpful, though measuring the diversity of media would be. After all, if LGBT related is 0.2% this year, and next year it becomes 1%, that should be a success even if the proportion of our contributors might self-identify as LGBT is much higher. The only way to understand the diversity of our contributors would be a survey and this would be controversial as participants are self-selected and this would not reflect the diversity of our reusers.

It might be an idea to contrast with, say, measuring contributors who can write in various non-English languages with the number of non-English interest images in the FPC collection. It's easier to measure and more neutral to discuss. It might also have an outcome of prioritizing FP images for translation, or encouraging more non-English writers to create image pages in non-English texts and mark them up for later translation. This is a tough area for Commons, multilanguage support being complex for this project. --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Determining bias

If I read your response correctly, we could assume around 5% will respond to a survey but I guess it would be less than this would be open in their workplace (particularly so if there appeared to be few others). But even if we take the 5% figure and assume LGBT people are equally likely to want to be vice directors (an argument often raised wrt women, rightly or wrongly) and that the business had no bias whatsoever, then there is only an 87% chance that the board of 40 will have any LGBT vice directors. This makes it likely they should, but by no means surprising if they didn't have any. If the figure of "openly LGBT in the workplace" was actually more like 2% then it drops down to 55% chance of any such directors in a group of 40.

The problem with examining our images for bias, vs vice directors, is that the sets have totally different qualities. With one, we have a closed set of subjects that all have their "openly LGBT" state knowable and meaningful. With the other, we have an open set of subjects where for the vast majority the question of their sexuality is not actually meaningful. It would be like taking your bank and adding the office furniture and stationary onto the set of 40 and wondering why these 20,000 nouns have so few LGBT examples.

Wrt knowability, of the 7,610 featured pictures, I reckon about 600 are of people. Is the "openly LGBT" state of these people knowable? A large number are old photos from a time when this wasn't so open. And another group are of non-notable people (workers, street photos, etc). For even notable people, this information may not be readily available. So the numbers where we might possibly know the sexuality of the photo are getting really small. Then there's the fact the people are not photos. We take photos for a reason. Perhaps simply to have a picture of a certain person, but also because they are playing a sport or they are a politician or playing at a concert. Very few images are taken to illustrate any aspect of sexuality, never mind LGBT.

The open nature of our image database means the proportions of images can change for reasons unrelated bias in collecting or taking images. Whereas recruiting and replacing vice directors will always result in another person who could have a chance of being LGBT, someone tomorrow could donate 30,000 images of bacteria. While the next day, someone could upload 20 images taken at a Pride event. It's all quite random. You've concentrated on one keyword "LGBT" and gone looking for that attribute among our database. But sexuality is merely one aspect of the human condition and it would be very easy to pick other aspects that have no representation among our featured pictures and little representation on Commons at all. Indeed, we are weak on all pictures involving people when you think that most photographs taken in the world are of people.

Lastly, the sexuality of our contributors doesn't imply an interest in adding images concerning that sexuality. So even if we have 5% LGBT contributors, they could be interested in taking photos of buildings or birds, just as a Hindu contributor might not photograph any temples or people, but spend their time studying plants. We can't really dictate what people should be interested in, or assume their interest correlate to attributes of their personality or make-up. If a large number of FP contributors want to take great pictures of buildings, then I think we should simply celebrate that they are motivated to donate their free images, rather than be critical that more of them should be photographing LGBT subjects instead, in order to balance things up. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with your thoughts here. What matters is doing more to encourage a wider range of FP quality images that are of interest to as many groups as possible, which in turn will increase the value of Commons as an educational and top notch illustrative resource, including those looking for LGBT related materials. Would you be interested in starting a FPC discussion around this at some point? --Fæ (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean a discussion on generating a wider range of FP topics, rather than a discussion on taking photos for one specific weak area (of which LGBT is merely one of countless examples). If it is just a general prod to ask people to move out their comfort zone and take photos in an area they don't normally, then I'm not sure FP will respond. It is just a hobby and for many their photos represent an area where they are particularly fascinated and expert (such as Jee's insects or JJ Harrions's birds). The high standard at FP means it is unlikely that someone skilled in taking photos of shells is suddenly going to start contributing FP-quality street photos, though there are a few photographers I reckon are talented enough to do well in many areas.

This is more the kind of thing the Photo Challenge was set up for -- to get people out of their comfort zone and photographing things they wouldn't normally photograph. But my aim for that was more about it being a good way to grow and expand one's photo skills while contributing to Commons (without the disappointment that FP's high bar can produce) and to attract and encourage new photographers who aren't at FP level yet. It isn't specifically trying to fill holes in our content, though it is good if a challenge could do that. We did run an LGBT challenge last year, but it wasn't well contributed or voted -- taking great street photos is really really hard and many people aren't comfortable pointing a DSLR at a stranger's face. The challenge does need to be a topic that inspires many people, and produces images that are great at a photographic level so that people feel inclined to spend time judging them. There was pressure from one or two people to run it again this year (complicated by the fact that Pride events seem to take place at different times of the year) which I resisted. I feel there are lots of people/humanity topics we could choose as a challenge and we need to be quite neutral in that rather than pressured by activists. Perhaps it would be more productive to try to attract new photographers who take photos in areas where we are weak, than to expect our existing photographers to change their spots. For example, instead of simply transferring a CC BY-SA Flickr album to Commons, should we not make more effort to get that photographer to join Commons and upload for themselves and participate in our FPC, Photo Challenge, QI, add images to Wikipedia, etc, etc. -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Civility issue on Featured picture candidates. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

--Pine✉ 21:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Livio

There he is again. And what's one of the first things he does? Opposing one of my QIC-nominations (after the nomination was already closed). On september, 5th he wrote that he sold the camera, but obviously he still used it at september 13th. But what did I expect? --Code (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believed that rather dramatic departure. Code, a nomination gets 8 days (as far as I understand it) so yours would close on the 21st. I don't know why C messier put the "result" on the 20th, but I don't think it was technically "closed" when Livio voted. Is it normal to put a "tentative" result on the nomination prior to close? It does look a like Livio was deliberately trying to get it to fail just before the deadline, and especially sad if that happened since Jebulon's oppose was sort of a technical process rather than a vote. Imo, Jebulon should have changed or struck his vote after his reply. Surely there is another way to provoke a discussion than to make an oppose vote -- if there isn't then someone should make one.

If this continues then I suggest you post at Talk QI to see what the community feeling is there. My feeling is the FP forum doesn't want Livioandronico2013 back until he changes his attitude. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right regarding the QI closure process. However, it's quite obvious that Livio's vote on my image was a revenge for my AN/U statement. This was the first and only edit Livio made at all at QIC after his return. And it's also quite clear that his oppose regarding the colours of my picture is referring to my last oppose to one of his pictures. After DXR supported my nomination I didn't look at it again. Seems as if this was exactly what Livio expected. This is making me so angry. Is this a kindergarten? He's destroying the whole project that way. I really hoped he would stay away now. Or at least change his behaviour. But he's behaving exactly like before. Or even worse. --Code (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Livio has demonstrated too many times that he is willing to revenge vote. One or two suspicious votes and it might be difficult to say it was the direct result of another incident somewhere else, but when there is a clear pattern emerging of tactical voting, I don't think there's any doubt anymore. He never opposed any of my FPC nominations either until I said something negative about him, then suddenly I received a flood of them along with a lot of bad faith comments about my motivations and friendship with Colin. Diliff (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a strange thing indeed when an image can pass through FPC without a single oppose vote, yet fail at QIC with 50% oppose votes, given that FPC should really have at least the same expectations of technical quality if not higher. I've never been particularly attracted to QIC's review process though - it's very time consuming given how many images pass through, and not very rewarding as many of the images are a little boring to view. At least (in theory) only the best images make it to FPC and there is less importance on any one vote so if you aren't interested enough to click it, it probably won't matter so much. At QIC, as Livio has just pointed out, one vote has a big impact and can be used as a weapon. Diliff (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the oppose reason was a mirror of yours, this is very much intentional. And I suspect not only a deliberate revenge vote but a deliberately obvious revenge vote. He wants you to be angry/upset. He's saying "So what are you going to do about it?" The "mellow" crowd would expect you to ignore him, not feed him, and accept some of your FP/QI nominations will fail. I would support a full topic ban on QI/FP and also a full block from Commons for a lengthy period. I'm a bit tired that AN:U is toothless, especially if the user just hides under his bridge for a few days till the storm goes away. Perhaps there is an admin who cares about FP/QI? -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest that you open a discussion on COM:AN/U. I sent him a last warning, and I would block him if he does it again. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann. I think I don't want to make a big story out of this, so I don't know if it makes sense to open another COM:AN/U-discussion. --Code (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Constant AN/U discussions are making us look like all we want to do is complain. Other people seem to use AN/U for many trivial squabbles betwen two people, and the admins there seem disinterested in sorting out petty fights. Based on past discussions about Livio there, they see it as just the same as all the others. I think if we do bring it to AN/U again, we'll need to be more organised (more examples of bad behaviour, including diffs ideally?) and more forceful (demanding that admins take the issue seriously instead of blaming FPC for it or remaining silent). I wish we didn't have to be that way, but it's clear that nothing will change unless we actually have some enforcement of rules. Livio must feel like he can get away with it because previous AN/Us have simply told us to ignore him. Diliff (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree and thanks Yann. Both FP and QI can create a topic ban without AN/U involvement. Let's see if Yann's warning is sufficient. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Beyond this instance, building on this dissatisfaction could have some useful outcomes, if it could be expressed as a proposal for something new. A few years ago I created a new dispute resolution process on the English Wikipedia, en:Wikipedia:Third opinion. It stuck as an alternative to expecting admins to intervene, especially for technical cases or for long running disputes that most admins would be put off from examining. Though Commons does not suffer from as many disputes, creating an alternative to the admin noticeboard but which has the benefit of independence and a structured process encouraging parties formally to lay out their case (and hence providing a future case book to reference), could benefit our community. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(outdent), Fæ, reading the 3O page, it seems to suggest that disputes "exclusively about an editor's conduct" are perhaps best dealt with at the admin noticeboard. It also assumes civility/good-faith on both sides, which is rare and rarer still when one party is misbehaving. I can certainly see that for content issues, having an independent 3rd party look at what might be a private dispute hidden in some talk page, could be applied to some content/category issues on Commons. Behavioural issues aren't well handled on Commons, and we don't seem to have much in the way of policy, never mind noticeboards. Many admins seem completely uninterested in such issues, preferring to deal with deletion or some other mop duty, and I don't get the sense many RFAs examine whether the candidate has skills in dispute resolution. Has anyone ever created an RFA suggesting that user-conflict is an area they'd like to help out with? Can't say it sounds an attractive way to spend one's evenings, but then I've never been attracted to adminship either. Given the smaller population on Commons, would such a noticeboard attract enough eyes and enough wise eyes? Getting back to this case, I suspect I should have focused more on getting community view/action within FP (and perhaps QI). After all, if the problem is solely about how a person handles nomination/review rather than disruptively miscategorising or uploading copyright material, then there is scope for them to remain active on Commons without a total block. I agree that some structure to dispute resolution could be helpful. The lack of any process at AN/U was one reason why my previous request wrt Livio was met with several admins just making irrelevant points about FP, or unhelpfuly suggesting that if we were all mellow then the world would be a happier place. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that AN/U has a lack of structure, however it's unlikely to ever be a good place for "Arbcom-like" cases and having a "weakly structured" noticeboard can be a good thing especially in an environment where not everyone has good English comprehension skills. It may be worth checking on the village pump if there is interest in exploring alternative dispute resolution processes (which are less reliant on admin time), even if this mostly borrows a procedure from another project. One aspect that would be worth introducing is where parties in dispute are able to make a full uninterrupted statement without being expected to have a dialogue. Generally I like it when someone neatly summarizes a case with a timeline and diffs, this does not have to be one of the parties... Anyway, sorry for the slight tangent. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Corran Point Lighthouse.jpg

Hello Colin, I noticed some CAs in this image, I added a note. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Christian. I fixed it and uploaded a new one. -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Too bad!

I'm sorry but I shall have to remove your entries to this challenge, which were added after the end of July UTC. –

Too bad! because I do not know how the English language, I did not understand the procidure. Jarekt had me made aware.

Sincerely,
Dominicus Bergsma (Famberhorst).

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:View from Rubha nam Brathairean, Isle of Skye.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Rubha nam Brathairean, Isle of Skye.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice

A thread on COM:ANU has been raised with regard to your behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal note

We have, obviously, argued. I just want to make sure you know... I do not think you are at all a bad faith editor, or that you are 'deliberately' trying to win arguments through debating tactics that reflect some kind of manipulation of opinions. I would, based on everything I have ever seen, strongly oppose any block or ban of your account. I simply think that you are...unwilling is a strong term, but I don't know a better.. to acknowledge that a community opinion outweighs your own, or that a when an admin has expressed their assessment of a consensus that, particularly after they have said you are not providing new evidence, you should appeal it to the community. Commons is not a debating society... admins are bound to follow their 'best judgement', as endorsed by the community, or their understanding of consensus. It's not about being 'always right'... if you give a damn about that, you should not be an admin. I simply think that you, personally, should consider 'consensus' to outweigh 'your opinion'...you should of course argue your opinion, but a failure to agree with you, or to think that consensus agrees with you, is not evidence of bad faith. Revent (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Revent, I'm not entirely clear what particular issues you are referring to. I know we had a lengthy discussion about a DR close. I think perhaps both of us were a bit stubborn during that / failed to communicate, and perhaps shaped by previous issues. I keep thinking most disputes and personal disagreements on Commons would be forgotten about (or not arise) if we were having a friendly chat down the pub, where all the visual and vocal clues about one's intentions and reactions help oil communication rather than having to deal with ASCII characters. Or if we were work colleagues who despite a disagreement about politics, say, know that at 8am tomorrow you still have to face them and get along with them. I was pleasantly surprised to see your name on that ANU close and your willingness to assume good faith, which seemed sorely lacking there. Let's try to draw a line on our previous disagreements. If you have another example on consensus vs my opinion (aside from the DR or Russavia) that you think would be helpful for me to consider, then let me know. Or send me an email if you prefer. Oh, and I'd make a terrible admin, have no intention of applying, and do understand it can be a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" under-appreciated role. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting an LGBT related objection

Please do not remove my objection to the LGBT related personal attack on the village pump. If you want to see my words censored, you can take the issue to AN/U, where I will be only too happy to join the dots to my LGBT related complaint about you, making your actions unwise and verging on harassment again.

@Revent: as a previously interested party.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Enough Fae. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Color profile

Hi, I need your advice about this case: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rose Center for Earth and Space by Frederick Phineas and Sandra Priest, New York, 04003a.jpg. I am confused. Why "sRGB v4 ICC" would not be a valid color profile? Do I need to change it? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See this link. Firefox does not support v4 ICC profiles by default. Not sure about other browsers. Best to stick with v2 I guess. I assume the original file came with that. Hmm, I thought there was a change to MediaWiki recently where sRGB images where thumbnailed using a mini-sRGB profile they got from Facebook. You can replace profiles using EXITTOOL. One sRGB should be fairly interchangeable with another. -- Colin (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak - thanks for your comments about model releases

I understand that you are taking a Wikibreak. Do not let me distract you. You gave excellent comments at meta:Grants_talk:PEG/Wikimedia_New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_release_process_for_photos_and_video#Some_comments. I answered some of your points, and attempted to frame what you said as a series of talking points from which anyone may continue the conversations you started.

Thank you a lot for commenting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Back

I've decided to cut short my break, because it seems the Photo Challenge would die otherwise. About a hundred people would be let down this month, and have nothing to enter next month. It's one part of Commons that seems to have low conflict, encourages positive interaction and attracts new users. But it isn't great for any system to get dependent on one person. So I hope we can find a solution to this in 2016. But in the mean time, I'm back whether you like it or not :-) -- Colin (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I only just learned about the Photo Challenges, and spent the time to vote in the (gigantic) Windows one. So thank you very much for all your work on them. JesseW (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I'm replying to you in this thread to avoid cluttering your page, since the theme is relevant to the Photo Challenge. Good point about voting, don't worry I'll make sure to stress that in our group (what I was more concerned about was whether their participation in a contest would be a possible let-down if they don't win but the psychologist reassured me that they're fine with that). Hope you had a great Christmas too (or are still having! Here Xmas 2015 is over but for the Western Hemisphere it's still Christmas Day!). Looking forward to the January challenge, nice pick of topics. Best from Greece:)--Saintfevrier (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful holidays

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! --Tremonist (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, Tremonist, best wishes to you also! -- Colin (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

		Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2016 !
		Remember: Look sweet... Eat everything... Seek the warmest spots to nap and purr... Try to wait until after to demolish the paper and ornaments... -- Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ellin. Hope you have a great Christmas and New Year too. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hallaca, bollo and hallacon

	A gift of Christmas
	During these Christmas holidays, I wanted to let you take advantage of this delight, I hope you can enjoy them with love. --The Photographer (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, The Photographer. I hope to see you taking some photos in 2016! Have a great year. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope too thanks --The Photographer (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Photo Challenge Translation January 2016

Bonsoir Colin, french and spanish  Done.

Thanks in advance to see this change concerns instructions.--Doalex (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doalex. Ok. Let's see if that works. For the voting pages, I sort the images by when they were uploaded, so it doesn't really matter if they get jumbled on the submission page. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

*** Feliz año! *** 2016! ***

		* * * Feliz Año 2016 ! * * *
		* Feliz Año Nuevor! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! Deseo que este nuevo año venga cargado de bienaventuranza para ti y para los tuyos. Un año nuevo lleno de muchos nuevos retos que yo estoy seguro conseguirás superar. Te he dejado este video, con un mensaje positivo, lleno de esperanza y amor. De mi, un Venezolano que te aprecia. Saludos --The Photographer (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)