User talk:Herbythyme/Arc13

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Down tor circle & row 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 19:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dartmoor

I'm trying to clear Category:Dartmoor of directly included files (putting everything through subcats). Issues so far:

1. Livestock: "wildlife" obviously isn't valid, "agriculture of D" perhaps?
2. A couple specific images: File:Dartmoor.jpg. I don't have a clue which tor that is - do you? If you can identify it please do so...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Got to Steeperton - from Cosdon area I guess? Should have a fair few there :) And yep, agree on that tor - can see its identical to your decent image of it.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sinners towards Avon dam.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 nice landscape in good quality --George Chernilevsky 08:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Huntingdon cross-2 com.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 Nice composition and good in general. --Cayambe 13:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pupers stitch com.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 Great light, good quality and the walking person make it for me. Very nice composition!--Mbz1 18:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Harbourne Head menhir.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 Okay, I'm going to believe the creator that it is just the stone that is leaning :) Very good guality, great value too. I wonder, if you know the origin of the small pool. Is it just a rain water? Thanks.--Mbz1 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG - you are going to stress the bot! :) Very nice photos. Best regards, --Dferg (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Working on the bed of the gave de Pau 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Old Custom House Exeter-3 com.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}}}

:)

Hi,

I as mega addict could only stay away for 2 days :) I would just like to say that you make super pictures lately, if this is what we get from you from now I guess we would have 365 FP by you next year ;)

Btw thanks for the email you sended a while back.

See ya, Huib talk 18:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated & glad you are around.

The course is taking time but also giving some photo opps which I will hope to upload when relevant.

The above are QI of course not FP but you never know :). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sharp Tor

I wonder just how many Sharp tors are in Devon :)...--Nilfanion (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite a lot I would imagine, fairly obvious name for a rock outcrop! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

True! (Though I'm feeling bored enough to have a check now) Incidentally, any idea how to categorise File:O Brook.jpg (and similar shots)? Maybe Geography of D will do.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To me it is certainly a "Rivers of" one as an important source of water for industry & farming etc. There are a number of mine workings up the valley including some that were active early last century and some from considerably earlier. I guess a "views of" in some way covers panos & that sort of thing? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah rivers makes sense. (I'll also add it to South Dartmoor (SSSI) when I create that one). As for the broader subject - "views" works: Can't see how else to categorise File:Dartmoor sheep.jpg.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Early light heron fishing.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  Comment Excellent quality - except for the distorted horizon. Can you fix that? -- H005 18:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC) More info on the distortion? Then maybe I can do something about it - I might even have some more taken at the same time :) Thanks --Herbythyme 19:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Well, first the left end of the horizon is higher on the image than the right end - that shouldn't happen with a sea horizon. Second, it is not straight but having a curve, i.e. in the center its lower than to the left an right. This is probably coming from the automatic perspective correction of the camera, which apparently is working a bit over the top here. -- H005 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Don't you think that it might be an illusion? I am not sure, if a single image taken with a good camera and a good lens could have such problems.--Mbz1 21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC) All fixed now, thanks to those who advised me :) --Herbythyme 14:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC). Excellent now IMO. --Cayambe 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I agree, both issues (tilt and curve) are resolved, good work! -- H005 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)~

Re: Uploads

Fair enough. I'll check them and add relevant ones to the lists - unless you beat me to it. I agree on the military, either "Dartmoor Training Area" or "Military training on Dartmoor" would work as the category. The bit that concerns me is actually the military aspect of it. Category:Military training needs a lot of work, its far too generic to be an appropriate parent and the "by country" subcats don't even exist :(--Nilfanion (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! O Brook.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 OK -- H005 19:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! White moor circle st1.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. --Cayambe 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Scorhill circle st.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  Comment Stitching error on horizon (above large stone to left of centre)--Nilfanion 17:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Sorted --Herbythyme 18:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Fine now.--Nilfanion 19:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Steeperton tor.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 Nice view, good. --Cayambe 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Corfe Castle stitch 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent. --Cayambe 15:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Waverley at Swanage.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  Comment I'd use a different crop: less water, cut off a bit on the left. -- H005 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I hate giving crop advice but I think you are right :). Refresh cache if necessary, amended. I left the red bouy in as I think it ads something! -Herbythyme 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Great, much better now, although personally I'd keep the sky. Rule of thirds is a good advisor here I think. -- H005 16:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Done? :) -Herbythyme 16:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Ah, great now! :-) -- H005 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Corfe castle 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Berthold Werner 11:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

more definition

Good play on words. But it is a good philosophic question as to whether a nett gain in happiness that incidentally decreases happiness for for a few, is good or bad ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Old friends.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 Nice colours. --Cayambe 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Corfe Castle stitch 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice --Rastrojo 13:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Some work for you :-)

Hi. I created Category:Quality Images by Herby for you. Now this cat has to be populated ;-). Regards. Lycaon (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Well I'm no expert ;-) but ... If you were going to offer it for FP as a landscape, or even a picture of a structure, people would probably want it bigger, ie a multi shot panorama with eye boggling detail :-).

It is hard to say whether it is tilted because it is a ruin and one can't quite expect vertical walls to still be vertical. And things lean to the left (main block) and the right (middle tower stump). But what convinces me is the ridge-line and eaves of the building bottom left. If you rotate the whole image 1.6 degrees clockwise it looks better.

The white balance looks a little too red, looks like an evening or maybe early morning shot. Probably only very slightly off.

The overall exposure looks good, no blown highlights or parts lost in shadow. The bright sky perhaps means that the subject looks less bright than it should on a bright, clear day. This is reflected in the colour histogram which has a large bulge representing all that bright sky, and most of the rest of the pixels are towards the underexposed end. That probably contributes to it looking as though it was late afternoon or early evening.

My idea of framing seldom matches that of anybody else. I like the basically centred composition, and can't think of a better one for this basically symmetrical scene. The structure bottom left is a little bit distracting. If you haven't got enough time to wait for it to fall down, or be overgrown by trees, perhaps it could be cloned out or cropped off. Maybe ask someone like Alvesgaspar about alternative framing possibilities.

And of course I would fiddle, a little unsharp mask, a little white balance adjust, a little brightness/curves adjust, a little saturation tweek (for good measure) ... and the result is little different :-). I'm not sure it would be an improvement :-) :-).

A quite attractive image, and I think the possibly slightly incorrect lighting actually gives it a bit more character and mood than the 'corrected' version. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Should have gotten there earlier [1]. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dotty

I have recently been wondering what on earth the dpi figure recorded in EXIF data means. Eg looking at a random image File:Down tor circle & row 1.JPG, it has horizontal and vertical resolution described as 72 dpi. The camera sensor is somewhat smaller than an inch, can't have many pixels ;-). Even if it was describing a 35mm equivalent still not many pixels :-). A suggestion as to how you should print it out? At that resolution it is a suggestion to print it as a 28" high poster. Maybe it is really just an indication that it uses square pixels. I'm sure some reader will relieve me of my ignorance ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I found a thread that says 72 DPI is the number of actual physical pixels in an inch on the original Macintosh screen in 1984. This gave them true WYSIWYG, eg a 12 point font (a point defined as being 1/72th" in size) would show the same size on screen and paper. Strangely enough en:Dots_per_inch has a useful article on the subject :-) --Tony Wills (talk)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Breakwater light.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  Comment Seems to be cw tilted --Berthold Werner 13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC) More info please - I can't see anything discernible --Herbythyme 13:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC) if you look at the left and rigt side of the tower it seems to be tilted to the right, but only a little bit --Mbdortmund 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC) And you can see it at the surface of the sea, it's on the left side somewhat higher. --Berthold Werner 14:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)  Support OK for me. Yann 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC) The tilt at 0.2 degree has been corrected.. --Herbythyme 15:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)  Support --Berthold Werner 08:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chepstow castleS2 stitch.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  Comment I love that castle! There is a crop error at the top right. I would also prefer more perspective correction. --99of9 12:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC) And grrr, talk about an elementary mistake :(. Anyway fixed now (& ironically the track I am listening to at present has the line I really f'cked it up this time in....:). I have improved the perspective too I think. Thanks for your comments --Herbythyme 12:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Definitely good to get the crop fixed. Personally I'd still like more perspective correction - a lot (all?) of the verticals have a leftward tilt. I still love the scene. The clouds are also fantastic, I wondered about slightly lowering the exposure to enhance them? --99of9 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC) hoping to get it done today :) Thanks --Herbythyme 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Good now!--Mbz1 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paignton Pier stitch.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 and useful. With a slight regret for the the 1-2 px wide continuous halo over the trees. Can be removed easily... --Cayambe 15:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

email

From an edit conflict I get the impression you are currently composing a message on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, could you email me before posting? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Hello Herby. Long time no see. Hope everything goes OK. Best regards & nice pictures. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine thanks - you too? Just busy with the course (though some of the results seem ok ;)) and other stuff. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well... yes. I'm a bit busy this days too. :) Best regards, —Dferg ^(disputatio) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dartmouth Lower ferry views-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments description seems to refer to thge other picture, please correct it --Mbdortmund 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC) nope, this is the lower ferry? --Herbythyme 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC) "This is a floating platform which is towed across the driver Dart." shure ? --Mbdortmund 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Ok I will clarify it but this ferry is a platform towed by a boat, the other is self powered. --Herbythyme 06:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Oro2

Hi Herby:

You blocked this account indefinitely in April for abusing multiple accounts; try as I might, I could not find any other accounts which they may have used; I've done checkusers on enwiki and it's come up clean, as has the IP address, and I've consulted the checkuser-l list to see if there is anything related there. As they're an active user on the English Wikipedia as well as the Norwegian Wikipedia, I've gone ahead and unblocked the account, but am perfectly willing to redo it if we can determine a compelling reason. Bastique ^demandez 19:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Herby, I've been pointed to the block of Bonga3 and researched the logs for that date. Same IP number (although checked on different days, so it was hard to find out). I'll reblock with a note. Bastique ^demandez 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If my memory serves me right you might find a clue when comparing deleted contribs of user:Bonga1 and user:Bonga3 with those from this account. As Oro2 the user is doing fairly well at Wikipedia in Norwegian - but if I remember correctly and this is Bonga3 then I gave up on them with regards to imageuploading and respect for copyright after several attempts at making them cooperate. Might be right to give a second chance Commonswise, but that will need very careful monitoring/mentoring if so (and I'm not the one who will be doing either of those ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)How come I didn't get ec on that one... Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kingswear and the Dart s1.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 Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 21:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Royal Naval college-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dartmouth higher ferry-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments not shure, but seems to be tilted ccw, else good --Mbdortmund 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC) If you would care to give me your estimation of tilt and direction I will look at it, personally I would estimate it at less than 0.2 degrees? It seems unlikely the human eye can notice such a tilt? -Herbythyme 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC) shouldn't the grids on the ships be straight? Perhaps I'm wrong... --Mbdortmund 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Well applying a grid at 1:1 the verticals on the ferry are less than 0.1 degree out as far as I can see. The horizontals might be out by fractionally more but if that is corrected the verticals will be wrong. This I guess is explained by the angle of viewing. I could correct that distortion however it doesn't seem a real failing? If that does mean the image fails QI then maybe a lot of the other ones on this page do too? Thanks --Herbythyme 06:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)  Support Maybe slightly tilted, maybe not. Watch the structures in the background, if you turn the image cw, then they will be more slanted than now. For me it's QI. -- Smial 18:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC) warum promotest Du s dann nicht? --Mbdortmund 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC). QI imo. --Cayambe 09:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Yeah, I'll have a look into that and associated pages. The one image I really want to get a hold of/create at the moment is a decent map of the moors - but not entirely sure where to begin. By the way some of your uploads should get used on other projects [2] (same goes for me).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have your talk page watchedlisted, so I can see whenever you get a QI. I try to add them to the corresponding articles, although didn't realise there was an article on Darmtouth Higher Ferry. Jolly Janner (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jolly Janner I appreciate that. Not seen you about much - hope all is good with you. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saddle tor evening.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, perhaps a bit dark in the foreground. --Cayambe 09:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dartington autumns colours-16.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 Great Autumn!--Mbz1 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dartington Hall autumn-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

just dropping by

Hi,

I am just dropping by to ask you how you are :)

All the best, Huib talk 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine thanks Huib. Busy on the course but when that is finished I will have more time. Not sure that I will be ready for the mad house tho :) Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope to be still arround when you return, I getting more and more the feeling that we are reaching the point where its time to say goodbye.

To much dramaz and no fun :(

But I will be happy when you return as active user :)

Huib talk 12:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dart at Salmon leap 2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dart at Salmon leap 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good and useful. --Cayambe 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You were right

Hi Herby, I'd like to tell you that you were absolutely right, when you said that "Edit warring is "plain daft"". It is. I admit it was daft of me to be a part of it. You were right to report me to AN/U. I've been involved in few edit warring before, but that one is different. Now I really learned my lesson, thanks to you, Herby, and I'd like to assure you it is not going to happen ever again. I will try to become as perfect as possible :). I would also like to apologize for everything that followed. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Estrilda

Hello, in November we delayed a final discussion and resolution until December on this matter. You commented in the discussion; welcoming you to return. Let's figure out the best solution. Respectfully, Durova (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)