User talk:Rhododendrites/2018d
 | This is an archive of past discussions for the period October 2018 - December 2018. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FP Promotion
 |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Ice planet and antarctic jellyfish.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ice planet and antarctic jellyfish.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
FP Promotion
 |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Dorcus parallelipipedus female.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dorcus parallelipipedus female.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
|
File:Royksopp 2014-09-29 001 (cropped).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
100cellsman (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cosplay at NYCC (60421).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.
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cosplay at NYCC (60431).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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
While you were (probably) sleeping... :-)
I was rummaging through your photos to get an idea about copyrights for photos taken at marches and demonstrations when I saw your fantastic glass photo. Very nicely done! This time it was Colin who had been out covering the big anti-Brexit march in London. First really nice photo. --Cart (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Thanks. :) It was Open House New York last weekend, when a bunch of businesses/organizations open up to the public. The general theme is architecture, but it also means being able to wander around places like this glass studio. There is a tragedy in this picture, though -- he had been working that particular piece for a while, but not long after this shot he was trying to take off the little pinched part. I suppose it wasn't quite pinched enough (or maybe due to several people watching him and taking pictures?), because he hit it hard enough that the whole thing fell to the ground. It didn't shatter or break, but it warped the rest of it sufficiently that it couldn't be salvaged. Gah!
- Copyright is tough. Different, though, given Colin and I are subject to different FOP laws. In the US, if someone has a sign that would itself be considered copyrightable (more than words/basic shapes), and if it were the focal point of the image, I wouldn't upload it (unless I wasn't thinking when I did so). There does seem to be a sense, based on other conversations I've had, that at a protest, where lots of people have signs, de minimis will often apply. For the UK rules, I would figure that picture of Colin's would be a "graphic work".
- My latest copyright conundrum is cosplay. I did quite a bit of research after attending New York Comic Con recently. Didn't bother uploading the full-body costumes that a person would get inside, not resembling clothes whatsoever (like a giant dinosaur). People wearing clothes and a full mask seems doubtful, too, although I think I may have uploaded one or two of those now that I think about it. A partial mask or makeup with clothes and I'm going to say ok, though. We'll see. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 13:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts and advice. Oh well, if it works it works... I'm rather jealous of the 'open house' things you have in both NY and London. No such things here, except for the occasional day at some museum, institution or company at their own initiative. Re Copyright. See you around! --Cart (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ellis Island hospital (01849).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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cosplay at NYCC (60403).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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
a.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ceiling mosaic in the Surrogate's Courthouse (32325)a.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help!
Thank you for all of your help with categories and identification on the photos I've been uploading. I'm not the best at either on a good day and worse when I'm tired. I really do appreciate it! -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sixflashphoto: No problem. And thanks for taking all the pictures! It takes stamina to keep shooting for a few days. I tend to just take a few, and even I then just want to sit back and enjoy the sessions. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 12:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Eldridge Street Synagogue (42773).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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
FP Promotion
a.jpg) |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Brooklyn Glass (32606)a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brooklyn Glass (32606)a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
a.jpg){kind=link}
/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Congratulations!
This one's for you, I would call that a Royal Straight Flush. You even got a Schnobby vote, those are rare, I don't think I've ever managed to get one of those. Have a nice weekend (perhaps with your camera...) --Cart (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- @W.carter: Thanks! Excited to head back to this place tomorrow for a neon class. Will likely have my hands full without taking pictures, though. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 22:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wow! Sounds great! Careful not to burn yourself though. ;) Remember that even crash-and-burn glass tube experiments can make really cool photo subjects with some creative lighting. Have fun! --Cart (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mandarin duck in Central Park (30055).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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mandarin duck in Central Park (30071).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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:People by name
Hi Rhododendrites, thank you for contributing to Wikimedia Commons. Could you in the future add the category "people by name" when you create a category of a person who's not listed on wikidata, like Zack Stuart-Pontier? That way a bot can come along later and make a wikidata entry. There's actually a button on the Category creation page that puts this category and a defaultsort template in. I've written a little script that makes this button better: it attempts to fill the defaultsort template. Vera (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- @1Veertje: I'll try to remember to do that, thanks. Can't say I've seen those prefill options, either. I think when I create new categories I tend to skip the edit screen and use hotcat to create it. Regardless, the prefills look useful. Question: Is this new? I'm fairly sure I don't regularly see "people by name" in categories about people. — Rhododendrites talk | 02:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, this isn't new, it's just that Wikimedia Commons is such a big place. On the English Wikipedia it's easier to enforce the use of the "living people" category because every entry is looked at by multiple people. The buttons are in a real blind spot, especially for experienced editors. So much so that only recently did I remove the option that enticed editors to create old style interwiki links [1], even though I'd brought up how outdated this was in 2016. As you might have seen Pi Bot has been enforcing the use of the "people by name" now that its adding the wikidata Infoboxes. It also created this entry on wikidata after I'd created a category with "people by name" and a year of birth. It seems to have the constraint that a year of birth is required before it makes an entry though. I've been working on a script that hooks up to the list of categories that I've created and then makes entries for those that have the "people by name" category but aren't linked to Wikidata yet. Vera (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Your best shot 2018
Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,
I'm wishing you all the best for the New Year and I hope you're going to have many memorable photo opportunities in 2019. With 2018 coming to an end, it's time to look back at the past 12 months. I'm curious – what would you consider your best shot of 2018 and why? I invite you to share your image and your thoughts in order to provide others with the opportunity to celebrate, learn, and enjoy:
Thanks for all your effort in sharing your vision of the world with others under a free license!
Warmly, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)