User talk:JJ Harrison/Archive4: Difference between revisions
JJ Harrison (talk | contribs) |
→White Pelican: new section |
||
| Line 549: | Line 549: | ||
|<center>'''An image created by you has been promoted to [[Wikipedia:Featured picture|featured picture]] status'''</center> Your image, '''[[:File:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg]]''', was nominated on [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]], gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]]. Thank you for your contribution! [[User:Noodle snacks|Noodle snacks]] ([[User talk:Noodle snacks#top|talk]]) 06:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
|<center>'''An image created by you has been promoted to [[Wikipedia:Featured picture|featured picture]] status'''</center> Your image, '''[[:File:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg]]''', was nominated on [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]], gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]]. Thank you for your contribution! [[User:Noodle snacks|Noodle snacks]] ([[User talk:Noodle snacks#top|talk]]) 06:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== White Pelican == |
|||
Forgot to say thanks for the enhancing of the white pelican photo I took :) [[User:Dakoman|Dakoman]] ([[User talk:Dakoman|talk]]) 11:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:55, 6 January 2009
Removal of conversion of utilities from Newline article
Wow, well, maybe your edit was consistent with Wikipedia policy, but removing the conversion utilities made this article about 1000 times less helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.254 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:MLS diffusor.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:MLS diffusor.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Belated welcome
Welcome!
Hello, JJ Harrison, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! WLU 15:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies
I had a cursory glance and couldn't see why a search for "c3a" would need to point to an article called "Cement chemist notation". I'll clean it up now. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had a go at cleaning the formatting; please fix any mistakes I made, I have zero knowledge on the subject. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Rosin Rammler distribution
Hello. Could you address my question at talk:Rosin Rammler distribution? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Eco-cement
I noticed this edit summary: [1]. Have a care. The article I deleted was part of an aggressive spamming campaign which resulted in a lot of aggravation and at least one editor being banned. The new article is fine, but there was no need to be insulting in the edit summary, I did know what I was doing. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I accept the subject can be covered neutrally (I do have some knowledge here, I used to write asphalt plant control systems so have some limited but out of date knowledge of this area) and appreciate your rewrite. No biggie, but please do be on the lookout for spammers and single-purpose accounts; feel free to call the cavalry in case of problems. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
IP Address Image
I've fixed the spelling error now. Thanks! Laïka 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Subwoofer reversion
Thanks for notifying me about your changes. I've replied on the talk page for the article. ww (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Weibull distribution
That was hardly "vandalism" but rather an attempt to add a potentially useful reference by someone with little knowledge of mediawiki editing. Please assume good faith! Qwfp (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
RE:Freebody diagram
Although Normal force is generally represented as coming from the middle of an object, I see where you're coming from. Are you proposing something like this?. If so, I'll make a variant for you, if you'd like. -- penubag (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, when I have time, I'll fix up my picture, thanks for feedback! -- penubag (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Missing image Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Sigma 150mm
Hi Noodle snacks,
First off I highly recommend the 150mm as a macro lens - it really is very good. However butterflies are quite large (on the macro scale) so you may be able to find a cheaper lens without dedicated macro stripes. That said I think in the long run you would be better off with the 150mm as I'm pretty sure once you get a taste for the macro you'll be after more power.
In terms of flashes yes you'll definitely need something, 95% of my macro shots were taken with a flash. I managed for quite a while with a shoe flash (580EX) and they do the job fine. However with shadows that really depends on your ambient light. Even with a softbox you're never going to get a shadowless image (well maybe with an umbrella) if you need to provide a significant amount of light. I'm not familiar with the flash cords so can't give you any advice there. Hope that helps! --Fir0002 11:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
Meadow Pippit April 2008
Wow - thankyou! Really kind of you to fiddle around with the pic. Much appreciated!-- Seahamlass 07:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh no... now someone is asking for a noise reduced version that isn't scaled down... This picture thing is waaaay harder than I thought. I just thought you stuck your pic up, people either supported or opposed, and that was it. It's rather off-putting actually. But I really do appreciate your help!-- Seahamlass 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh - thankyou! (Again)> Should I remove the original version, so they can't see it ... or is it too late now?-- Seahamlass 11:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Headphone Ref
You requested a ref in the balanced armature section of Headphone for the statement, "The design is not mechanically stable; a slight imbalance makes the armature stick to one pole of the magnet." There is no reference for this, but it is a well known, behavior. It would even be obvious to one looking closely at the design. Do you have a big problem with removing that flag? John (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg) |
Hi, I've noticed your name at FPC before, and I was wondering if you could crop out the ISS number at the bottom of the image, please. Cheers, —Sunday Scribe 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! —Sunday Scribe 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Urban exp photos on commens
Hey bro, why are you trying to have my images on commons deleted. I know where the ip comes from. I don't think that having images with graffiti in them is a valid reason for having the image deleted. If graffiti is vandalism and a crime which could possibly put the author of the graffiti in jail, why would they come forward and claim responsibility for it when doing this could possibly lead to their arrest. I know that you recently had an image that was being used in urban exploration that was deleted. This image was a featured picture, well that's what I thought, and I thought that it should have been deleted due to personality rights violation, I now know that this was a mistake. I believe that this images deletion on the grounds of copyright violation deu to graffiti being in it was unjust and I also believe that you should have fought its deletion tooth and nail. If I knew about the deletion earlier on I would have put my two cents worth in. Cheers Adam (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I had nothing to do with it, I am on a dynamic IP. Furthermore my particular IP address at any given time is used by quite a number of people. So I'd call it a Coincidence. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thats ok. It just seemed like a bit of a coincidence. First the revert wars, then the deletion of your picture and then an ip trying to have my images deleted on the same grounds. It was probably once of those losers from the Cave Clan Adam (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 |
Close packing
I see that you recently moved close-packing to close-packing of spheres and then to close-packing of monodisperse spheres. I believe this final title does not conform to the Use the most easily recognized name section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which says "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". I do not think the term "monodisperse spheres" is in common use, neither will it be used as a search term by general readers. May I suggest that you move the article back to either close-packing or close-packing of spheres, and then start a discussion on the article's talk page to see whether there is a consensus for the longer "monodisperse spheres" title ? It would also be a good idea to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to get wider input from Wikipedia users who regularly edit mathematics articles. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Intrigued
You show interest in so many things in your user boxes yet seem to show no interest in identifying yourself as a Tasmanian resident or in the tasmanian project - btw the new Gordon dam piccie is good SatuSuro 11:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The other items on you user page are very very impressive (oh for an eos ) - and if you do have similar of Hobart and adjacent locations - you should make sure you dont have photographs for some of the articles! - you might want to check out the project and portal - (in some contexts consdiered dead as a doornail - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tasmania - but hey - like the strathgordon road - hardly a busy urban highway :) Please do not feel compelled by my admiration of your photos (baby nikons and old pentaxes are my legacy exhausted pixels and jpeg dropout) to even consider your local context as something you have to do - its just that most mainlanders never understand anyways ( I once lived a double life of queenstown/west hobart alternate weeks in the very deep past) SatuSuro 13:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Thanks for the repair
Thanks for fixing my entry Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Tiled roof over the Weolbong Temple bell. I doubt it was a "bug" that caused my problem but rather my inability to decipher the cryptic directions. Obviously, I'm new here and struggling to figure out procedures. Can you tell me what you had to do, or tell me what not to do to avoid creating that problem again? As far as the the picture goes: I see your point on the sharpness issue but was afraid more sharpening would cause too much noise in the sky portion of the picture (is here the place to discuss this?). The "White point": I presume that you are referring to the finial on the peak of the roof? If you don't mind, what could/should be adjusted there and why. I am the "creator" of the picture and I don't know where the "Eric Rolph" came from. I'm going to assume I can correct that without a revert so will attempt to do so. Thank you again for your time and efforts and I appreciate the fact that you corrected my error(s) rather deleting my entire effort. Steve46814 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
Re: Moon
Hehe yeah I took the exact same (1.4 TC and all!) photo myself when I first got my 400mm about 6 months ago! But yeah it is quite impressive the magnification you can achieve --Fir0002 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah wild birds can be tricky and extra zoom would definitely be welcome, but the massive price jump from the 400mm f/5.6 to even the 500mm f/4 (which User:Mdf puts to great use) doesn't really justify it for me. I'm doing Aerospace Engineering/Law at Monash - yourself? --Fir0002 07:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh right - we'll I'm in first year too! But tell me - when are your exams? Coz seems like you've got a lot of spare time whereas I'm busy with revision! --Fir0002 11:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pff, busy is for wimps. Real men walk into exams with a blank mind and it all comes to them in an epiphany ;-) As for Mdf's lens, I just yesterday saw his set up on the bird photography article. Thats certainly an impressive combo. Wish he was more active in the community, it would be interesting to pick his brains a bit. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ahhh, stalkers! I lol'd when MDF's setup was labeled as a "typical bird photography setup" in the article. I do recommend getting a page magnifier (a plastic frensel lens), figuring out the focal length and making a diy better beamer (the thing on MDF's flash). The ability to throw fill flash a reasonable distance is pretty useful for fill when photographing birds in bright sunlight, particularly for birds in flight. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pff, busy is for wimps. Real men walk into exams with a blank mind and it all comes to them in an epiphany ;-) As for Mdf's lens, I just yesterday saw his set up on the bird photography article. Thats certainly an impressive combo. Wish he was more active in the community, it would be interesting to pick his brains a bit. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm dunno - if you were into bird photography you probably would be using a pretty similar rig (i think User:Wwcsig users similar). But yeah I've been meaning to get a better beamer for my 400mm myself - you say you've handmade yours Noodle? Anyways I'd better put myself on a wiki hiatus so I don't keep getting distracted and checking talk pages ;-) --Fir0002 09:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, home made from a page magnifier, part of a cardboard box, four skewers and gaffer tape. Only real downside is its a bit longer than the commercial version to match the focal length of the frensel I found. See this for an online example. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
Canon 70-200mm f/4
Hey Noodle, I want to purchase a macro lens to use for both macro and landscape and animal pictures. I noticed you took some very nice pictures with the lens. Without a teleconvertor, can you take macro pictures. With a teleconvertor, what is the ratio? Having used the lens, would you recommend I buy the lens? Regards. Muhammad(talk) 12:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, sorry for butting my nose in, but just my two cents. Noodle snacks uses not just a teleconverter but a number of extension tubes which allows the lens to focus much closer (but also means the lens cannot focus to infinity when they are connected to the lens). That said, if you don't mind connecting/removing the extension tubes, it might actually be a more flexible set up than a dedicated macro lens. I suppose it depends on whether you value flexibility higher than ease-of-use. I'm not sure how well autofocus works on this lens with the extension tubes, maybe Noodle Snacks can answer that one. And Noodle, no I wasn't stalking, just followed the thread from Fir002's page. Originally the one above and now your page is on the watchlist. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I originally got the 70-200 F4L not knowing what exactly I wanted to do with it. I then proceded to get the teleconverter as birds quickly became my main interest. Supposedly the maximum magnification of the lens without any accessories is around 0.21x, with a 1.4x teleconverter you can get around 0.294x. I did find however that the 70-200 gets a little bit soft around the minimum focus distance, and this is exaggerated with the teleconverter, so it's not a combo i'd recommend for macro purposes. I purchased a kenko extension tube set which gets me to slightly over 1x maximum magnification. High quality results are definately possible with that setup. The only real weakness is that the working distance isn't as good as a dedicated macro lens because maximum magnification is achieved at 70mm and the lens with a stacked set of tubes is 24.5cm long. Generally for insects and the like I just leave the whole set of tubes on there, changing the focal length changes the effective magnification, I usually only have to start removing them if its a fairly big subject. The autofocus works fine with tubes, but like a macro lens it is often more convienient to use manual focus. I would recommend a 70-200 F4L, a set of extension tubes and a flash/softbox over a 70-200 and a macro lens by a long shot. I'd also have a look at the sigma 70-200 F2.8. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. The sigma 70-200 is out of my price range. Seeing the quality of the Sigma 150mm, I think I'll go for that now. I better save and buy the 70-200 f/2.8 later I think, than buying the f4 now. Do you know if the kenko extension tubes work well with macro lenses for greater magnification? Thanks again for the help. Regards, Muhammad(talk) 15:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problems. The sigma 70-200 f2.8 isn't that much more expensive, but I do think its the better buy, offering more low light flexibility and a greater degree of background blur. What is more important than the macro lens/extension tube setup you buy is the lighting, make sure you at least get a flash and a softbox. There is no other good way to freeze the motion at narrow apetures. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. The sigma 70-200 is out of my price range. Seeing the quality of the Sigma 150mm, I think I'll go for that now. I better save and buy the 70-200 f/2.8 later I think, than buying the f4 now. Do you know if the kenko extension tubes work well with macro lenses for greater magnification? Thanks again for the help. Regards, Muhammad(talk) 15:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I did notice the lighting part you mentioned. I think I will go with the 430ex for now, the 580 is a bit expensive. When you say "get the flash off camera", do you mean that the flash is not connected to the camera and is remotely triggered? Thanks for info about the extension tubes. Muhammad(talk) 11:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 |
Various featured picture candidacies
 |
 |
Calander
I am a new user so my apologies if I am not using correctly. I am interested in using one of your shots on a calendar for distribution to charities to sell to raise money for their cause. Would you please contact me regarding this. Susanmaree (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow!
Your photos are amazing! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Confused about date
Hello, I'm a little confused, on your image, (Image:Gordon_Dam.jpg), how is the featured date "month=12" (December) were only in Nov., is it a future featured pic? Sorry I'm not too familiar w/ the how featured pictures are selected. Great pics btw -- GateKeeperX (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 |
Need Your Expertise...
Hi! I am looking for consensus on the image to be used for Barack Obama. I see your name on the FPC page all the time and hope you can weigh in on which photo you think is better by visiting Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus on Image. Obviously this is no FP candidate, but I'd like to get people with some experience in that realm to comment (composition, quality, etc). Spare a minute and help out? Thanks! ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Photographic Masters Guild
|
| Congratulations! You have been selected as one of Wikipedia's Masters of Photography for your outstanding contributions to the project. Please place this award somewhere on your userpage! Also be sure to visit the Photographic Masters' Guild Homepage. There you can find out more about project and utilize the forums etc. As a recipient I would request that you create yourself a profile and add five of your very best images (not necessarily 5 FP's - just five photos you think are your best) to the Guild Gallery. If you don't do this within 14 days of recieving this award I'll assume you'd rather I do it on your behalf. |
| You've certainly made a splash at FPC with an impressive series of successful noms. Well Done! --Fir0002 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
May I please ask for your expert opinion?
Hi Noodle snacks, I'd like to ask for your expert opinion about this image of mine, if of course you have a time: Image:Fata morgana of the sun glitter.jpg. The image was not post processed at all, except cropping, and nothing in the image is a camera artifact.All colors are represented the way they were in reality. I saw everything with my own eyes before I took the image, yet some people believe that there's some artifacts, and that green and red edges came from Chromatic_aberration. May I please ask you, if there's any way to prove that the image correctly represents the scenery from the photography point of view? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Noodle snacks, Thank you for the fast response! May I please make myself clear? I am 100% sure that my image is not CA. In other words for me it is absolutely not a question, if it is CA or it is not. I know it is not. The blue(green) and red colors came not from Refractive indices but rather from green and red rims of the sun magnified by the mirage of sun glitter. I saw everything including the blue (green) colors before I took the image. The only question for me is, if it could be proven maybe not even by physics of the matter (it is not a matter, it is a mirage), but rather from the photography point of view. I know you are a very, very good photographer. That's why I thought you might be the right person to ask the question.Would it help, if I upload original image? I cropped the image only because it is very tilted. I was too excited to see this amazing mirage to think about holding my camera in the right position. Please do tell me, if you have no time.I'll understand. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Urbex image
I've put up both images in the Talk:Urban exploration page so that everyone can discuss and come to a conclusion on which image would be better or a third/fourth image may be better. Brothejr (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
My vote on you photo
I gave an honest opinion on your photo. I was going to vote support until I had a closer look at the image based on other users comments and simply agreed with them. If I can find a way to prove that the background has not been faked or photo shopped I will change to vote support:-Adam (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The photo does look great but possible falls short of being a fp. There may be plenty of people that dissagree with me and vote in favour of your foto. You might get luck with this one eventually. Cheers :-Adam (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for messing with your integrity as a photographer. Fake is not the word I meant, and I hope you'll take me seriously in my apology. I've uploaded a crop of the image highlighting an example of where I'm dissatisfied with the background. Again, I'm sorry. SpencerT♦C 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Geocoding Eritrean photo
I don't know much about geocoding, but see my response on my talk page — Tivedshambo (t/c) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 |
VPC timer glitch
Sorry about the confusion: there was a glitch in the timer template. As I have very unpredictable internet acces at present, I was unable to fix the mistake until now. All sorted now. The project is underway, so feel free to spread the news around and nominat some pictures. Elucidate (light up) 12:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your noms! I've got to go now, but see if you can get some other editors to participate. Thanks, Elucidate (light up) 12:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's great. Your photos make a significant contribution to the encyclopaedia. I'm sure I'll see many more of your images at VPC. Thanks, Elucidate (light up) 13:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 |
Today is a good day to sue
Just thought you might be interested in this. I forgot to mention it when I first got back to London last Friday, but the Metro newspaper (free morning paper, similar to MX in Australia, not sure if they do Hobart tho) ran a science story on the leap second and used your image of the Mount Pleasant Radio Observatory, only cropped and mirrored to face the right instead, and there was no attribution or mention of the licensing. See here. It's a bit frustrating when images are used without any respect for the terms that Wiki's images are licensed under. I don't know if you're particularly concerned but I thought you would at least want to see your image in use on the other side of the world. The instances we can find with simple web searches is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. I've actually started rewording my license terms to be more explicit, as I tend to be contacted regularly to ask what the deal is with licensing, meaning people are confused by it all, and rightly so I suppose. At the moment I'm saying "See license terms. Summary: Attribution is required (to DAVID ILIFF) and use of this image and any subsequent derivatives are required to also be released under the same license - contact me to discuss less restrictive commercial licensing terms.", although it is probably also worth mentioning that as long as these terms are met, you don't need my approval to use the image but under any other conditions, you must first contact me to negotiate the use... anyway, I'm rambling. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
COM:FPC satire
Hey, I loved your satirical page about the com fpc. Sorry the image was not promoted. Muhammad(talk) 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Picture
Hi, I'd like to use one of your pictures, how would you like to be acknowledged? Please send me an email if you want to know more. Knaper (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:D
Just in case you haven't seen this already: [2]. You've gotta wish we poor en:fpc reviewers could rise to the level of the commons people ;)! --Fir0002 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Ferry_loading.jpg){kind=link}
- Oh Muhammad comment above looks interesting - please share a link! --Fir0002 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Focus Stacking
Hey, I am impressed with your images, particularly the one currently at FPC. I tried focus stacking on a few insects and flowers but the there is just to much movement, especially with the flowers. How do you manage to keep them still? What software do you use to stack them? Muhammad(talk) 07:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will have to ask my mum's permission now to use the freezer for the insects. :) Muhammad(talk)
re:Polarisers
Thanks for the advise on Polarisers. I will definitely look into buying one but I may look into spending a couple of grand on a good camera with a decent lens first. I might be getting a cannon 450D or something better. Also if you are into urban exploration you may have a slight interest in some of these pics in this article. Took em today, I actually had no idea that these tunnels were there and how large they were. Nothing special about the pics though. Cheers . Adam (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Re:FPX
I agree. I went ahead and made a template. Here it is. Do you have downsampled any image around 2.2mp for nomination at FPC?:)
Also check this out. A different kind of macro. Muhammad(talk) 13:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
FPC Closures
Hey Noodle snacks, see you've been doing a good job helping keep the FPC closings up to date.
Can I just make one recommendation. You are regularly deleting the break tag {{-}} from the nomination subpage as you close, e.g., this and this. The problem this causes is that the nominations all run in to each other making the archive very hard to follow (depending on how long that nomination is and the structure of the following nom).
Different people do it differently, but I usually replace the <!-- additional votes go above this line --> line with the closing decision, mainly to try to indicate that no further votes are accepted. I think MER-C does the same thing.
Keep up the good work, --jjron (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I take you meant you meant the preview on the subpage - sounds odd. Anyway, looks good now. BTW, it's getting a bit sad when you have to close your own nominations - seems to take some of the fun out of getting that "promoted image" message on your talkpage :-). --jjron (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Watch FPC talk. Someone (but can't imagine who...) will probably complain about it. I was going to close some of yours when I got time, but looking at the archive there's been a few people closing here and there, so I thought someone else would get around to it. --jjron (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, thought it looked like people were avoiding potentially controversial ones, though as you said those ones of yours weren't really. Agree re Strickland Falls, if it's still there next time I'm on I might close it and also some of the others if they're still laying around. May even do the Delist ones, some of them are getting pretty long in the tooth now. And while we're at I spose someone needs to make a decision on that damn Dublin rail map! (I'm not rushing into doing them cos I'm working on a pretty slow connection, so closing can be a bit painful waiting for the various pages to load). --jjron (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yah, turning off the images does speed things up, but makes it tricky to view pages like FPC :-). Also, like with doing closing say, you miss it if you accidentally screw up an image link or something. That's OK, I'm pretty used to the slowness really. Won't do any closing now cos it's getting too late, but I see Wronkiew's jumping in there anyway. --jjron (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Scientific names
Hi. A small (but justified) comment. When you talk about organisms, it is customary, and in the biological world obligatory, to write the scientific names of genera and species in italics. Higher taxa are not italicized. E.g. Hominidae, Homo sapiens. Species names are not capitalized, everything higher is. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Muhammad(talk) 09:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
- Now isn't this more exciting! :-) --jjron (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, have just noticed you've given yourself the wrong promotion template above - you've used the 'Nominator' rather than the 'Creator' template. --jjron (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I may have left that comment on FPC talk after you'd already fixed them. Nonetheless, it's a good reminder to others. Yeah, I always reckon that Creator one should be listed first, because, IMO, that's a higher honour yet you're more likely to see the other one first and use it erroneously. I'm sure they also used to display with different coloured backgrounds, but looking above that doesn't seem to be the case now. BTW, I created my own closing summary a few months ago when I was doing a bit of closing which, IMO, is in a more logical order for copy and pastes etc, and cuts out the guff you don't need after you've done a few. It's slightly out of date now, but I think the only thing that's really changed is the {{missing image}} tag seems to have been changed to {{db-i8}}. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Frozen Pinecone
I have added the variety and description. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
VPC
.jpg) |
Thanks for your contributions! We hope to see you around a lot more at WP:VPC!!! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for White-faced Heron
|
On January 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White-faced Heron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Pamukkale FPC
Could you come back to it? I've added a second original for consideration. Thanks in advance, ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 |
White Pelican
Forgot to say thanks for the enhancing of the white pelican photo I took :) Dakoman (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)