User talk:Julia W

Return to "Julia W" page.

Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpgEdit

Hi, Maedin!

Excellent work, however impression that there castle tilted to the right. Little distortion result? Please, correct, if it is possible.


With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi George! Thank you for the nice words, :-) I can see that, on the right-hand side of the image, the building looks tilted to the right, but I think this is only because it is a very old building and it is not all level! The original, single image (not-stitched) shows it the same. I would correct it, but I think it would be wrong to tilt the whole of the image for a single wall that isn't straight in reality. I have, however, employed Diliff to help me with some sharpening and brightening, so the image should be improved overall.
Hope that is all ok! Maedin\talk 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Very good! I promote QI result. A bit more darkly, than the second edition would be better for me. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, George! Maedin\talk 06:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Centaurea macrocephala cropped-2832.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Centaurea macrocephala cropped-2832.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Echinops bannaticus 2-2817.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Echinops bannaticus 2-2817.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Re: FPC closuresEdit

About my mistakes in the closure procedures, well, I´m sorry, I´ll be more careful the next time (perhaps I was too bold, hehehe). Anyway, you mentioned something about nominations that have a fixed voting period, this is the text that appear above the image right? If this is what you meant, then I´m not sure what is wrong, I placed my votes within the time limit, and I´m sure I didn´t place any vote after the accepted period. Or did I do something wrong? - Damërung . -- 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

About another one of the changes that I made back then, I slightly change the closing procedure instructions (in my boldly rampage) to make this look like this (see the bottom) for a better presentation. Do you really think it need consensus, being a so small change that only makes a prettier look? - Damërung . -- 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FP promotionEdit

Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

FP promotionEdit

Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

ThanksEdit

Ajax carrying Achilles

For making this improvement, and sorry to hear you hurt your achilles. I was wondering how you managed to do that hike so fast.... --Slaunger (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kim, it wasn't even much of an improvement to be honest, your change was very good as it was, :-) Thank you for the sympathy, I am very disappointed that I've had to stop, I was having a fantastic time! I have been ordered to keep it rested for two weeks, and the weather is so nice at the same time, :-( At least I managed to do a full week of hiking before I injured it. Maedin\talk 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear that. Surely, you will get another chance some other time. Just read a bit about the trail. Surely looks interesting - and challenging. Have a nice recovery. --Slaunger (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Hi Julie :) and thanks for your support and reassurance on my talk page. I withdrew my own nominations after some great feedback, which I wasn't offended by - it helped me see the faults with the images, which is great for my next shoot. I actually learn a lot from it. It's the comments on the work of other people that are off putting, and borderline rude on some of them. Being a good photographer doesn't have to mean being rude to others IMO. If a person has as much knowledge and expertise as they clearly think they do - they should be helping others, not putting them down [and not even in a polite way]. Im not that sensitive a person really, and I have very thick skin, but I have no time for rude people ;)

Cheers

Julielangford (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Heddon's mouth valley and Peter Rock.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Heddon's mouth valley and Peter Rock.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Forde Abbey entrance.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forde Abbey entrance.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

For Meritous ServiceEdit

For tireless FPC closing

In recognition of your tireless (and often thankless) efforts in ensuring Featured Picture candidates are closed promply and correctly, I award you this Janitorial Services Medal. Wear it with pride, for a job well done. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I really appreciate that, :-) Maedin\talk 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FPCBotEdit

Great that you are reviewing. Just fyi; there was a bug in the bot that tried to close the reviewed candidates again, I reverted those changes and that issue is now fixed for future runs. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Worthy toll gate, Somerset.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Worthy toll gate, Somerset.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Advice?Edit

Hey Maedin, I was wondering if I could ask your advice. I'm planning on nominating one of these (1) (2) pictures at FPC, but I can't choose between them. Which one would you recommend? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a tough one, they are both very good! Mila has produced some great work. I think the second one may be a slight improvement over the first, although I do think the second one needs a slight brightness adjustment, as it seems slightly underexposed. The problem with the first one, I think, is that the saturation appears to have been boosted; it's hard to tell, of course, but it just looks slightly unnatural. On the other hand, they were taken in an "other-worldly" location, ;-) Sorry if that wasn't as helpful as you'd hoped, but I'm having trouble splitting the difference between them, too! Maedin\talk 19:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that's just the sort of advice I was after. I'll do a little experimenting, and see what happens. Thanks! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Wheatham Combe 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wheatham Combe 2.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Red Arrows' kissEdit

Hello, and thank you very much for your offer. I guess that if I couldn't do it properly the first time i tried, I'd also fail now, and again, and again. I've uploaded the photo in a state in which it appears on the camera's memory card, you will find it here. Any other comments about any of our other photos will also be welcome, we're doing our best to improve with each air show :) Thank you again. Airwolf (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for showing me the unedited version. I will go through and remove all of the dust spots, and then you can crop it as you wish, :-) Cloning dust spots is not too difficult, I can try to show you some time, if you wish. Maedin\talk 10:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I uploaded a clone-stamped version on top of the original, File:Red Arrows mid-air kiss, Radom 2009.JPG. Hope it's ok! Maedin\talk 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. And what do you think about the colours? I changed them a bit in the picture you saw as QIC so as to make the smoke more lively - do you think it's better that way? Airwolf (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! As for the colours . . . hmmmmm. Maybe it's just my taste, but I think this one is brightened too much. The sky seems washed out, but the planes were turned very dark. It was hard to tell that the planes are actually red and blue! Here is another edit I've done. I prefer this crop because it gives some context and interest. The clouds and the tree line at the bottom are nice, in my opinion. I upped the contrast and the vibrance to help bring out the contrails (such great colours!). As you can see, when you zoom in, it is still easy to see that the planes are red and blue. I also did a light de-noise. Overall, I hope it's an improvement, feel free to work from that and improve or crop or whatever. I made a mistake in the file name (it has File:File-), sorry about that! Maedin\talk 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Bildtankstelle 1 029.jpg
I won't argue with a lady :) And what is more, I won't argue with the facts. Whether you get rid of the trees or not is just a question of what you want to show, but as far as the colours are concerned, there's no doubt that yours is the better version. I dont think I'm going to improve anything now; such "improvements" would only spoil the photo. Thank you again, and here, have a bouquet of roses for all your kind help :) Airwolf (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Awww, thank you very much! That's very sweet, :-) I'm glad I could help. I like many of your other photos, particularly ones of formations; flying planes look so graceful! I think some of them could be FP, this one I really like, and the kissing one. My best advice at the moment is: you need to clean your sensor! Lots of dust spots, ;-) Maedin\talk 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we've noticed :) Unfortunately, after the Red Arrows' show, not before... Airwolf (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Julia W!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Su-27Edit

It's me again. I've overwritten the "bad" image with the original that you can work on in your free time. By the way, as for this image, you might want to take a look at this. Airwolf (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All done! Meticulously cleaned by yours truly, :-) I would go back to the QI nom and promote it now, but technically I shouldn't as I made the edit. You should probably just nominate it again, sorry about that! I made a comment at the POTD page. If one of the ones with funky cloning or dust spots gets chosen for POTD, you can let me know, if you like, and I'll do what I can, :-) Maedin\talk 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
So I have done, and I've uploaded a cropped version so that the photo doesn't seem so empty now. I'm sure George or another of the frequent QIC visitors will put a green frame there. Thank you for your support, too. In fact, I was thinking that this photo would be good for POTD. It's rather dynamic, I believe, and for this context a photo in flight would be more suitable. Unless, o course you think that one of the pictures on the ground is significantly better. (Dust spots? The original pics are waiting for your kind attention, if any of it is needed :) ). Airwolf (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a really tough call. I really like the in-flight one I've just worked on, and yet, in the on-ground pics, you can see the pilots in the cockpit. Which, apart from being quite sad and making me feel bad for these unfortunate men, would be a "nice touch" (forgive the positive phraseology). On the other hand, the in-flight pic is more dynamic, as you say, and the on-ground pic has some distracting elements, especially near the nose of the aircraft. Sure we can't have both on the main page!? Sorry, I can't decide between the two. You should know better than to ask a girl to make up her mind, :D Maedin\talk 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I always thought that girls have better aesthetic taste than men (this is aesthetic for a man...). As for the photos on the ground, we could always take the risk of removing the advertisments. But still, in the in-flight photo you can still see the heads of the pilots. Airwolf (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Me again...Edit

Apparently I've underestimated the formation photos of the Red Arrows so I've uploaded a few more into Category:Radom Air Show 2009. Guess, what they have in common. Right, dustspots. Thus I would be extremely grateful I you could take a look at them, see if any would qualify for QI (I'm sure some of them would) or FP (maybe...) and if yes, could you please try to fix my mistake of not cleaning the lens and sensor before the show? :) If a picture is bad in itself, don't bother doing anything about it when there are better ones. Airwolf (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello you again, :-) I love this, this, and this. I'd support all three at FP! I shall have a polish of several from the category when I get home, can't help much while I'm at work, :-) Maedin\talk 12:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
And this one, pretty please. You will easily see what's wrong - and this is something I ought to be able to deal with myself. But I'd rather not... Airwolf (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, of course. Don't you enjoy cloning out dust spots? lol I don't blame you, :-) Maedin\talk 13:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I would enjoy it if I were better at it. Not that I'm very eager to learn... :) Airwolf (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel needs doing. I have full trust in your skills and tastes. Airwolf (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, :-) Maedin\talk 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
And this picture, don't you think there is too little contrast here? Airwolf (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Hopefully better now. Maedin\talk 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If you could please have a look here. The uppermost spot could be a dustspot, but the lower one? To me it looks like a bird. Airwolf (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, a bird (even a white one) wouldn't actually show up as white at that distance? I thought it would be more of a black dot, :-/ Could be a reflection of something. I would remove it though, if I were you. Shall I take care of it tonight? Maedin\talk 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thou shalt take care Smile Airwolf (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thine edit hath been taken careth of, :) Maedin\talk 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thou art phenomenal :) Airwolf (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Awwww, thank you, :) <blushes> Maedin\talk 09:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Jacobaea vulgaris-3235.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jacobaea vulgaris-3235.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Sorbus aria-3420.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sorbus aria-3420.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

FP PromotionEdit

Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 2009.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Me again..." yet againEdit

A few more weeks and you won't want to talk to me anymore... Nevertheless, "for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Commons", could you please take a look at the following photos? Some of them are in need of a competent photoeditor's help, others might need it but not necesarily.

I know it's really a lot so I'm ready to wait a very long time. Do whatever you want to them (crop them, if you want and feel it's a good idea), you're a lot better than the two of us. Airwolf (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry I didn't get to more of the Radon airshow photos, I got distracted and then forgot to go back to clean more dust spots! Second, I don't think I'll get tired of talking to you, ;-) I'm glad you have a good excuse to come to my talk page!
I'll have a look through the ones you've listed and see what I can do . . . but I'm not a very good photo editor, so no miracles! Maedin\talk 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's be honest, you're a lot better than me. I can't say how grateful I am (we - the two of us who took the photos, my firend and me - both are) for your help. Airwolf (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
PS You spell it Radom. And in two years the Air Show will probably be held in Poznań.
Oh, Radom. Eeeeep. Sorry! Maedin\talk 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be of some interest to you that we've finally managed to solve the POTD problem. Airwolf (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Pleased to hear that! I've always found POTD to be a bit of a black art, :-/ The glitch that came with the recent software changes means that I can't upload new versions of files. I'm assuming that, for the small changes I will be making, you don't want new files, so your list above will need to wait until the developers sort out the bug. I hope that's ok :-) Maedin\talk 14:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way. A new bouquet of roses would be a bit dull, so I did this instead. I hope you don't mind :) Airwolf (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Awww, thank you very much, Łukasz! A very thoughtful gesture, Smile Maedin\talk 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's working. Yann uploaded a new version of File:An-2 Góraszka.JPG. Airwolf (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's only non-administrators having the problem, so it wouldn't affect Yann. I will have another try tonight, though, it has been a few days. Maedin\talk 12:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think they've fixed it now. Airwolf (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
So it would seem, :) Thanks! Maedin\talk 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, if you think anny of the pics need a crop, feel free to do it. Airwolf (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

All finished. I didn't do much cropping . . . I tend to shy away from tight-ish crops, and I have a bit of a thing for sky and clouds. You said the sky seemed unnatural on this one, like a blue screen. It was just the white balance, too cool and too much blue. I made it warmer and the sky and the yellow were fixed, voilà. Thinking about it, I could possibly alter it further, if you think it is still too blue. Do you shoot in RAW? RAW can be manipulated more than jpgs and without such loss of quality. If you don't, consider it, because it can rescue many shots that you think are write-offs and makes the white balance easier to change. Hope you're ok with my edits, :) Maedin\talk 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? You did a great job. As always. Airwolf (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PatrollerEdit

I have W granted patroller rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use patrol correctly by using it for its intended usage. For information on patrol, see this page. If you do not want to be a patroller anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Huib talk 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Maedin\talk 08:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: UpdatesEdit

I love you. Well, in a sense... Smile Wolf (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm so pleased you like them, :p Maedin\talk 07:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
And you think you could do something about Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPG? Like extending the sky in front (above) the plane? Rotating it a little bit? This said, there is one more picture which is being criticized for too tight a composition: pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje/Airbus 320-200. Extending the sky with Photoshop shouldn't be too difficult, should it? The guy also said the sky is too dark, but I sort of like it this way, it's very contrastive. Wolf (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Referring to the above: File:Piper Cub Góraszka.JPG - dustspots, those should not be a problem. But there's a bigger one. Do take a look: pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje/Ursus C-451. It's already been opposed due to lack of space under the vehicle. You think we could do something about it? Or maybe you think it's bullshit and you've got logical arguments to support it. Wolf (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of de-noising and also giving File:Piper Cub Góraszka.JPG a brighten. Dust spots are gone, :) As for pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje/Ursus C-451, piffle! I think the crop is absolutely fine, and there is plenty of space at the bottom. From what I could gather at the nomination, it isn't so much about there being too little space at the bottom, but about the bottom crop not balancing the top. My only comments there is that it's natural to have more headroom than foot-room, and that if all crops were perfectly square, everything would be so eternally boring, ;-) I took the liberty of checking my opinion on the picture with Diliff, and he agreed that the crop is fine. I can't offer anything more definitive, but if Diliff thinks it's okay, then it probably is! ;-)
As for these two, File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPG and File:Airbus 320-200 Wizz Air 2.JPG . . .hmmm. I've told you before, I'm not a very good photo editor, and my Photoshop skills are very basic! But I can try; I know it's possible, I'm just not sure how well I can do it for you. Maedin\talk 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
As for adding more sky, this is doable for sure. It can even be done in Microsoft Paint :) But then the quality will suffer if I use such a lousy program. As for the Ursus, OK, if the two of you say so, I'll leave it be. Wolf (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. You can forget about the Sukhoi if you want to, the Airbus is more important. :)
Take a look at the Airbus now. Wolf (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I know you're very busy, I've found a different photoeditor to abuse while you're away :) But don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you :) Wolf (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the Bell. I bet you're fed up with me... Smile Wolf (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Łukasz, not at all! It was my pleasure, and I was happy to see your nomination there, :-) I tried to brighten the picture, as well, and would have uploaded it as an alternative for the nomination, but it didn't turn out very good, so I decided to leave it. Sorry for not answering your previous message! Maedin\talk 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Belgian_F-16_Radom.JPG - tell me please, what do you think of the corrections made here? Wolf (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Too much de-noising, I think. It's given it a bit of a sheen. The change in the sky colour is okay, though I think a brightening overall would have been better, to keep the shade and just make it lighter. I'd have tried to bring out some detail/lift the shadows on the aircraft. Overall, though, I think it's fine, apart from the de-noising. Is that at all helpful? My disclaimer is that I'm viewing the pics at work, though, and my monitor is rubbish here. I did peek at the nomination yesterday, btw, but it had already closed by then, sorry, :( Maedin\talk 13:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I've talked with JC and he appears to agree with me that in these circumstances (the voting was stalled as the image was being modified) a re-nomination would not be that much of a crime. Nevertheless, since I'm going to do it, I just wanted to find out whether you had any better ideas about what could be done. Wolf (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Whew, that was fast, ;-) I think a re-nomination is worthwhile, and it deserves it. As for better ideas, perhaps mine are just different but not necessarily better. I would have done it differently and more modestly, that's all. When I get home I'll make the changes I'd have made and email it to you, is that okay? By the way, I hope I'm not being rude, but are you sure that your new editor is saving at a high quality level? Just looking at the history of the F-16 pic, it's lost nearly 1MB in file size. Maedin\talk 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

F-16Edit

Is there something with my eyes or is there a dustspot on the "cleaned, denoised & brightened" F-16? Uper right corner. After al those dustspots I'm starting to think I'm seeeing things... Wolf (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did some cloning and hopefully removed it! I could just about make out what could have been a spot, :-) Maedin\talk 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thou still art phenomenal Smile When you have some time, File:Red Bull Cobra Góraszka 7.JPG has just one, but ugly spot at the bottom, and since it's on a cloud, there's no way I could do it myself. And since I want to make it an FPC at pl.wiki... You know :) Wolf (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) PS Any luck at finding more Polish food? :)

It has more than one dust spot . . . and there is one next to a rotor which will be trickier than usual. I'll see what I can do!
No breads, I am sorry to report, though I've found a particular ham that goes very well with the cheese! Maedin\talk 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Nobody else wants to talk with you here? :) You might be interested in Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belgian F-16 Radom cleaned denoised brightened.jpg. Wolf (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Long time!Edit

Hi Maedin! I haven't heard from you for a very long time. Are you still okay? I've started to contribute here on Commons as well. Do you remember those images I've sent you? I've uploaded them as a start. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 08:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Lourie, I'm so pleased that you're uploading your pictures! You should see how they do at the Quality images part of the project, I am sure they would be successful. Oh, and how did your farewell pictures turn out? I know I haven't been on IRC in ages, I haven't had very much time recently. I'm moving house in two days and studying physics has fried my brain . . . I know, I know, it's what you're good at, but I'm rubbish with physics, ;-) I'll pop into IRC soon and catch up! Maedin\talk 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I am busy checking the quality section out. I am still new to Commons, so I don't really know how the stuff is working. I would like to contribute a little more to commons, because I like pictures, and one gets fed up for Wikipedia. The farewell pictures was about two months late, but it was worth the while. We have got a professional photographer, so it looks pretty good. Yes, I've seen that you are not a lot on IRC. I just see every now and then that you have suspended someone's access! I just read the studying physics part, so I immediately though: WOW! Then I have seen that you are having trouble with it. It would be nice to chat sometime again. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 17:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, it isn't even difficult physics! And I wouldn't say I've struggled, I just haven't enjoyed it very much; my "fried brain" comment was tongue-in-cheek, :-) Fortunately, it was only a short foundation physics course, and I've moved onto chemistry, which I far prefer. I have yet to get my physics assignment returned to me, so fingers crossed for good marks. Hope you had a lovely Christmas, Lourie. Maedin\talk 20:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understood it that way. Maybe it just didn't seem that I did! :) But I believe that you would do well. A lot of times women rather prefer chemistry than physics. My Christmas was pretty nice, but I must be going. I've just came here to check the images, I need to get into bed! Maybe we could chat tomorrow? Good night! LouriePieterse 21:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination?Edit

Hey Maedin, whilst trawling through the Quality Images section, seeking new pictures to add to my 'to nominate list', I happened across this picture, which I saw from the links at the bottom is a part of your diliff gallery. I was going to nominate if for FP on commons; would you be interested I doing a co-nomination? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya! Yes, I'd love to co-nominate that one with you; it's been on my "list" for ages. The problem is that there are several stitching errors on the columns. I asked Diliff several months ago to revisit his RAW files for that one and try to fix it, but at the same time I asked him to do loads of other ones so I'm not surprised that he didn't get around to it! I'll pester him again when he gets back and if he can fix it, I'll give you a nudge, okay? Thanks for thinking of me for the nom, btw, :-) Maedin\talk 16:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
No problems. I think you should start nominating more of Mr Illif's work. He has some amazing stuff there; in particular File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg and File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England - April 2009.jpg, spring to mind. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality imagesEdit

I've added three images. Let now just hope for the best... :| LouriePieterse 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! Hopefully they'll do well, :-) Maedin\talk 20:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought to quickly come see how the pictures did, just before I went to bed. Seems like the dog made it! LouriePieterse 21:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Your photosEdit

Hello. I just saw your photos you uploaded in Commons in Flickr and, I must admit that, most of them are very very good! So, why do you think that your photos are "rubbish"? --Patriot8790 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you, that's very kind of you, :)
I have two very poor quality lenses, and it's hard to get good results with them. Most of my photographs turn out unsharp and with quite a lot of chromatic aberration, and if they aren't suffering from that, then it's a good bet they'll be noisy instead. Apart from that, I also just don't have much photographer's skill, though I am working on it. The ones you see are the ones I got somewhat lucky with; I have thousands of failed attempts that don't make it on Commons! Even then I sometimes upload poorer ones for the "benefit" of the encyclopaedia. I appreciate your comment, thank you for taking the time to say hi, :-) Maedin\talk 21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Try taking photos of airplanes, it's a good way to practise. Really, it is. Especially when you're on the ground, not like those US Air Force cheats who take pics from other planes flying at the same speed. Wolf (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have enough trouble with stationary objects, ;-) It will be awhile before I graduate to aircraft! Maedin\talk 08:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly what you should not do. Start with what's really difficult. Wolf (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I diedEdit

I laughed myself to death. Try to find the reason. Wolf (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it have something to do with the nom? Maedin\talk 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, with the Zlins and the Stearman. Wolf (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, and here I thought you were making fun of my nom, the timing was right, I'd only just done it. That is indeed funnier! Maedin\talk 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that one's fine, though the angle is awkward. But really, this guy freaked me out. For a moment I thought I was in some parallel universe or something. Wolf (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your picture Burrow Mump.JPG is now a featured picture.Edit

Congratulations! Your picture Burrow Mump.JPG is now a featured picture. --Patriot8790 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

FP PromotionEdit

Gaura lindheimeri Whirling Butterflies.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Gaura lindheimeri Whirling Butterflies.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gaura lindheimeri Whirling Butterflies.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling edits (COM:CVU)Edit

Hi Maedin,

In case you've missed it, since yesterday the patrolling functinality has been enabled for all edits, no longer just for page creations. This enables us to track, for example, anonymous edits on Commons. I'd like to invite you to check out the Anonymous edits list and maybe patrol part of a day. See also the updated Commons:Patrol.
If you have any questions please leave message on the CVU talkpage, my talkpage or on IRC. -- Krinkletalk 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Burrow Mump.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Burrow Mump.JPG, which was produced or nominated 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.

FP PromotionEdit

Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

FP promotionEdit

Mycena interrupta.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

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

Cscr-featured.svg

-- George Chernilevsky talk 10:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

HiyaEdit

File:Kecskemet_2010_Breitling_photo_47.jpg You like? :) Wolf (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Stonehenge from north, August 2010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stonehenge from north, August 2010.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

South west tower of St Paul's Cathedral.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! South west tower of St Paul's Cathedral.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Eiffel Tower from northwest, August 2010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eiffel Tower from northwest, August 2010.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois belfry, Paris, Aug 2010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois belfry, Paris, Aug 2010.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Palais Saint-Georges, Rennes, Aug 2010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palais Saint-Georges, Rennes, Aug 2010.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

TUSC token aa6f4ab889a464aa7fdcc005a8a9c64bEdit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Hôtel de Blossac - Fronton du corps côté jardin.jpgEdit

Hi !

Thank you for the upgrading of the licence, the descriptions and everything on this file. I'm not very comfortable with all these things.

The original picture is used on French Wikipedia, for the (future ?) featured article on the hôtel de Blossac. If you have any others great pictures of this building, I'm very interested ! Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg

Thank you again ! Trizek Blah 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Trizek, I answered at your French talk page: fr:User talk:Trizek#RE: File:Hôtel de Blossac - Fronton du corps côté jardin.jpg ([1]). Maedin\talk 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I've seen it ! I'll try to take some others pictures as pleasant as yours. And please don't apologize for your French : you've read my bad English ! =D Trizek here or on fr:wp 12:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Southwark Bridge, from Millennium Bridge, Aug 2010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Southwark Bridge, from Millennium Bridge, Aug 2010.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

FP PromotionEdit

Eiffel Tower from north Avenue de New York, Aug 2010.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Eiffel Tower from north Avenue de New York, Aug 2010.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower from north Avenue de New York, Aug 2010.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

EcorchéEdit

Hi Maedin.

As I (almost) never visit english WP, I didn't know that my "écorché" was nominated by you in the EnWP FPC page. Jujutacular informs me that it is now featured, I'm very proud of this, and I would like to thank you for this nomination.
It is really far from perfection, because of my lack of experience, and because of the circumstances you know (very small and old museum, no distance, glasses reflections etc...), but I finded the subject amazing, and I tried something, to share this strange old "thing" with others.
Then, again, thanks for nomination, and through you, thanks for all the support votes.
Kind regards from Paris, --Jebulon (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Jebulon, :) Finally responded here! Maedin\talk 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Meet our diceros bicornisEdit

Hello Maedin.
Me back!
Thank you very much for the information about the promotion of my black rhino's skull as FP in english wikipedia! It is an honor, for the second time, even if I'm not a great fan of picture contests in national wikipedias as you know maybe. I think it is a bit confusing with the FP in Commons, which is more international. However, I'm very proud of this new award, and I'm very grateful to you and all the reviewers.
Per above, I didn't know that this old rhino was on review in ENWP, and this promotion is a very good surprise.
I know the Meet our photographers category, but I think that i'm not a good enough photographer to deserve to be a member of this prestigious Company. Did you really compare their galleries and my own gallery ? I am very lower in quality, IMO. If somebody wants to find my pictures in Commons, I guess it is easy enough, no really need of the advertisement of the Meet Team.
but one day, maybe, in the future ? Who knows ?
Never say 'never'.
Many thanks again, see you soon through new pictures !
From Paris, very friendly. --Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maedin.
Thanks for message, I'm always happy to read news from you.
Maybe you are right regarding the Meet our photography Company, I'll think about. You have a very kind opinion of my work, thank you.
I totally agree with you: Commons FPC gives too much place to "wow" and "I like it", and not enough to encyclopedical value. I'm fighting against that, and for this, from inside. As I'm not an english native speaker, I think that enwp is too... "english speaking" for me, I (almost) never go there. And there are not photo evaluations in frwp. My opinion is that in the wikimedia project, WP in general is for text, encyclopedic litteral contains, and "Commons" for (all kinds of) illustrations, a "repository" for the benefit of all the wikipedias, and an autonomous and independent media-databank too.
But please, if you like my picture, continue to submit, even in enwp !! I try to keep my mind open.
You can see that my english is very poor, I'm sorry for that. Aber ich kann auch die deutsche Sprache verstehen und ein bisschen schreiben, ohne Fehler, (umgefähr !). Kein Problem für mich wenn Du Deutsch schreiben möchtest...
But you know what ? French is far much elegant Clin
Bis bald ! A bientôt !--Jebulon (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Bulbinella elegans, Hantam NBG, August 2011.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bulbinella elegans, Hantam NBG, August 2011.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Pelargonium capitatum, inflorescence.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pelargonium capitatum, inflorescence.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Playful girl on a False Bay beach.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Playful girl on a False Bay beach.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Knersvlakte from Vanrhyns Pass, Nieuwoudtville.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Knersvlakte from Vanrhyns Pass, Nieuwoudtville.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Goegap Nature Reserve landscape.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Goegap Nature Reserve landscape.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Sarcocaulon crassicaule.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sarcocaulon crassicaule.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Monwabisi Beach Resort, False Bay.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monwabisi Beach Resort, False Bay.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

changes to assessments template: enwiki-nomEdit

If you're going to change the assessments template on so many files, and specifically the enwiki part, why not use the simpler parameter "ennom=" instead of "enwiki-nom="? I often add the assessments template to files for English Wikipedia featured pictures, and always use the ennom shortened syntax. Julia\talk 22:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I merely removed the resplendent references to "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/" which is handled in the template end. Not all templates had this. In fact vast majority did not directly link to the enwiki FPC page.
"ennom" parameter was the secondary parameter for the value with primary parameter being "subpage" both were superseded by "enwiki-nom=". ennom is confusing because it doesn't explicitly specify the source. subpage links were like-wise confusing. This change happened last week or prior. Changes were part of the massive {{Assessments}} overhaul that repaired many of the broken aspects of it.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I hadn't realised that enwiki-nom superseded ennom. Thought all this time that ennom was preferred. Oops. Julia\talk 09:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You are not at fault. The template was quite messy and documentation was far from being accurate. It should all be better now. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 09:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Rhuddlan Castle, May 2012.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rhuddlan Castle, May 2012.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Thank youEdit

Thanks for the discrete and nice work you have been doing in linking our FP to their nomination pages! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to know it's appreciated, :) Only a few hundred more to go... Julia\talk 12:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Recently I struggled, with no success, with the redirect of a commons nomination to an alternative version. I can't remember the picture but maybe you can give me some general advice. One of the problems was to find the right initials for Commons in the Assessments template: "comwiki-nom=" ? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It is com-nom=example.jpg. However, this only works if "File:" is not included in the parameter. If you happen to be trying to link to a nomination page titled Image:example.jpg, it simply won't work (or at least, I've not got it to work yet!). Julia\talk 12:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Psathyrella ammophila.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Psathyrella ammophila.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Scelophysa trimeni.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Scelophysa trimeni.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

BarnstarEdit

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
In appreciation of this beautiful photo and all the others you've contributed. INeverCry 00:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Oooh, great, thank you!  :) Julia\talk 12:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

image useEdit

Dear Julia, I am currently doing the layout of a Schoolbook for french in Austria and would like to use your picture from a metro sign there. Your name would be mentionned as the author of course.

Greetings from Austria,

Hadwig Soyoye-Rothschädl soyoye@freiraum-landschaft.com

:en:FPCEdit

Hi Julia o/,

First of all, thank you for writing, you are very kind lovely. So yeah, I've been working lately on getting good pictures, I have visited forests days away from civilization and I've been in altitudes over 5000 meters above the sea level. Taking pictures is one of my passions, throw like paragliding and climbing, I hope to travel to the remotest parts of the Amazon soon. For me, it is a great pleasure, a user like you, with so much level contributions and receive this compliment.

I hope you can apply for a scholarship for the next Wikimania and so I share ideas with you. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A cat for uEdit

This cat needs lowering, I leave to your care, the cat needs to eat healthy

--Wilfredor (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome backEdit

Welcome back, Julie!

After all, I realize that you have been around for some time! But I haven't noticed, maybe because you changed your username. Now for this bee shot. I'm afraid it doesn't have a chance at FPC, hélas! The main problem is the overall unsharpness, mainly due to the shallow dof. A different issue is the harsh sun lighting, causing all those ugly reflections and affecting the detail. Lighting is indeed the most difficult problem in macro, especially when our subjects and alive and nervous! One way around is to shoot the beasts in early morning (a terrible sin for me), use long exposure and, even better, focus brackteing. But that is for experts like Richard! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It was very windy that day, which affected all of my attempts - obviously including this one! I thought the specular highlights might also be a problem - African sun is terrible for it. Thank you very much for sharing your opinion, and for the welcome! I appreciate it.  :) Abraços, Julia\talk 15:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpgEdit

Hi Julia, do you noticed that this file is still in a dispute at [2] and [3]; so it may be better editing it later. JKadavoor Jee 14:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I had no idea that discussion was on-going about this image. Thanks for letting me know about it. I don't feel that it was incorrect to make the edit though. It's been protected so I can't remove my edit now. Julia\talk 21:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It's OK; my only intention was to inform that matter. JKadavoor Jee 14:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured Picture Removal Candidate NotificationEdit

FPCandiateicon2.svg

Hello. The featured picture Burrow Mump.JPG, which was produced, uploaded, or nominated by you, has been nominated for delisting and/or replacement. Please view that page to vote or comment on the discussion. — TintoMeches, 22:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've voted. Julia\talk 08:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Cape honey beeEdit

Hi Julia. I am writing a book on beekeeping in Australia and am including a chapter on bees that are found outside of Australia. I plan to include an entry on the Cape Honey Bee and would like to use your excellent photograph in my book. Can you let me know if you are OK with this. I will of course fully attribute the photograph to yourself.

Thanks in advance

Robert robert at owen.org.au Melbourne

Hi Robert, of course I'm happy for you to use my photo in the book. I've sent you an email with more details - please check your spam/junk folder in case it gets filtered. Julia\talk 21:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Julia W,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Quality Image PromotionEdit

South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

That's a beautiful picture; congratulations on receiving Quality Image status, and thanks for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! odder (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It's also Commons' best picture of Lyme Park (well, there is some competition from this picture. Could I persuade you to nominate one or other as a Valued image? Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Curfew Tower, Windsor Castle.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Curfew Tower, Windsor Castle.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.



العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Julia W,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Tallinn Town Hall Square, 2013.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tallinn Town Hall Square, 2013.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Re: your image of the false turkey tail, File:False turkey-tail - Golden curtain crust - Stereum ostrea - 02.jpgEdit

Hi Norbert! On the English Wikipedia we recently promoted one of your images and it is now a featured picture. Here's the pic: File:False turkey-tail - Golden curtain crust - Stereum ostrea - 02.jpg and here's the nomination Featured picture candidates/Stereum ostrea. Sasata is regarded as something of a fungi expert and he disagrees with the identification of this as Stereum ostrea. He thinks it is S. hirsutum because it grows in Europe and looks almost identical, while S. ostrea does not grow in Europe. What do you think about changing the identification of this image to S. hirsutum? Julia\talk 20:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Julia, I'm not really a fungi expert, so if your expert says,the photo shows S. hirsutum, please feel free to change the file description and file name accordingly. Sorry for the wrong assignment. BR Norbert -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bolinus cornutusEdit

This FPC nomination on en.Wikipedia needs a closure, but I can't do it as nominator. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 13:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Done! :) Julia\talk 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FP promotionEdit

South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Last modified on 18 April 2014, at 07:25