Open main menu
Busy desk.svg This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

العربية | Беларуская‎ | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Rômană | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Steve Morgan!


Thank you!Edit

Thank you for the information you added.. [1] Best regards --Ankara (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Category:Streetcars in Seattle (historic): Good distinction, and I'm glad you drew a clean line defining what is "historic". - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you agree, and it was nice of you to take a moment to say so. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...Edit

You moved File:Bombardier_streetcar_in_Portland,_Oregon.jpg from Category:Bombardier streetcars to Category:Bombardier trams.

Are you aware of a reason why Category:Bombardier streetcars was deleted?

Are you aware of a discussion of whether Category:Bombardier streetcars should be deleted?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Category:Bombardier streetcars does not exist, and the deletion log shows that it never did exist; it was not deleted. "Trams" is simply the British English word for Streetcars (and British English is the version of English learned as a second language by people all over Europe and also spoken in Australia, etc.), so the two are synonyms. Whoever created the category in the first place (the only existing category on the subject, Category:Bombardier trams) probably either is from some place other than the U.S. or Canada or was just trying to name the category in a way that used terminology parallel to most of the other such categories (for other makes of streetcar/tram). Personally, I don't know of anyone who considers Portland's Bombardier cars to be "streetcars"; they are light rail cars, which are distinctly different from streetcars—and Portland has both light rail and modern streetcars, as does Seattle now. However, I've noticed the British in recent years (since circa 2000) have been using the term "tram" both for streetcar systems and for light rail systems, so from that standpoint someone in Europe might well consider Portland's MAX light rail cars to be "trams". Anyway, there are far more cities in Europe than in the USA using Bombardier trams or LRVs (only two in the USA), so it does make sense to use "tram" in the category name. And we definitely don't want BOTH a Category:Bombardier streetcars and a Category:Bombardier trams, because they essentially mean the same thing. There's a way to create a redirect to help avoid someone mistakenly putting a new image file into the non-existent Category:Bombardier streetcars, as you accidentally did, and I'll do that right after this message. (Note: When I first posted this reply, Category:Bombardier streetcars was a red link, because it did not exist, but now that I've created a redirect from that name to the "trams" one, both will be blue.) Steve Morgan (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting reply.
While I am not now a regular participant in discussions on trams/streetcars/LRT, I used to be. What I remember is some fans felt sure that all three terms should be treated as synonyms, and I remember that others felt that all three should be treated as distinct. But I don't remember anyone else suggesting trams/streetcars were synonyms, while LRT was distinct. As I recall, the most useful(?) explanation of the distinctive element of the LRT was that it used a separate right of way. Personally, this explanation doesn't satisfy me, because it means the same rolling stock qualifies for being called LRT or not LRT, depending of usage. Toronto, for instance, runs Bombardier streetcars both on the streets and on separate rights of way. And when it builds its next generation of rapid transit lines, its new generation of Bombardier streetcars will also be used on the street and on separate rights or way.
I believe the same holds true for Boston and Philadelphia.
In spite of a non-English name, and having many European clients, Bombardier is a North American firm. I think this is an argument for referring to its rolling stock using the North American term.
Of course if this was all settled in a centralized debate, that is a different matter. If you are aware of a central discussion could you tell me where to find it? Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Catalan TalgoEdit

Thanks for addition of the File:TEE Catalan Talgo at Geneve-Cornavin, 1979.jpg into czech article. It is real beauty! --PetrS. (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

United Streetcar photoEdit

Steve, I work with one of the subcontractors (ELIN EBG Traction) on the United Streetcar project. Would you be willing to release your brilliant photograph "United Streetcar 10T3 prototype for Portland.jpg" for usage in our product brochures? Thanks Alexander Maistro71

Please contact me by e-mail about this. I have turned on e-mail access. Steve Morgan (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bitar MansionEdit

Thanks for adding the "published" template to the image's talk page! --Another Believer (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I read WW fairly regularly, so I'm sorry to see them being sloppy or careless about giving credit. They did the same recently with a photo I took (many years ago) of Mark Hatfield, but added credit after I emailed them about it. However, I have to concede that I've always felt the Commons license template is too vague on this subject. It says attribution must be given "in the manner specified by the author", but most authors don't specify any such manner; the default setting implies that the license template specifies it, but it does not – at least that's my interpretation. That's why I always manually fill in the "permission" field on my images, to include a brief message on that point, as shown for example with this image. You might want to consider doing that or something similar. Steve Morgan (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Old TriMet Stuff WantedEdit

I wonder if you have any old TriMet stuff from the 1970s and 1980s pertinent to route maps and system maps?

Of interest, I would love to have the following route maps, if available:

  • 5-Hawthorne (103rd & Foster eastbound end point)
  • 46-Maplewood (last version)

Contact me at or for more info.

WikiPro1981X (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for causing troubleEdit

Sorry for uploading a non-cropped version of this photo. I was not so careful about that and I made a mistake. Regards AMERICOPHILE 06:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thank you for leaving the message here. Steve Morgan (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Tehran TrolleybusEdit

Hi Steve, I Have uploaded 22 images of Tehran Trolleybuses on Commons that are available here. I'm not a professional photographer but I did my best. If they are not so appropriate for encyclopedia please let me know to take some other images. Feel free to ask any other photo request about Iran. Most of them were taken in Imam Hossein sq and the others in Rah Ahan sq. I have taken some other images that don't have good quality or are very similar to uploaded ones. I have NOT uploaded them but if you think they can be useful, I can upload them too. Regards from Iran. AMERICOPHILE 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for helping, and for acting so fast! 22 is a little more than Commons really needed (for just two locations on the trolleybus system), but I greatly prefer "too many" images to "too few" or none, so I am happy to see these. In fact, I am pleased you took photos at 2 locations, instead of just one location. Some of your 22 images are very good, some are pretty good (or "OK"), and a few are not so good. In the last group I would put images 15 and (especially) 16, because the front of the trolleybus is "cut off" (but 15 is still worth having on Commons, because it has 2 different trolleybuses in one view) and 18 (too similar to 17, and foreground traffic makes it less good). Overall, you did very well in composing most of these images. The full-sunlight in numbers 5–9 and 19–22 also helps make them good. And, you included views of both the door-side and the left sides, and one of the rear of a trolleybus, and some wide views (showing more of the background - good), and one of the wires (cables).
I have added your images to the Trolleybus gallery on Commons and to these three articles on English Wikipedia: Trolleybus (under Asia/Iran), Tehran and Imam Hossein Square. Later, I (or someone else) will probably use 1-2 of them also in German Wikipedia or other-language Wikipedias. I will not ask you for photos of other Iran subjects, because my main interest is in trolleybuses and trams/streetcars (in all countries) – as you can see from the "user uploads" list linked from my own Commons page – and I have no special interest in other Tehran or Iran subjects (sorry!). However, I am very happy that you added many good photos of Tehran trolleybuses to Commons, because very, very few trolleybus enthusiasts from Europe or North America have ever seen Tehran's trolleybus system. When you have time, maybe you can add to the description pages a little information such as what part of the square a given photo is showing (for example "at the northeast corner of ..... square" or whatever is correct). Thanks again. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. About number 18 and foreground traffic, I just thought that the cars in Iran may be interesting to foreigners who have never visited Iran because Iranian cars are a little different from their western counterparts (Just have a look at our first national car that watching it still makes me feel quite nostalgic). Also I thought that Iranian clothes may be interesting too (the way women cover themselves) so some of pictures contain pedestrians (I think a trolleybus is a trolleybus everywhere but cultural aspects can make the differences clear). I will definitely add some more information to description pages and thanks for your great idea (taking photograph was a good excuse for me to get on a trolleybus for the first time and I really liked its unique sound). Regards from Iran AMERICOPHILE 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I had not looked at all 22 photos that closely (yet), but you make very good points in your comment above. Once again, thanks! Steve Morgan (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol givenEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, you can now share images from Flickr using the UploadWizard, batch-upload up to 500 files with UploadWizard instead of 50 and upload freely licensed audio files in the MP3 format. Thank you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

First Immanuel Lutheran ChurchEdit

You would not consider First Immanuel Lutheran Church to be located downtown? That's surprising to me. What is considered downtown? --Another Believer (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, there are two "gray areas" when it comes to defining downtown Portland. Some people don't consider any of the area west of I-405 (the Stadium Freeway) to be part of downtown, but some do. Similarly, some people don't consider the area north of Burnside Street to be part of downtown, but some – I would argue most – do. The First Immanuel Lutheran Church is at N.W. 19th & Irving, which is outside both of those gray areas, and I'd say hardly anyone would consider that location to be in downtown (in my opinion). Even east of the freeway, I think very few people think of downtown as extending beyond about Hoyt or Irving – with the major landmarks of the main post office and Union Station subconsciously demarcating the northern limit of downtown, among those who consider Old Town/Chinatown to be part of downtown, which group includes me. N.W. 19th & Irving is in Northwest Portland, and could also be said to be in the "Central City", which encompasses downtown and all of the neighborhoods/districts immediately adjacent to downtown. Personally, I don't consider the Zion Lutheran Church (on S.W. 18th) to be in downtown, but I put that image file into the Churches in downtown Portland cat myself, last year, because it's at least in one of those gray areas. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Trolza trolleybuses in Tomsk.jpgEdit


Please do not remove valid categories without bringing any rational. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Those two trolleybuses have a lot of other colors besides orange on them. Orange is only their main color, whereas most buses/trolleybuses in the "by color" categories show vehicles that are almost entirely one color. So, I did have a rationale for removing the "orange buses" category, but I didn't indicate it in the edit summary, because this is a trivial subject. Nevertheless, I don't mind the category being re-added. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Orange is the dominant colour. Besides your "almost entirely one color" is your individual interpretation. You can hardly find a totally orange "painted" vehicle. Nevertheless, I think we found a consensus of this issue. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:TPL folibus.jpg & File:TPL tram.jpgEdit

Thanks for the notification about these, but I'm neither author nor original uploader of these images. I merely transferred them to commons from wp:it, having first checked that they were appropriately licensed there (the author had placed them in the public domain) and that style of license was valid on commons (as I believe public domain is). What did I miss doing?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just gone back to check on wp:it, but because I followed standard process and marked them with the nowcommons template, the wp:it page has now been deleted in order to use the commons version. I'm definitely lost now; I seem to have followed the process properly, so for your notification to be valid, doesn't that imply the process is broken?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
See my response on your talk page. Steve Morgan (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I now understand, but don't necessarily agree with your analysis. I think the crux is your statement "The Lugano tram system closed in 1959, which I would imagine is before ToBeDaniel was even born". Actually 1959 is only 53 years ago, and all it needs is for ToBeDaniel to be in his mid 60s for such a claim to be reasonable. I know plenty of Wikimedia family contributors who match that age profile, and I'm not that many years younger myself. So it seemed to me perfectly reasonable that he could have taken the photographs. Given that 99% of images on commons don't have formal proof that the claimed author is the real author, I think we should be a little careful demanding such proof based on assumptions, rather than real evidence of possible copyvio, such as the image appearing elsewhere. However having said that, I think now you have managed to contact ToBeDaniel, things should sort themselves out. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
That was only one clue that the two photos were probably not taken by the uploader. Additional clues included that he gave no information about the specific photos – no date (not even a year or a decade), no location info., etc. It's entirely possible the uploader did not understand what "author" means for uploads to Commons, and did not understand that if he did not shoot the photos himself he cannot legally claim (as he did) to be their author, but we may never know. He never responded to the notice at his talk page, and I see that an administrator has deleted the two files. Steve Morgan (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for catching the misspelling! --Another Believer (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice job!Edit

Good photo -- and even better description. This answered all the questions the prose of the Wikipedia article left me with. -Pete F (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Makes me glad I took a few minutes to write a detailed description when I uploaded it. Steve Morgan (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

STCP 128 not in PortlandEdit

I see that in this change you removed the indication that STCP 128 was once sent to Portland, which was (tentatively?) given by Alain Gavillet in the source. Do you confirm this is so, not a mistake? Could you add a comment in that regard in the original Flickr page, too? -- Tuválkin 10:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I know you meant 123, not 128. Several ex-Porto cars were brought to Oregon in the late 1970s and 1980s (stored at the pre-1996 location of the Oregon Electric Railway Museum, near Glenwood, Oregon), but none of them went to Portland, as officials in Portland decided to buy newly built, replica-old streetcars from the Gomaco Trolley Company instead (for the Portland Vintage Trolley service). Some were sold to Memphis. Car 123 was never restored, and its exact location since 1999 is not known, but it is not in Portland. I will think about maybe posting a note on the Flickr page, but I am not active on Flickr. Steve Morgan (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction (yes, I meant 123, not 128!), and for your further info. Soon in pt:wp we’ll have an annex detailing info for each fleet item for CCFL, STCP (and ideally also the other smaller operations in Portugal: CSA, TUB, and SMTUCMST, ML, and MP fleet info being trivial; no idea about Brazil). If you have citable info for that, please drop a line. Thanks in advance! -- Tuválkin 15:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving "Oporto" to "Porto" was not the kind the help I was hoping for. The latter is indeed the Portuguese name of the city, but Commons categories should be in English. As such, I expect them to be in English as in the language, but not necessarily burdened with the pseudo-PC po-mo crap that become fashionable among English-speaking airheads in recent decades. The name "Oporto", while based on a misinterpretation of "O Porto" (not unlike other cases such as Portuguese language’s own "Argélia" instead of *"Algéria"), is a time honored English word in actual use for centuries by the local English-speaking community of wine exporters and in Britain, while "Porto" in English just means that poor brown people need “us” to use their exotic local spellings. I suggest you now go on changing "Egypt" to "Misr" in Commons categories — I hear they are deeply offended. (A reply is not requested.) -- Tuválkin 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. If you had such strong feelings on this subject, I wonder why you did not change the many Commons tram categories that already were using "Porto" to "Oporto". If all (or most) of the Porto/Oporto tram categories at Commons had used "Oporto", I would have left them alone, for consistency, even though almost every English-language book and magazine I have seen (in addition to the Portuguese ones) uses the spelling "Porto". For example, the British magazine Tramways & Urban Transit (and predecessor Modern Tramway) have been writing "Porto" for about 40 years. And "centuries" of use does not seem relevant, to me, for tram-related categories; trams have only existed for about 1 1/2 centuries. Anyway, I definitely do not feel as strongly about Porto versus Oporto as you do. Steve Morgan (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Parks in Portland, OregonEdit

You removed the 'urban parks in the U.S.' category from some of the Portland parks categories, but the 'urban parks' category does not include the 'Parks in Portland' parent category. Did you intend to add the 'urban parks' category to the parent 'Parks in Portland, Oregon' category? --Another Believer (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because the 'urban parks in the U.S.' category includes the category "Parks in the United States by city", and the 'Parks in Portland' category is included there, as are all similar categories for other individual U.S. cities. That's why the 'urban parks in the U.S.' category has relatively few entries and why, until I made this change, Portland entries accounted for about half of them, which was a clue to me that something was amiss. I had to fix Philadelphia the same way, but all of the other cats for "parks in .... [a specific U.S. city]" were correctly omitted from this cat as they were already placed in the "by city" subcat. The "by city" cat has also been mentioned as a "see also" at the top of the broader cat you mentioned. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


Geo Swan (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Steve, thanks for cleaning up the Sally Jewell photos! Did you see my note at WikiProject Oregon talk page or just find them on your own? Either way, it's much appreciated! (But if you missed that note, you might want to check it out -- lots of cool new Oregon-related photos have recently been uploaded here.) -Pete F (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I found out about the multi-photo uploads from your note at the WikiProject Oregon talk page, a page I read on a regular basis. Even before your note here, I had already cleaned up the categories (or added categories) for some others besides the Sally Jewell pics, mainly ones in my areas of strongest interest: transit, bridges and historic buildings. However, back in February, I spent several hours doing that for the ODOT photos after that mass upload, and I don't relish the thought of doing that again, so I'll probably leave it mostly to other editors this time. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for pitching in! Yes, of course I remember your work with the ODOT pics. That was my first direct/in-depth experience with a mass upload like this. -Pete F (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Former CCFL John Stephenson tram in CordobaEdit

Hello! I noticed that you added "Category:John Stephenson trams" to File:Cordoba-tranvia.JPG. However note that this photo is tagged with "Category:Lisbon tram 350", which in turn is under "Category:CCFL fleet series 343-362", which in turn is under "Category:John Stephenson trams in Lisbon", which in turn is under "Category:John Stephenson trams". Of course you know about COM:OVERCAT. -- Tuválkin 11:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and I fix such errors myself, when other editors make them. However, in this case, the Category:John Stephenson trams in Lisbon is not sufficient, because this photo was not taken in Lisbon. It was taken in Córdoba, Argentina. This is a photo of a Stephenson-built tram in Argentina .... but there is absolutely no need to create a separate category for that, considering how very few photos Commons currently has of Stephenson-built trams. (In my opinion, most categories that have only 1 or 2 photos in them are not helpful and usually should not be created. They make it much more difficult to compare the available photos of a general subject such as this, trams built by John Stephenson Co.) Steve Morgan (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Fort EdmontonEdit

Hello Steve! I’ve started an informal discussion about Category:Fort Edmonton at 117Avenue’s Talk page: I think the “See also category” (I didn’t know we had those, so thanks for contributing to my education here!) for Fort Edmonton Park is a sufficient link , and that the Fort shouldn’t also be a sub-category of the Park. I just thought I’d invite comments before removing it, in case there’s a rationale or policy I’m missing.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United StatesEdit

Dear Steve Morgan,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States. The images you uploaded will help illustrate Wikipedia articles on historic sites in the United States. We are delighted to share the winning images and our top 10 finalists with you.

Click here to read our press release and view the winning submissions »

We invite you to continue uploading images to Wikimedia Commons and we hope you will return for Wiki Loves Monuments again in September 2014. For more information about Wikimedia Commons, please visit our welcome page. For more information about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, please click here. Once again, thank you for sharing your images and participating in our contest.


Organizing Team

Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States

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 Steve Morgan,
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

Columbia QueenEdit

I see you removed categories from the Columbia Queen category. I also see that some Columbia Queen images were renamed Columbia Gorge. Do you know if a Columbia Queen exists, or if the category should just be deleted? --Another Believer (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

When I tagged those five images for renaming, I noted that there is a ship named Columbia Queen, but there are no photos of it on Commons (if there were, I'd have put them into this cat). I looked for CC-licensed ones on Flickr, but found none. I believe the category should be deleted. It can always be recreated later, for the true Columbia Queen, if photos of that ship get uploaded. Also, I've noticed that the standard format for these cats in Commons indicates that a better name for that cat would be "Columbia Queen (ship, xxxx)", where xxxx is the year. But that's moot as long as there are not yet any photos of the ship on Commons. If you have administrative privileges on Commons, I'd say go ahead and delete it. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I am not an admin, but I will see if I can nominate the category for deletion. --Another Believer (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominated for discussion, hopefully properly. Thanks again! --Another Believer (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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 Steve Morgan,

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

Re: City ArchivesEdit

I make it a point to go to the archives office often and keep personal notes on the photos and their copyright status so I can use the images online instead of making lesser quality copies. If I have made an individual error on one of the image copyright tags please rectify this. But before you accuse me of violating the law please en:WP:Assume good faith. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I also challenge what you say constitutes publication. If something was produced for a municipality survey, study or general information it would qualify as a publication. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. We use offline sources all the time across Wikimedia. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo creditEdit

In case you weren't aware! --Another Believer (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. They should have linked to the Commons page for the photo, but at least they linked to my user page, which is a lot better than if they had not linked to Commons at all. Steve Morgan (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Kudos, Steve! By the way, I think in most cases where a blogger is diligent enough to apply attribution, they will typically do it in the way requested. So if you want the link to go to a specific place for any photo that gets used a lot (as I hope and assume is the case with your White Stag sign!) you might want to tweak the settings like this. (Personally, I think a link to your user page is great -- but as the photographer, it's your call of course!) -Pete F (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I meant that (ideally) they should have linked to both, with clicking on the photo taking the viewer to the photo's Commons page and clicking on the credit taking them to my user page. For the first four years after I began contributing images to Commons, I didn't even have a user page, but now that I do, I'm glad this blog linked to it. But only the pages for the specific images have attribution requirements and instructions for anyone who might reuse the photo; my user page doesn't. Steve Morgan (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I understand. I see they have not complied with your license. That's a shame, but not entirely uncommon. Other Commons users have been successful at pointing this out to bloggers/news outlets etc. and requesting that they name and link to the license under which they have published the photo. -Pete F (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Huipulco-Tlalpan: Brill or St. Louis?Edit

Hello again! About this edit you made — are you sure this is a Philadelphia Brill car? I ask because they look very much like these St. Louis cars built in 1901 for the Lisbon network. Thanks for any input! -- Tuválkin 02:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a good question, but yes. Because car 0 (the tram in that photo) has been preserved, its history is relatively well-known. Also, Mexico City purchased trams from both St. Louis Car Co. and Brill, and some of the designs were very similar. You might like to read this web page (about Mexico City) written by Allen Morrison, a well-known expert on the history of tramways in Latin America: The Tramways of Mexico City, Part 2: Early Electrics. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your replay and explanation. I’ll read that page, and thanks for that, too. -- Tuválkin 12:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Crossbench to open-sidedEdit

Hello again! You renamed these and argued that the «new name »« is clearer to non-enthusiasts & non-English-speakers (& is also closer to the common US English term for such trams, while still clear in British English)», and this is the kind of compromise solution I favour myself, but was this discussed anywhere I didn’t notice? Or is it just you being bold? (Nothing wrong with that, either.) -- Tuválkin 09:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I was being bold, but I left a redirect at the old name. A Google search showed more than 50,000 "hits" for "open tram" and "open-sided tram" (combined), compared with only 950 for "crossbench tram", and when "streetcar" is substituted in the search, the difference is much greater. However, you are free to open a discussion if you feel it is needed. By the way, the common term in US English is simply "open car" (or open trolley, or open streetcar), but that is too vague for non-enthusiasts to understand clearly. And Wikipedia has no article on this type of tram/streetcar (at least in English). Steve Morgan (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...Edit

For helping with the Fechheimer & White and Hallock–McMillan building images. I was confused because the Hallock–McMillan building sure doesn't look like the oldest commercial building in Portland... -Another Believer (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your confusion was understandable, and I can imagine myself making the same mistake. Steve Morgan (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo Use by Lake Theater & CafeEdit

I wanted to make sure you were aware that the Lake Theater & Cafe is using your Willamette Shore Trolley image without attribution.

I thought that image seemed familiar! 18:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Steve Morgan (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not for the lulzEdit

See here two kinds of edits, the latest two of these two page histories:

There are constructive edits, that replace an incorrect (but not senseless) statement with a better one, and there other edits that replace an incorrect (but not senseless) statement with… nothing. The latter is yours, and it it abohorrent. Just consider this novel idea: How to quickly eliminate each and every mistake in Commons? — Well, just delete everything, mistakes included, and there will be no mistakes left. (This is the proverbial limb amputation as treatment for ingrown nails.) Unlike random vandalism for the “lulz”, this is a serious problem — I hope you’ll give it some thought. -- Tuválkin 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, such editing is not abhorrent. Sometimes, the person doing the editing does not have time to figure out a suitable replacement, and it is better to remove the incorrect information without replacement than to leave the incorrect information in place. In the specific case involved here, I am not aware of any common, concise English term that could replace your attempted one. "Trams powered from off-board generators" would be one accurate description, but that is not concise. In any event, there was nothing wrong with my removal of that inapplicable category from those pages, and I did leave a little information in the edit summary to say why that category does not apply to those files. – Steve Morgan (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Tichnor BrothersEdit

Hi! Thanks for adding cats to some of the recent postcard uploads. I just wanted to let you know that I'm about to start adding many of these to the larger city categories using cat-a-lot. I had planned to do this as the cards for each state finished uploading, before more specific categories were added by hand, but didn't manage to get around to it in a timely manner. The upshot is that some of the ones you've added specific cats to may get overcatted into city categories in the process. Sorry about that, and I hope you won't mind making a quick fix of any you notice this happening to. I'll plan to do things in a better order from here on out. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

File mover rightsEdit

You wrote in this edit summary: «Renamed category to correct a misspelled word; see "Category:Lisbon trams manufactored by Brill" for cat history». This is good, but “moving” the category (i.e., renaming it) instead of creating a new one would be even better; you should apply for file mover rights. -- Tuválkin 13:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know whether I qualify for file mover rights. But even if I do, I think probably I do not want file mover rights, because I usually do not have much time for editing on Commons. (I am much more interested in spending time editing on English Wikipedia.) However, I have found that you have these rights, so in the future, if I find a category that you created or edited that needs moving, I will try to remember to ask you to move it. Steve Morgan (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Close-up of raised bascule span of Broadway Bridge (Portland) in 2013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Joan of Arc statue in Portland, Oregon, 2015.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Like I added the image to Joan of Arc (Portland, Oregon). -Another Believer (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Dodge A100 van in orange - right side (2015).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!Edit

  Thanks for finding and correcting an EXIF error that caused many incorrect dates on photos of the Sellwood Bridge! Here's a little fuel for your next project. Pete F (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

... for re-categorizing some of my images from Shanghai. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Shanghai architecture or not, but clearly you know more than me! Thanks again. -Another Believer (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, I don't know anything about Shanghai architecture, but when I saw the images it just seemed likely that there might be more-specific categories for them. So, I just hunted in the relevant category areas and, with some educated guessing, found some of the right categories. Although I feel your categorizing was overly broad ("Category:Buildings in Shanghai", a grandparent of the applicable cat in most cases), I accept that as a reasonable trade-off (you have a finite amount of free time) for your uploading a large number of good, high-quality images. Steve Morgan (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Portland HotelEdit

The hotel was built in 1890. Clearly the photo pre-dates 1923. Read the article. Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RThompson82 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 04 September 2016 (UTC)

--RThompson82 (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is you who is not reading things. I know both of those points, but you clearly did not read my full comment (below the auto-generated notice box). The date the photo was taken is irrelevant. A photo is only public domain if it was published before 1923, and you have not provided any evidence of that. Steve Morgan (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderful photo about Schloss ItterEdit

Dear Mr Steve Morgan. Thank you for great photos about Schloss Itter. I'm researching about Schloss Itter at University. Because castle is now privately owned, I never saw photos about the interior of castle other than your photos. Do you have another photos about the interior of Schloss Itter? Best regards A M Hocart (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I am pleased that the photos were useful to you. Unfortunately, I already uploaded almost all of the photos (slides/diapositives) that I scanned, from my one-and-only visit to the castle. I have 2-3 interior photos that I did not scan (their focus was not very good), but I cannot scan them currently, because my film scanner is not working properly. Steve Morgan (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: U.S. National Bank Building imagesEdit

These are great! Thanks for sharing, and for organizing the interior vs. exterior images. -Another Believer (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It was unfortunate that no photos of the subject were available at the time of the article's appearance at DYK in May, considering that the Povey windows were mentioned in the hook. Inquiring about possibly being granted access has been on my to-do list ever since (but was not urgent). I managed to get an appointment, for this specific purpose, and the branch manager was nice enough to show me around. I'm especially happy to have gotten the photos, considering that there were no photos of the board room or its windows in the NRHP documentation, and I have not seen any photos of them anywhere else, either. Steve Morgan (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  Like -Another Believer (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Extracted imagesEdit

Thank you for being so good about crediting extracted images to the original author (me) in your recent work. Question: Did you download, crop, upload the new image, then categorize appropriately? Or, is there a way to crop within Commons so that spin-off images are automatically attributed, categorized, etc? Just wondering if I am overlooking a helpful tool or something. -Another Believer (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I just did it manually. I don't believe there's any Commons tool for doing that. By the way, do you happen to recall what floor of the hotel you were on when you took those photos? Although certainly not essential, I would probably add "from the _th floor of" before the Westin Portland hotel in the description if I knew it. Steve Morgan (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, good to know. I wish there were a tool to make the creation of extracted images much easier. Unfortunately, I don't recall the floor number. -Another Believer (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality imagesEdit

On a separate note, I saw above that some of your images have been promoted to "quality" status (congrats!), so I went ahead and added them to Category:Quality images of Oregon. If you're aware of others, you might consider adding them as well. -Another Believer (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea that that category existed. I'll try to remember it when I come across others to which it applies but which have not already been added to it. However, those photos of mine that you found are the only ones that I have nominated for QI status to date. Steve Morgan (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for confirming! -Another Believer (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

File:David Leonhardt 2 (2012).jpgEdit

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 | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−

Hello, Steve Morgan!

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:

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]]

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").

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.

Elisfkc (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did include several categories at the time of upload. However, I now see that I accidentally deleted them when I made an edit in which I intended to move them down the page. (I don't understand why the "old upload form", which I prefer, continues to place categories above the licensing template; and I have to move them manually every time, if I want them to be at the bottom of the page when in edit mode.) I have now reinstated the categories that I accidentally deleted. Steve Morgan (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Flickr imagesEdit

Please wait to upload a edited version of a Flickr image until after the automated Flickr review has passed the image. Elisfkc (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: Do you mean that you want me to upload the unaltered original Flickr image initially every time? If so, I disagree. I do that with many of my uploads from Flickr – and then I always wait until the Flickr-review-bot has passed it before I upload an edited version – but I do not believe it makes sense to do it with all of them. In the case of Flickr images that have significant defects (for example, being badly tilted or very dark) – defects that would make them unacceptable for use in a "good"-class Wikipedia article – there is no value to having such images on Wikimedia Commons. Uploading both the original Flickr image and then, immediately afterwards, a copy that corrects the problems with the original would be a waste of server space on Wikimedia Commons, with no benefit (other than to save a Flickr-image reviewer 1 minute of time). For those reasons, I feel it is better to make edits to the original image, to correct major defects, before uploading to Commons. If you disagree strongly, you are free to start a discussion about it somewhere (such as on the talk page of the upload form). If a discussion among several users results in a consensus that the Commons page giving directions for uploading images from Flickr should recommend always uploading the original image without any modifications, then I would alter my practices. Steve Morgan (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Date error on File:NStCM.Nyon depot NStCM 8-79.jpgEdit

Hello, you wrote 1979 for date in File:NStCM.Nyon_depot_NStCM_8-79.jpg, but I think the big building in the background was built in the 80s (or 90s). Marc Mongenet (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the reasons for the change I made earlier: First, the original date given in the file's "date" field, 8 November 2014, was obviously incorrect (it was the upload date, not the date the photo was taken), so it needed to be changed or at least removed. Second, the photo's date cannot have been later than 1986, because all of the rolling stock of the type pictured here was withdrawn in December 1985 (and disposed of in 1986), as the text (added by me, citing a good source) in the English Wikipedia article indicates. (I also visited the system myself in 1985, but not the depot.) Third, the same photographer/Commons user (Palmpilot99) uploaded seven photos of the Nyon–St. Cergue–La Cure line on the same date (8 November 2014), and in most of them he himself indicated the date as being in 1979. If you can find proof that the large building was constructed later, then you are welcome to change the date (to something like "circa mid-1980s" or earlier, as it cannot have been later than 1986). If you cannot find such proof, then I feel there is sufficient evidence to conclude that "8-79" in the original photographer's chosen file name (common shorthand for "August 1979" to English speakers) means the photo was taken in August 1979. Unfortunately, Palmpilot99 does not appear to be active on Commons now. Steve Morgan (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, my memory can deceive me. I took this train to go to school from 1985 to 1992. I remember very well the old rolling stock, but for the building I am not so sure. Maybe I remember only work on the facade of the building. Marc Mongenet (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It turns out that you are correct! I checked my own photos, from my visit to the line on 28 May 1985, and I find that I did take one photo of the depot (when the car I was riding in passed by). It shows the building in the background, but it was still under construction. It had reached its full height, and most of the windows had been installed, but the entire building was still covered by scaffolding, as the exterior was unfinished. From my photo, I would guess that the building was finished within 2 to 3 months (or, at least that it looked finished from the outside). So, although I still believe photographer "Palmpilot99" intended "8-79" to mean "August 1979", I believe he erred in dating the photo. (I suppose he had also made a visit to Nyon in 1979, and he incorrectly assumed this photo was from that earlier visit.) From the fact that the old rolling stock was withdrawn in December 1985 and no newer stock is visible in this image, the photo must have been taken around late summer or early autumn 1985 (before the trees lost their leaves). Steve Morgan (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this apparent (and now confirmed) error to my attention. I have revised the Commons page for the photo. Steve Morgan (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


... for your recent work categorizing images of Chicago bridges. You've helped me fill in some gaps (missing captions) at User:Another Believer/Chicago. Much appreciated! -Another Believer (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. As you know, I'm a fan of bridges and especially drawbridges. Chicago has so many that it's probably the only U.S. city with its own Commons subcat just for bascule bridges in that city (and it's the only city that warrants the creation of such a category). Steve Morgan (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oops. I forgot about Category:Bascule bridges in Joliet, Illinois, which I created myself! But my justification for that was mainly the existence of so many bascule bridges in another city in the same state, Chicago. In any case, even Joliet's six bascule bridges appears to be more than in all but maybe a half dozen other cities in the entire U.S. (one of which is Seattle, with 8). Steve Morgan (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Tukwila, WA - Vip's Restaurant, 1970 (24646970396).jpgEdit

It seems to me that if you want to do a cropped and otherwise altered version of an image from a historical archive, you should do it under a different name and leave the original intact. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Why? The historical version is archived at the City of Seattle's Flickr page, where it is easily accessible via the link from the Commons page. All I did was crop-out "dead" area, which the city probably should have done in its own upload. If you want to revert my crop, you are free to do so, and I'll upload a separate version in that case, but it seems unnecessary to me. Steve Morgan (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Who knows whether Flickr will survive as long as Commons, but I'd put my money on Commons.
I happen to like your crop better, but...
In general, I tend to defer this much to professional archivists. No problem posting different, "preferred" versions of their images, but I keep the original from the archive readily available. Sort of like how with the German archives we preserve even some appalling captions from the originals, while offering alternative captions. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if your concern is that Flickr (or just the Seattle municipal archives account on it) might disappear, I'd like to point out that the original version of the photo is still on Commons. My edits did not remove it from Commons, they just made it not the current version. Anyone can still find the original on Commons by clicking on the lowermost thumbnail on the file page, and can then download it at full size if they so desire. Steve Morgan (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves MonumentsEdit

Not sure if you're interested, but all images of sites on the National Register of Historic Places uploaded during September can be counted towards the ongoing Wiki Loves Monuments campaign. If you'd like them to count, you can simply add "{{Wiki Loves Monuments 2017|us-or}}" to file pages. I'm happy to do this for some of your recent uploads, but wanted to ask beforehand. -Another Believer (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. If you'd like to add the template for my relevant recent uploads, that would be fine, and I'll try to remember to include it myself on future relevant uploads between now and the end of November. I just noticed that the contest page still says it ends at the end of September, but you left a message on the Wikipedia WikiProject Oregon talk page saying it "is running through the month of November"; did you mean September? Steve Morgan (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah! Yes, I did mean September. I'll go fix now. Thanks for pointing this out. -Another Believer (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
And seems you've revisited your uploads to tag appropriate images with the WLM template. Thanks for doing this and uploading such great images, both for this campaign and in general. -Another Believer (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

International trucksEdit

There is a discussion on this page whether images should be categorised as International trucks or International Harvester trucks.   Not many wikipedia contributors have contributed to the discussion or voted with their preference, but you have contributed to material on International Harvester.   I would be grateful, if you have the time, if you would share your own opinion on the page name.  And thank you. Eddaido (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have almost no interest in that, definitely not enough even to read the very long discussion there, let alone to form and express an opinion about it. For further explanation, you could read my July 2012 post here. I don't mind your asking, but sorry. Steve Morgan (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I do understand about the verbiage, I'd have been inclined to skip it myself if I hadn't been involved and could swallow it as it happened. Thanks for your response and that nice International Red Metro. Eddaido (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States – Results!Edit

 This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2017}} to your userpage!

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States during the month of October! The United States contest saw over 1,400 people (the most of any nation this year) contribute over 8,000 great photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the United States and its territories. Hundreds of these photos are already being used to illustrate pages on various Wikimedia projects.

We're excited to announce that our national judging process has concluded, and that we have selected the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States! These photos are recognized for their photographic quality, artistic merit, and their encyclopedic value as illustrations of unique historical sites. We were amazed by all of the uploads, and regret only being able to formally recognize the top 10. That being said – congratulations to our national winners and their amazing shots! Our 10 winners will be sent to the international Wiki Loves Monuments jury, who will then select the winners of the international contest. If you're interested in seeing the winners of the other national contests, you may do so at Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 winners.

If you would like to view all the photos submitted for the U.S. this year, you may do so here.

Finally, we have also created a feedback form for all U.S. participants to fill out. The survey is optional and anonymous, and only takes a minute or two – we hope to use the feedback to organize better events in the future!

A quick thank you to our national jury, as well as Commons editors who have helped categorize and place photos for the event. And finally, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments and helping to preserve our history through photography - we hope to see you again for future Commons photography events!

~Kevin Payravi & Nikikana, from Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States (16:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC))

couch parkEdit

  couch park
hi, i have some couch park master plan images and not sure how to add them..
Portlandparks (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Steve, hi! Thank you for your help with this. I'm very new to Wikipedia and the whole process and I'm just trying to post some relevant information, in relationship to Portland, Oregon parks. As far as the two Couch Park photos of the master plan being copyrighted photos, I'm really not sure either, but I don't think they would be. Here's some background on my father. My Dad, Michael Whitmore was one of the premier landscape architects in NW Portland, Oregon in the 1970s and 1980s. He had his own business -- Michael Whitmore and associates, Inc. (Landscape architecture/planning golf course design and construction management.

He did the master plans for (most) of the following parks in Portland, Oregon: ALBERTA PARK - PORTLAND, OREGON 1972 (Devlopment of Master plan while working under architects Mitchell/McArthur/Gardner/O'Kane). ANKENY PARK - PORTLAND, OREGON Front Avenue 1976 (presumably not master plan) (site improvements; technical drawings for planting and irrigation; construction details; technical specifications; cost development - partnered with architect, Jackson Wong. IRVING PARK - PORTLAND, OREGON 1972-73 Client: Portland Development Commission. (Master planning the needs for an existing city park in a mixed neighborhood. Close collaboration with neighborhood groups. Approximate budget at $250,000). MAIN CITY PARK - GRESHAM, OREGON 1972 (Master planning, design development, and contract drawings for a multi use park, coordination with civic groups, federal and state funding agencies - while working under Mitchell/McArthur/Gardner/O'Kane). RICHMOND SCHOOL PARK AND PLAYGROUND - PORTLAND, OREGON 1980 Client: Portland Public Schools. (Master Planning; design development; construction drawings supervised volunteer construction efforts; construction management). RIVERDALE COMMUNITY PARK - PORTLAND, OREGON 1970-71 (Master planning; design development; school and community input, and implementation. Need and priorities were developed for a 25 acre primary children's playground while working under architect Perron's.

SABIN SCHOOL COMMUNITY PARK - PORTLAND, OREGON 1981-82 Client: Portland Public Schools (Master planning; design development; construction; drawings; technical specifications; cost estimates; bid administration and construction management). ST. FRANCIS PARK - PORTLAND, OREGON 1968-1980 (?) Client: St. Francis Catholic Church & School (Park has recently been torn down) (Master plan and design/building a neighborhood -church jointly sponsored community park. All materials and labor donated. Close collaboration with neighborhood groups and church people. Approximate value of park, covering one square block, at $300,000 to $400,000). COUCH PARK - PORTLAND, OREGON 1975-76 Client: Portland Development Commission (Master plan development with extensive community development, in cooperation with Portland Parks Bureau, and Portland Public Schools. Provided technical and specification necessary for bidding and construction. Retained to manage construction period). GRESHAM INDUSTRIAL PARK - GRESHAM, OREGON (date?) Client: Autumn Construction Company (Site planning and master plan development for 39 acres. Design review approvals and zone change plan amendment administration. Public Hearings).

These are just a few of the PARKS & RECREATION projects my Dad, Michael Whitmore did, along with numerous other projects in Portland, Oregon and the surrounding areas for: TOWN COMMUNITY PLANNING; HOUSING PLANNING & DEVLOPMENT; COMMERCIAL; GOLF COURSE PLANNING, DESIGN, and CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. He also designed the Skamania Golf Course in Stevenson, Washington State; the Carson, Washington Golf Course in Washington State; the Indian Creek Golf Course in Hood River, Oregon; the Persimmon Golf Course in Gresham, Oregon; as well as the team consultant for overall master planning of an executive 9 hole golf course design in Interbay Park - Seattle, Washington (1983.)

Here's some more of my Dad - Michael Whitmore's background:

1- Bachelor of Science, Oregon State University, 1965. 2- Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon, 1968. 3- Professional Affiliate, American Institute of Architects Portland Chapter. 4- C.L.A.R.B Certificate, National Council Landscape Architect's Registration Board, Washington D.C. Oregon Downtown Development Association. 5- 1972-1977 Assistant Professor, Landscape Architecture and Planning, Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 6- Finalist, Downtown Improvements Competition - Covered Shelters and Walkway Improvements, 1980, Salem, Oregon. 7 - Portland Chapter, Portland Visual Survey. Portland Visual Survey American Institute of Architects Portland, Oregon. Team effort project with architects, planners, landscape architects for the A.I.A in order to analyze the urban fabric of Portland. Used the Kevin Lynch system for the study which was used extensively to supplement the Portland Downtown Plan. First Honor Award, Portland, A.I.A. 1971. 8- Downtown Redevelopment Program City of Redmond, Oregon (early 1980's). Prime consultant to the City of Redmond for Downtown Revitalization Program; modeled after the National Historic Trust "Main Street: program and relied on continuous citizen participation. 9- Northwest District Association - Chairman of the Neighborhood Planning Committee for a neighborhood of 15,000 people; development of a comprehensive plan, design and community involvement. Instrumental in preparing NWDA Bike Route Master Plan, approved by the Portland City Council as a component of the NWDA Neighborhood Master Plan 1972-1976. 10- Halsey Station Troutdale, Oregon. 104 units, multi-family housing. Provided technical drawings for landscape construction 1980. 11- Finalist, Sprague Memorial Fountain-Park Competition, Salem, Oregon, 1979-1980.

            • The two photos of the Couch Park Master plan that I submitted, under Couch Park were from the finalized Couch Park ((report)) that my Dad, Michael Whitmore had put together (along with others) to submit to the Portland Development Commission and that this was the Couch Park master plan ((report)) needs to be added to the pictures. I don't see how the copyright could be in question though, as this was a report that my Dad, Michael Whitmore put together.

This is what reads in the first page of that report, after the front cover (red picture).

July 4, 1976 Mr. J. David Hunt, Executive Director Program Development and Management Portland Development Commission 1700 S.W. Fourth Avenue Portland, Oregon

Dear Mr. Hunt:

The finalized master plan report for Couch Park as prepared by the consultants Whitmore/Rice/Lebwohl has been a pleasure to prepare and document. This master plan represents the collective efforts of all the participants in the master planning process, especially the senior citizens, the students and staff of M.L.C School, the families and residents of Northwest Portland, and the chairperson of the Couch Park Committee, John McMahan. Also, the efforts of the various bureaus have been helpful and at times very important to this process: Portland School District # 1 represented by Marlene Bayless, the Portland Parks Bureau represented by Ed Erickson and Rich Gunderson and administered by Commissioner Mildred Schwab and Superintendant Dale Christiansen, and the Portland Development Commission with Marian Scott, Lumvey Johnson and Jim Robertson.

We feel the strength of this master plan report is that it represents a process which has consciously involved people who will be using Couch Park. This report is the product of many persons' energies in 1975 and 1976. The master plan should be open to change as the needs of the people in the Northwest change. Continued community contact will be invaluable in maintaining a real sense of the community's changing goals.

Very truly yours:

Michael Whitmore Landscape Architect

Andrew Rice Landscape Architect

Stephen Lebwohl Designer

The picture of my Dad, Michael Whitmore, showing him as a landscape architect, which I submitted under Couch Park (just to show whom designed the master plan) is a picture that he has in his possession and I'm not sure why that would be a copyright violation. I'm not sure if the City of Portland owns that picture or not, or if it dates to a certain period where the copyright would not be an issue. I'm just new to posting to Wikipedia and it's difficult to figure this stuff out, but thank you so much for helping with this and letting me update some of this information related to the Couch Park pictures. Thomas Whitmore.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Portlandparks (talk • contribs) 02:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Portland Building 1982.jpg - Image PermissionEdit

Dear Steve Morgan, I am a retired proffessor and currently redacting my compiled course notes into a book named "History of Interior Design and Furniture” which will be in turkish language and will be distributed in Turkey. It is a cultural and educational reference book.I would like to use the image from
I kindly ask for your permission and infomation about terms and conditions of using your image. Your name will be indicated at the end of the book in the photo credits part.

Yours Sincerely
Prof. Mustafa Demirkan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustidede (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I have responded by email.– Steve Morgan (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Corbett PhotosEdit


Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention. I have emailed permission for the group photo to be used by Commons and have changed to explain the licencing of the house photo. When you get a moment perhaps you would look at this and see if I have done it correctly? Otherwise perhaps you would be good enough to assist me on this? There is no copyright issue.

Many thanks for bringing this to my attention. William Macadam (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Chelsea Street BridgeEdit

I would argue that the 2012 bridge should be the primary category - the enwiki article primarily discusses it - and the 1936 and previous bridges can be subcategories. That's pretty standard for infrastructure like bridges and railway stations. Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I spent at least 15-20 minutes looking for any sort of guidance on how to divide Commons categories for bridges where, as is the case here, more than one bridge at the same location had the same name (at different times), and found nothing. I then randomly tried to find some examples and found very few (there must be several, but I could not think of a productive way to search for them). Is your assertion that it's "pretty standard" based on a Commons guideline you can point to, or just your experience? On Wikipedia, the 1937 bridge certainly wouldn't be a subcategory of the 2012 bridge, if the older bridge had its own article, but yes, the dab page on Wikipedia would have "(Disambiguation)" in its title and the current (2012) bridge properly would get the simple "Chelsea Street Bridge" name, as being the primary topic. I wish Commons had more pages with guidelines based on consensus for situations like this. In any case, I have no objection to your changing it. – Steve Morgan (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's any specific guidelines, unfortunately - I'm just basing that off what I've seen while categorizing. For an example with bridges, see Category:Tacoma Narrows Bridges. I've gone ahead and re-made Chelsea Street Bridge the main category.
However, this led me to an interesting mystery (which I will bring up on the enwiki talk page as well). Every source I can find says that the previous bridge was built in 1936, or built in 1900 and rehabbed in 1936. But maps both before and after 1922 show the bridge well south of the railroad bridge - where this abutment still stands - and it's pretty clear that a bridge at the modern alignment wasn't there until 1936. A bridge on the old alignment was definitely destroyed in 1908. So it's very unclear what the history of bridges at the location is prior to 1936. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Why did you move the category from 1937 to 1936 without even waiting at all for me to reply? Although I acknowledge that your post here made me realize that the source I mentioned (HAER) for my move of the category from 1936 to 1937 was not cited in the Wikipedia article – something I have now rectified – I identified the source in the edit summary for the move, and that alone should have been enough for you to wait for a day before reverting, it seems to me. I have now added the 1997 Historic American Engineering Record report as a citation at WP, and I encourage you to read it (under "Data pages" from the report's index site) and add info. there on the previous bridges; I do not have enough interest to do so myself. Steve Morgan (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Ack, my mistake - I somehow missed why you moved the category in the first place. I've reverted my move. Thanks again for the HAER source! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I found the HAER report linked from the Bridgehunter website (a useful site for bridge research, and fairly reliable, albeit not sufficiently reliable by itself for WP), and did not notice that it had not yet been cited in the Wikipedia article. Steve Morgan (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States – Back for 2018!Edit

 This user participated in Wiki Loves Monuments 2018.

Want to show your participation in Wiki Loves Monuments 2018? Add {{User Wiki Loves Monuments 2018}} to your userpage!

Hello! Last year you contributed to Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States. Thanks to people like you it was a great success, with over 1,400 people contributing over 8,000 photos of cultural and historic sites from all over the country. Hundreds of these photos now help illustrate Wikipedia articles, improving our open knowledge about United States history, culture, and heritage.

I'm pleased to say that we're back this year with Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in the United States, and I'd like to welcome you to participate once again in the event. Check out our updated event page for more information. The event runs similar to last year with some small but exciting changes: improved state guides, an interactive map, and a larger prize pool! Like last year, you'll be able to upload your photos of any registered historical site in the United States through the end of September (even if the photos were taken before this month).

Once again, thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2017, and we hope to see you again in this year's event! If you'd like to respond to this message directly, please do so on on my talk page. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Cataloging of images - over-diffusionEdit

You reverted an edit of mine, while I agree with your reversion. I'm interested in your views re this discussion, about over-diffusion. See At what point should images be excluded from, say, "History of Wellington", and only appear in cats by year; my view is that the line should be drawn from the widespread use of the Digital Camera. Hence the reason I don't object to your revert. Broichmore (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

On Rome trolleybus 2007.JPGEdit

I think that the title I've suggested (ATAC Solaris-Ganz Trollino (8505)) is more simple and it would harmonize with the other images in Category:ATAC buses. For where and when you can use the description.--Kaga tau (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. A file name should not require that the person who encounters the photo (in a Wikipedia article or on Commons) already knows what "ATAC" is, or that a "Solaris Trollino" is a type of trolleybus. Those are things that most Wikipedia readers do not know, because they are not trolleybus enthusiasts (even most people who read articles about trolleybuses on Wikipedia are not trolleybus enthusiasts, and the reason they are looking for information on Wikipedia is that they know little or nothing about trolleybuses). Users who do not know those details should not be forced to go through the category tree to find out, in my opinion. File names should be intended for a clear understanding to a broad audience, not just enthusiasts. Your proposed name does not even include the location of the photo, which almost everyone would consider to be a more important distinction than the bus's fleet number. "Harmonization" is only one way to organize photos; it is not necessarily the best way. Steve Morgan (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggested a different renaming of the file, one that adds "ATAC" and "Solaris" but without removing the words that I consider to be important, and that name change has been carried out. Despite my disagreement with you (Kaga tau), I did feel that my original file name – which had just three words – was too short and too vague. One reason is that it was one of my very first uploads to Commons (in late 2009), before I decided that extremely short file names are not sufficiently clear, and also: At that time I uploaded the photo, it was only Commons's second photo of a Roma trolleybus taken in Roma (there was another photo of one on test in Budapest in 2005, running on batteries only) and it was also the first one of a Roma trolleybus operating as a trolleybus (with its trolley poles on the wires). Surprisingly, even now, nine years later, my 2007 photo is still the only photo on Commons showing the front end of a Roma trolleybus operating as a trolleybus. Currently, 6 of the 9 photos in the category show vehicles with their trolley poles down (operating on batteries, or parked with their poles down). Aside from my 2007 photo, the only two photos showing a trolleybus operating in trolleybus mode are rear views, so my photo is still the only front view in trolley mode, and I think that is why the photo is used on so many pages (currently 9 Wikipedia articles and the Wikidata page). Steve Morgan (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


... for noting which images were used in this article. Not sure where "Ajbenj" came from, though. -Another Believer (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I'm not sure why you are confused. Some of the photos that were used were taken by User Ajbenj on Wikipedia (and copied to Commons years ago by someone else), not by you, as explained on the Commons pages for them (such as this one). Steve Morgan (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Info requestEdit

Good morning Mr. Morgan, I should contact you for info concerning your photo used in this wiki page Is it possible contact you by e-mail? Thanks in advance for your kindness Best Regards

A. Accattatis (Witt2577)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Witt2577 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Source of PARC photosEdit

Going back to our original discussion, you have a problem with assuming good faith. I never claimed I took the scans from the city archives, only that I followed up with the archives to find more information and if there was clear evidence of copyright. —Halvorsen brian (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As I stated earlier today at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interstate at Lombard.jpg, Wikimedia's "good faith" principle does not mean that other users are encouraged to simply accept your word; it only means accepting your word if you have provided the minimum required information, which you have not done here. In the case(s) in question here, it is that you failed to provide any proof of publication that would legally permit your use of the public domain license that you used (date and title of publication, etc.), and then you refused to provide it when asked. Any personal communication you have had with the archives is worthless in permitting others to verify your claim that the photo was published between 1924 and 1977 without a copyright notice. OTRS should be used in such cases, assuming that the Portland city archives holds the copyright to the photo. It's a hassle, but it might be the only way to do it legally. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Lisbon tram cat namesEdit

Hello, long time! I had this in my watchlist:

Steve Morgan moved page Category:Lisbon tram 353 (Brill) to Category:Lisbon tram 353 (Stephenson): this tramcar was built by the John Stephenson Co., not Brill; an alternative disambiguator might be "(double-truck")

And I noticed you carried it out for all cats under CCFL fleet series 343-362. I don’t really agree since Stephenson was working for Brill at the time, resulting in car bodies not easy to tell apart from CCFL fleet series 323-342, built by Brill (unlike the same kind of subcontracting for CCFL fleet series 400-474, which are unique among Lisbon tram types); "Brill" here is meant not as a manufacturer but as a catch-all name for most Lisbon tram body types/styles (closed cars with boxy clerestories and open platforms), in use before the adoption of the “standard” type in the early 1930s; "(Brill)" is meant to contrast with "(standard)" under CCFL fleet series 343-362 and other cat pairs where such disambiguation is needed. (By the way, you’re wrong about «an alternative disambiguator might be "(double-truck")» (sic!) — it would not because the rebuilt cars of CCFL fleet series 323-342 and CCFL fleet series 343-362 remained double-truck — see both cats under sort key "≠".)

But anyway, you did and it’s done — but pls tell me why are Lisbon tram 353 (Stephenson) and Lisbon tram 356 (Stephenson) empty? I cannot recall their former contents, but I know for sure no empty cats remain blue for long, not with JuTa trawling for admin edits. Where ded you misplace the contents of these two cats?

-- Tuválkin 15:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Never mind — I found out what you did with those two.   Fixed now. -- Tuválkin 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Here is the main problem: I was confused by your category names, because the disambiguators you used – "standard" and "Brill" – were too vague and you did not explain your intended meanings for them on the category pages (particularly on the "Brill" cat pages). The logical interpretation of "(Brill)" (as a disambiguator) is that it is short for "(built by Brill)", if no specific meaning is stated on the category page that uses that disambiguator. If you use it in a different way, you need to explain that in a note at the top of the page. The meanings of category names should be made clear to all users, even for a user who is seeing a particular category page for the very first time. No user should be required to navigate and study all of the related categories (e.g., the many cats and subcats under "Lisbon trams by type") and learn the category-naming structure just to be able to use one subcategory. Adding a sentence at the top of each of these category pages would have told me what your intended meaning was, and in that case I would not have moved anything – but I would have suggested renaming some of the categories. I moved them only because I misunderstood what your category names meant. A note at the top, saying something like "Images of Lisbon tram 355 (built in 1906 by Stephenson) after its circa 1932 rebodying by CCFL in Lisbon “standard” style." would have prevented my confusion.
I initially thought (mistakenly) that your categories for cars 353/5/6 "standard" were referring to a different group of cars, single-truck trams that presumably carried those same fleet numbers many decades later (and that is why I suggested "double-truck" as a disambiguator), but I now see that I misunderstood. I apologize for that error, and I would have corrected it myself today if you had not already done so. However, part of my confusion came from the fact that I see no good reason even to create categories for the unrebodied versions of cars 353/5/6, when no photos exist on Commons showing them before rebodying (except a poor close-up showing just a portion of 355). Also, the three categories "Lisbon tram 353 (standard)" (and same for 355 and 356) should not be included both in Category:CCFL fleet series 343-362 and in Category:Lisbon tram 353 (Stephenson) (or Category:Lisbon tram 353 (Brill), as you had it before), only in one or the other. Seeing them in both was part of the reason I mistakenly inferred that "standard" cars 353/5/6 were completely different cars, not the Stephenson-built cars with those names. Again, that was a mistake by me, but adding clearer definitions at the top of the category pages would have prevented it.
Regarding "Stephenson" vs. "Brill": Although Brill acquired Stephenson in 1904, and these trams were built in 1906, my understanding is that Brill continued to market and identify trams built in the (former-) Stephenson factory as "Stephenson-built" cars, not as Brill cars, so books like the LRTA's The Tramways of Portugal (considered to be the most detailed English-language book on the subject of Portugal's tramway history) still separate "Brill" cars 323-342 from "Stephenson" cars 343-362, and do not refer to the latter group as "Brill" cars. However, the main source of confusion here (in my opinion) is that it is problematic to use "(Brill)" as a disambiguator for cars 353/5/6 before rebodying, when you really meant "(Brill-type)", or even "('Brill'-type)". Again, a note on the page explaining your meaning would have helped. However, to me, better disambiguators would be "(unrebuilt)" or "(original body)" for pre-1932 photos, and "(rebodied)" or "(rebuilt as standard)" for post-1932 photos of those three cars.
Steve Morgan (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It gets worseEdit

Okay, please do not do this. This is a 1980s photo showing the rebodied 355 car, rebodied in the 1930s and therefore to be shown under Lisbon tram 355 (standard) (with the no-clerestory CCFL “standard” car body type) and not under Lisbon tram 355 (Stephenson) — and that’s why the latter cat should have not been renamed, as this is not about manufacturers but about car body types. -- Tuválkin 15:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

A reply to this is included in my reply in the parent section, above. Steve Morgan (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the MBTA images!Edit

I really appreciate your commitment over the years to taking photos of transit, and in uploading them to Commons. Those two C Branch photos that you uploaded the other day are an invaluable look into a poorly-documented period of MBTA history. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: You're welcome! Because your interest in the Boston area and San Francisco have been apparent to me (from your uploads and editing) for awhile now, I already figured you would be happy to see those two recent MBTA 1987 uploads. But I did not expect you to leave a message here, and it was nice of you to do that. I rarely upload scans of my older photos at large size and high resolution, because I'd rather not give up most of my rights – as required by Commons licensing policies – in the case of material like that. But I was increasingly frustrated that my 1980 Muni photo (I was just a kid then!) was still the only well-lit, well-composed photo of a Boeing LRV in service on Commons (one showing the full vehicle and both the front and side), on either of the two systems that used those cars, six years after that upload. (The one here is good enough for use in articles, but is slightly washed-out in the roof from overexposure, and has low resolution, as well as being relatively small.) So, I decided a few months ago to upload one scan of a Boston/MBTA Boeing at high-res and fairly large size, and maybe one or two others at high-res and medium-to-small size. I don't intend to upload any more large files of MBTA Boeing LRVs like that one of car 3466, but I felt that Commons really needed at least one such photo. It happens that all of the few good photos I got of Boeings on that 1987 trip were on the C Branch.
I also plan to upload another relatively high-resolution scan of a San Francisco Boeing LRV, since that 1980 shot I uploaded in 2012 was taken on very cheap film (before I learned better and switched to Kodachrome); I managed to repair the degradation of its color, but couldn't repair the relatively high noise from the cheap film's deterioration over the 32 years between being taken and being scanned. I also wanted to upload a photo of a Boeing LRV in the Muni Metro's Market Street Subway, since I knew I had (a few) photos that are much better than the only such photos on Commons, and I did that today, with this photo. But I plan to upload at least one more daylight view of a Muni Boeing in the near future. Thanks again for your note. Steve Morgan (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It's quite funny how one image can end up being used everywhere - I see my highly mediocre map of the Fairmount Line in news articles fairly often. Even with the film deterioration, your 1980 image is well-lit and well-framed - kid Steve did a darn good job. I definitely understand not wanting to give up certain rights; I've been a bit resistant to uploading a few of my favorite photos. I'd be thrilled if you're willing to upload any more C Branch images at a reduced resolution, but I'm incredibly thankful for what you have chosen to upload. Your Embarcadero photo from today is a great shot, too. As a recent transplant to SF, I find it fascinating to see Muni Metro and BART when they were shiny and relatively new. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


See page 16 or so of this brochure: Pretty sure that is your photo of the Platform District. M.O. Stevens 03:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thanks for letting me know. I'll probably contact them. Steve Morgan (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Steve Morgan".