This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jjron. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yeah that sounds good. I don't thing I'll nominate my bearded dragon shots, because as you say they don't have much in the way of wow --Fir000208:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the advice. After googling some images, I a sure this id is correct. I have left a message on the image talk page as you suggested, hope its okay. Regards. Muhammad(talk)16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Bearded dragon
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Jjron, I've uploaded an alternative picture of the Cape St. Vincent site on Mars for an FP nomination. It basically shows the same site in much greater scope. I'd appreciate if you'd check it out at the nomination page. Thanks!—DMCer™18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
need ur help
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Jjron, I need to know about camera's and image processing, can you pls give me your email id, so that it'll be easy for me to communicate with you??
Thanks in advance.
--Cj.samson (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello jjron - there is a higher resolution version of the dino poster at WP:FPC. Please check it out if you have a moment. The creator has also addressed the phylogenetic order question to some extent. Cheers, deBivort23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Photographic Master Award
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Congratulations! You have been selected as one of Wikipedia's Masters of Photography for your outstanding contributions to the project. Please place this award somewhere on your userpage! Also be sure to visit the Photographic Masters' Guild Homepage. There you can find out more about project and utilize the forums etc. As a recipient I would request that you create yourself a profile and add five of your very best images (not necessarily 5 FP's - just five photos you think are your best) to the Guild Gallery. If you don't do this within 14 days of recieving this award I'll assume you'd rather I do it on your behalf.
Hello Jjron. You showed interest in an FPC that was up to peer review. "a Lone House", remember? Just want to draw your attention to that it is now up as a fpc. Gah I cant make a link to it, just go to the FPC site and it will be on the top (or close to). PureRumble 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well it would simply be plain wrong to rally those who will support it and leave the others in the dark. Besides, you're the only one against this picture, you're not providing any significant resistance for me to be worried about :-], and I get away with some gentleman tricks too ;-) PureRumble 13:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
block request
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Sorry to bother you once more, but since you took the time to help me choose a candidate for FPC from my tortoise pictures, I would like to request you to please vote for the picture here. Thanks again for your help.
Already promoted. I retain my support for the promoted version (but agree that the small version is a disaster, and any reasons for wanting it in the Shakespeare article by those editors seems bizarre and totally self-serving, and I would oppose that too). --jjron (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Triple-H-Spritz-Temp.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, sorry to be such a drama queen, but I was having a rather bad day and that pushed me over the line! Thanks for dealing with the nomination for me, that's much appreciated. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Kaaba
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hi jjron,
Thanks for taking time to edit the picture.
I think your picture is better and I would appreciate it if you would nominate the image too, as I might bungle up with the reason for nominating.
Regards Muhammad(talk)07:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for working on it. Regarding the encyclopedic value vs quality issue, do you think this should be raised on the FPC talk page to jolt the voters back to the objectives of FP? Muhammad(talk)13:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Could you please vote for the spinning dancer optical illusion at FPC? Today is its last day and it has 13 supports against 7 opposes and most of the opposes are not reasoned. Muhammad(talk)10:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks for your comments about my pictures, the Grotto Point Reserve and the other one. I will try to be more careful next time. Would you like to have a quick look at my drain pic Drainbankstown.jpg. I think the sky might be a little white in this and I know there is one bad join mark in the image that duplicated part of the step ladder, but apart from that I think it looks reasonable. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice on the camera settings, I will try the portrait setting next time I go out. With the drain pic, well I actually passed it on to a few cave clan members in Sydney as I have been out a few times with them and was out with them last night (location and names withheld). But yes pass it on to that bloke and see what he thinks.
Once again thats for your help. With the cave clan, well I haven't done anything to significant as of yet, even if I did I would not be allowed to discuss anything. If you have seen my bunker and tunnel photos, well all that stuff I found myself either through word or mouth or through Peter Dunn who runs the oz@war website. Most of my bunker pics can be found here [2], nothing special about the quality though. I will look into other methods and programs to work on my photos as well. I have tried to improve the Grotto Point Image and I have uploaded a new version.
Once again thanks for you advice and constructive criticism which is also very helpful. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I didn't know much about it but it seemed to qualify, I was in a rush at the time so I couldn't fill it all out. So my appologies to the inconvience I may or have caused. Shougunner (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Playboat FPC
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Good catch. In retrospect there did seem to be something odd going on, but I never would have put my finger on it, myself. Between the weird influx of hurricane shots and lots of newer users nominating and voting in unexpected ways, it was no mean feat to figure something like that out. This was the closest barnstar I could find to recognize it. Matt Deres (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I second the above. And here's the fallout: all accounts indefinitely blocked, over 95% of uploads deleted as copyvios. There's nothing like a fiendish conspiracy to get copyvios on the main page... MER-C08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I guess it was MER-C and others that ended up having to all the dirty work though :-). --jjron (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome. But speaking of barnstars... I was toying with the idea of removing that dude's, considering he basically just gave them to himself. The page is blanked out now, but see 'em here. Five in three days! He's lucky he didn't wrench his shoulder patting himself on the back! Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah, they're as gone as I could make 'em. I didn't realize the user page got blanked like that (back when I was considering removing them). It's just an odd mix of the pathetic and the ludicrous, but I'll file a note in the back of my mind if anyone questions what went down. Hell, if I'd known you could give 'em to yourself, I'd have three of each! Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I replied here but the image was promoted soon after - as it probably should have been - but there does seem to be a line of funny white dots in the background of it, that ideally I'd like to see gone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Spoonbill
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Actually, I thought that I was moving to the end of the list. I must be missing what is the issue with putting a (revised) picture at the end of the list? NorCalHistory (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Jjron,
I was sad to see you saying on the peer review page that you aren't planning on commenting on illustrations in the future. We are all volunteers, and researching and editing illustrations is a huge amount of work that takes a long time, but I also think it is very valuable. So, if you don't think it's worth your time, that's fine, but do know that the fact that you make detailed comments on illustrations is appreciated by at least one lazy, uninvolved observer! - Enuja (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
FPC
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Jjron, I want to thank you for your help with promoting the Wayne Gretzky image. And I was also wondering if you could give your opinion about another hockey image; [3] This cropped image show two players (Jonas Nordquist & Esa Pirnes) concentrating on the puck before a faceoff. I know the image only show part of the players but IMO there is no better way to illustrate a faceoff, so the image has a very high encyclopedic value IMO. Do you think an non cropped, better post processed, high resolution photo would stand a chance in a FPC? Best regards. --Krm500 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the image you saw was cropped at a 2-to-1 format, often used for online news. There is more information above and below the players in the non-cropped version. I will upload it later and then you'll get a better idea of how it looks. But my concern is regarding the composition, IMO the image is encyclopedic since you can see how the players position them self and their sticks for a faceoff. But I can understand if non hockey fans don't find it encyclopedic since they only see part of the players. --Krm500 (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Jjron,
It is very possible that the narration on one slide flowed onto a second slide.But I have 35 slides and it is happening on all of them.
Although I have not set the size of the narration for each slide because I am not sure how to do it. Maybe it is set for a short narration and mine are too long and as you say flows to the next slide.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I know this is a little late but there is NO rule that says that you can't have more than one of the same category on the nominations page
--*****Elena85******User:Elena85/2008cyclone 22:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No one said you can't, but you should use some commonsense about the process. Having six different photos of the same type of thing at once is NOT sensible. Rather than coming to a project and trying to create your own rules, you need to spend some time around a project and see how things are done first. And some manners would also be appreciated. --jjron (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (Posted to user's talkpage as well. --jjron (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
The process of Nominating Pictures
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't exactly understand the whole process of nominating pictures yet. What is the last step before becoming a featured picture? I never see any of the nominated pictures actually become featured. (I just nominated my 4th picture after 3 failed pictures.) (The Formation of an Atoll, French Formal Garden, Busy Ha Long Bay) Rj1020 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just wanted to let you know that I changed your four bullet points to numbered points so I could refer to them. I hope you don't mind. grenグレン16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I used bullets for a reason though (found through prior experience with these comments), namely that if someone puts a reply 'mid-numbering' it mucks up the numbers, and they reset to 1 after the reply. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jjron. I have just added a little to the Nargun article, and noticed that you have made some contributions in the past. I have been trying to reference the article more, so if you know what references you used, and could add them, that would be great. DigitalC (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
How long is the ban? Please don't make it indefinetly!
--*****Joan97******Active Storms 01:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Joan97
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Now i'll leave FPC and then go editing the hurricane articles (no vandilism) and stop doing this (this is only the first time) kind of stuff. --*****Joan97******Active Storms 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hi there. In light of your comments on the FPC talkpage (before I, uh, kind of hijacked the thread), I think that you and I (and others, if I understand their comments correctly) have some similar ideas regarding a different level of recognition outside the featured picture mechanism. You mentioned that you already had put some thought into something along those lines - if you're looking for a sounding board or second opinion before putting it all out there on the FPC talkpage (or wherever), please consider me (and my talk page) available if you like. Based on the other comments in the thread, I think there's a real desire to get something else out there, though obviously there are some pitfalls we'd all like to avoid. If you don't have room on your plate for that kind of thing right now, I'll probably throw something out there on the FPC talkpage and see what the community feeling is. Cheers! Matt Deres (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What you say about the assessors sounds reasonable but I think we should decide on what to do now, as the opinion poll has bee open for quite some time.
Sorry for the delay. Option 2 certainly got the most votes. I don't know what to do about no one opposing but I think you should go ahead and set up the pages. Regarding using the PPR page, perhaps it would be better to set up an entirely new place, with the voting system much like the current FPC one, except the criteria to be different? Muhammad(talk)16:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I just dropped by to see if you were up for getting the wheels moving on this. I'd say you got a pretty clear consensus for option 2, although reading over the debate which brought us to that point, there are very few expressed preferences as to exactly what & where it should be. My 2¢ – it seems to me there was no objection to PPR being adapted (read: hijacked ;o)) for the purpose, and I'd suggest starting a discussion to thrash out the criteria, first and foremost. I'd suggest the biggest initial moves would be (1) discussing a redirect from WP:PPR to WP:VP (or whatever we decide to call it) (2) keeping it simple for now: no need for special reviewer qualifications, no need for complex submission categories, ie you go to PPR/VP and a candidate image either gets VP promoted, FP submitted, or simply reviewed without award. (3) looking at COM:VI criteria and slimming them down to major points, to give the WP project something to build on. The first thing would be to port this discussion to WP:PPR talk, get a consensus for the main changes and see what happens. --mikaultalk09:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with PPR but I was wondering... what if someone wants both, vote for VI and peer review for FPC. Let's say, it passes for both. What will we do? Add it to VI or nominate at FPC? These and some other such situations made me a bit reluctant to using PPR. But if PPR is simpler, then let's go for it. Muhammad(talk)11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi jjron. The PPR talk page has been quite for some time and not much going on apart from the comments made by mikaul, slaunger and me. We have only about six days to go and I noticed that commons is very active, announcing the launching, recruiting reviewers etc. Do we need to do ay such ting? do you need any help? Regards Muhammad(talk)16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Commons discussion are on the VI talk page. I read your comments on the PPR discussion page, and I guess you're right. No need to rush things. More on the PPR discussion page. Muhammad(talk)15:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You may be interested in the above case. There is now a fourth account. Unfortunately, SSP is backlogged substantially so this might not see action for a while. MER-C12:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixing the issue with the Angels at Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas picture
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
JJron, thanks for doing this for me. I am an old man and my head sometimes does not grasp the intricacies of working with Wikipedia. So I make a lot of blunders... Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aernyes (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
_________
JJron, I read someone's comments on my picture submission. He/she is probably right. I cannot go back to Las Vegas to retake the picture and as was stated, it may be a copyright violation (although I took this picture myself, there is no doubt about that). Maybe re-taking an image, which may appear somewhere else in the world constitutes copyright violation. In any case, I am tired of arguing any of the points. So there goes the "wow" effect.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I recently nominated a John Tenniel illustration as a featured picture candidate, but I've come to a bit of a problem. When I went to insert the FPC tag on the image page, I noticed that the file is still residing on Commons. What's the proper way to handle this? Do I just go to Commons and simply add the tag there? That's what makes sense to me, but what makes sense to me ain't always the way things get done! If I'd noticed the situation before, I would have tried to figure this bit out first, but here we are... :) You can reply here if you prefer, I'll add you to my watchlist. Matt Deres (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. I thought you were normally online around that time. I'll just post a note on the discussion page. Cheers! Matt Deres (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jjron,
As you may be aware, I have nominated Dschwen's image of Petrified Wood for delisting. You have, however, suspended the nomination until Dschwen was informed of this nomination - I now have informed Dschwen of this nomination. Could you please, therefore, remove your suspension from the nomination as I feel it wouldn't be correct for me to proceed to removing your suspension.
P.S. I found the nominator of the image (when it gained FP status) but he does seems to have left Wikipedia (he calls himself a Missing Wikipedian and his message was written in 2005! I did not deem it necessary to inform him of my action.
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sorry that I missed your small print when I commented on this edit. That kind of biting is not acceptable imho. Not acceptable for Fir0002, not acceptable for you. I will make a point of reminding you if I see it again, and it won't be on your talk page. I hope you understand. You'll see that I made a similar comment to two other contributors today. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I was anticipating that kind of response from you. The unfortunate truth is that contributing lots of pictures doesn't make you into a greater human being. If you're lacking in courtesy, it will be pointed out to you, regardless of any "status" that you claim for yourself. Your reply has only reinforced my resolve. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems you have a clear understanding of "earning" and "awards". I remain in hope that things will be more harmonious in future. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I want to take your time
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, John, I'm not sure I'd like yoy to take your time on editing of the image because I probably will not nominate it on FP. Of course, if you like to give it a shot yourself, it will be great, but I am afraid FP is not for me. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, John. Thank you for the great work you've done with the image! I like it very much. I replaced my image with yours in the two articles ans added it to Volcano. Not sure they will let it stay there. If you feel as nominating the image, please do.Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, John. IMO because lava is one of the properties of a volcano the article might benefit from the image, which shows lava entering the ocean. I'm not sure about basalt. Nobody calls it basalt in Hawaii. Everybody calls it simply lava. Please notice that lava does not need an ocean to soldify. If lava stops running, it soldifies in the middle of a land or all at old lava. I will replace my image in lava with that one. BTW there's an image in lava, which I like much better than mine . I thought about nominating that image instead of mine, but I'm afraid the quality will not let it to pass, or maybe something could be done to improve the quality? It is really a great image. May I please ask you, if you had a chance to take a look at my other image yet? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
John, I am afraid you are mistaken about basalt and lava. Most lava flows are not basalt lava flows. Basalt lava flows are very special because they usually soldify creating amazing columns. Even old lava flows in Hawaii are called "lava flow". At the map of Hawaii one might see something like this: "Lava flow 1879-1881" or "Lava flow 1996-1998". I do not think the image I pointed out to your atention is blured. I think that it is noisy and not enough DOF. On the othe hand I know the contidions such images are photographed. It involves a long walk over lava flow at night. Lava flow is very, very uneven surface. It has many big holes and cracks and so on. It is not a good walk even at day time and at night time with tripod it is simply dangerous. So I believed that maybe this could mitigate the problems with the image.Thank you for all great work you are doing on pictures peer review!--Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, John.I'm very sure, it is not a helicopter shot. It is a time exposure and helicoptors do not fly to Volcano at night.No I will not nominate it. I'd like to stay away from FP for a while even with other people images.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that it is a time exposure by the way the lava entering the ocean looks and by blured smock. Sometimes it might be hard to see the red lava during the day time because of all the smock. That's why many people go to see lava at night. The only way to take an image of the lava at night is a time exposure. I read your comment at my other image and responded there. Thank you! May I please ask you, when you have a time to take a look at that one (Please take your time). It is the first eruption of that crater since 1924.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, John.I've bothered you a lot talely, have I?No I'm not going to nominate anything at FP for some time. IMO the best time to take images of red lava is at dusk or down. Of course the time of exposure deppeneds on F number and ISO. I do not have any INFO, but, if you are interested in nominating the image, I could try to contact the photograpgher through Flickr. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, John. I do not think I'd like any of my images to be nominated on FP. Sorry I bothered you all that time and thank you for your kidness.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
POTD notification
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, John. May I please congratulate you with the great work you've done for Valued Pictures Proposal? IMO it should be very good and interesting project. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
POTD notification
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Listen pal, I decided to message you myself. On two occasions you have critisised me. One for my wording, one for my opposition to an image. I had a perfectly good reason for opposing it. If im wrong, more people will support the image, and I will be out-voted. But that has not happened. In fact, most of the people who have added comments, have all been relatively similar to my point of view. But you only questioned my opinion. Why is this? Is there some reason why you have decided you dont like me or don't think my opinion is valid? You are getting close to the point of harrassment.
In the other case, you picked up the fact that I incorrectly worded my support. I believe that everyone understood what I meant, especially as I said "the new one without the leave." I have also, infact, recieved an email about this, where a member said he agreed with my reaction to you. Regards, Grant ← κεηηε∂γ(talk)09:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
On the current nom I validly pointed out that your Oppose - the only one on the nomination - was not a valid reason. I even quoted the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria that you had clearly not understood. If you don't understand criteria, or don't understand the topic you are voting on (which you clearly don't here), then I'd suggest you stay away from that nomination. For crying out loud, how am I singling you out to be attacked when you are the only one that has opposed???
On the other nomination that you refer to I pointed out that your vote was not valid as it referred to an image that did not exist. Do you want your votes counted or not? I often close FPCs, and your vote simply would be discarded on that nom as it did not refer to a valid option.
In fact I'd suggest you watch the Wikipedia:No personal attacks business yourself, as it is you that called me a fool, and you that has now attacked me on my userpage. Any of my comments have simply addressed your votes and pointed out that they are possibly not valid. If you don't wish people to comment on your votes, then don't make them. If you do make them, then make sure they're valid. --jjron (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was the only Oppose vote, but there were other comments along the same lines, and you only commented on mine.
From the same criteria you posted (#3): "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way" - The reason I opposed. It was not compelling, the image had a dark patch in the corner, and the joeys elbow was in the way.
Yes, I worded it incorrectly, however I explained my vote, so it would have been easy to understand my vote. I used the word "Edit" instead of the word "Image" easily done...
I did not call you a fool. I suggest you look and read again. I said you were acting like a fool. Which you were.
I have no qualms about people (including yourself) commenting on my votes, however the reason i am irked is because it is yourself on two occasions making comments, questioning the validity of said vote. Basically claiming I should not be voting, because I can't do it right? I have voted quite a few times, and never had any issues. I suggest in future, you simply say what you mean, instead of acting like a smart-arse with your sneaky comments.
If you think I shouldn't vote, because I cant do it right, I suggest you look here. Im not a newcomer, but the principle is the same. Regards ← κεηηε∂γ(talk)14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, its still borked. You added another "|" to the code. I dont think anyone else looking at this would understand. Everyone would just ignore that link because its not valid. ← κεηηε∂γ(talk)14:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your latest comments on the current nomination and referred it back to the nominator for clarification. And yes I've said what I mean (sigh). I've commented on two of your statements because there's been a reason to. I don't care if it's you that's made them, or someone else, if there's errors I'll point them out. In fact I didn't even realise it was the same person when I commented on the Wallaby. And please refrain from the puerile name-calling and meaningless references to policy for some imaginary grievances that haven't happened. I have better things to do. --jjron (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not meaningless references to policies. You quoted a policy so did I. Although I agree, enough time has been wasted on this. I suggest you watch how you speak to people as well. This would have all been averted if you were careful in how you worded your replys. Over-and-out, ← κεηηε∂γ(talk)15:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lava image
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, John. I'm feeling stronger now and, if you still wish to nominate the lava image, you've edited, please do. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you may be better to nominate it yourself. I am currently attracting a few 'automatic opposes' from some users, so it may get a better reception if you did the nomination. --jjron (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
VI/VP
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'd just like to say that it is (now) a pleasure to communicate with you regarding these issues, and I take this as a compliment! -- Slaunger (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, You commented on a photograph i had taken a while ago at peer review. Interestingly User:Adam.J.W.C. took that image and (poorly, in my view), photoshopped part of the subject out. Someone changed it back, he promptly reverted the edit with an edit summary containing "because no one wants to see the guy in the photograph". Promptly after that he replaced it with an image of his own. The prominient graffiti in this shot has been clearly photoshopped, taken from the image I photographed. In my view the image is inferior for the purposes of the article, and a person in the shot is a useful thing. I haven't made any contest to his edits yet. I am wondering about your opinion on the matter (the edits seem personally motivated), and if you know anything about Wikipedia policy on doctored images.
Noodle snacks (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are you logging in and out to replace the photos. You seem so desperate to have this guys picture at the very top of the article. Who are you trying to impress. Adam (talk) (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply here since an editing argument seems to have spread across to my talkpage :-). I agree that the edited Tasmanian image with the 'ghost' individual is very disconcerting, and should not be used. One area of policy that comes to mind re this photo modification is Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. To quote the relevant text:
A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion.
I haven't checked the second image shown here at fullsize for signs of photoshopping (other than to say that that 'face' graffiti is eerily similar), but if it is doctored then the same policy concerns would apply to it. Can I suggest that you both also need to be wary of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Re the images themselves, and not to take sides, but I would personally say that the image showing the explorer seems to me more informative and striking. One thing that is often done in a conflict like this is put the competing images onto the article's talkpage and take it to a vote of regular editors of the page - now that works to a fair degree in big articles with lots of contributors, like say Sydney, but this article may not have sufficient traffic to get a sufficient response. An alternative would be to put both images up at say Picture peer review and ask contributors there to comment on which they thought served the article better. If all else fails it can go to some sort of more formal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedure, though it would be good to see some type of reasoned discussion first (I see a very cursory discussion on the Talk:Urban exploration, but that didn't seem to go far). --jjron (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The version posted that had the photoshopped graffiti (Taken from my photograph), was later swapped by Adam J.W.C. Whilst i am not sure how exciting a concrete/brick wall is at the top of the article, i think I'd just leave it there for the time being (rather than incite fighting over who's image gets to go at the top). I have uni exams shortly so don't really have time to do anything, I don't mind where the image goes so long as it is there and not in that modified form. Thanks for the info. Fortunately it seems to have cleared itself up apart from image position. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to post a vote on it, would have supported a downsized version, but by the time I got there it was well and truly buried anyway. Can always try again with something else I guess. --jjron (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Although most of the changes which you made to the Australian Synchrotron wiki entry were productive (thanks for the photos), it seems that you are a little overconfident with your accelerator physics.
In particular, replacing the synchrotron radiation link with a link to radiation was not particularly useful. The entire purpose of the $200M facility is to produce synchrotron radiation. It is best to maintain a link to the synchrotron radiation wiki-entry. Yes, synchrotron radiation is a form of radiation but the term synchrotron radiation chracterises it more accurately.
Also, the booster is a synchrotron, unlike the storage ring where niether the magnetic field or the electric fields are varied. (Please refer to the article synchrotron which provides an adequate description).
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, good job! We can only wait the day when the software allows for the original nom and delist noms to be automatically transcluded! Pstuart84Talk18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Help with my FPC Nomination
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hmm I could have sworn it was the final stage but looks like you're right. I'll change description. Not sure if it's worth re uploading with the new name, but I might after the nom is closed (one less page to update!) --Fir000206:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Are you implying that frequency of occurrence makes a practice acceptable? It seems to me that leaving a comment citing the number of edits has a purpose. Why point it out if it's not meant to influence the readers of the debate? Clearly it is an attempt to suggest that the comments of a relatively new user are of less value, while providing no incite into the substance of the comment itself. Wikipedia is not an oligarchy. User:Fir0002 has nominated his own photo and is in this case shows a disregard for the opinions of other editors. Specifically, if you look at the comments he has left, they respond to the oppose !votes, with little substantive address of the reasons why his photos shouldn't be featured. He is neither acting in good faith, nor is he acting in a manner consistent with working towards consensus. He's not "Acknowledging differing principles and a willingness to reach consensus". I find it most unsettling that User:Fir0002 also seems to use wikipedia to promote his services as a photographer and explicitly requests financial support on his userpage. I'm trying to Act in Good Faith, but more and more his contributions seem to be spam. And as much as I can admire his skill and his contributions, he still appears to be a passive-aggressive bully.
Anyway, can you really tell me that you think the composition is good in that image? Especially compared to User:Fir0002's other works, this is just okay, and definitely not wikipedia's best.Swimmtastic (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to view the images. A user on commons also said the onion picture was good but slightly out of focus. I will see if I have any better image. Regarding the banana, some user at commons said the flash lighting "flattened the image", and as you say, complained about the background. Is it possible to apply a Gaussian blur in the background? I would appreciate it if you could look at the banana flower image at full size. Thanks for your help, regards Muhammad(talk)16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to do the edits. I prefer edit 2 over the others. I tried performing an edit myself. I guess its edit2 or 3 for me. What do you think? Muhammad(talk)10:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Mate starting a Facebook group for the Murray-Darling Basin, I saw your shot on here and wondering if there are anymore good pictures of the Murray you would be willing to give to the cause.
Please drop me a line on here if you are interested in helping out.
Hi, I have a few more pics of the Murray, but not that much really. I have a few more at Wentworth (probably of the Darling actually), a few taken at Mildura and Red Cliffs, and a few at Euston from that particular trip. Can't think of much else I currently have of the Murray, I might have some down around Albury, but probably very little. Is there anything in particular you are looking for? --jjron (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Brolga-1-Healesville,-Vic,-3.1.2008.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Zizina labradus butterfly
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Image you tagged as 'missing' does not seem to be missing
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jjron. This is about Image:German instrument of surrender1a.jpg. I know little about speedy deletion criteria for images, but I looked at this one to see if I could close it. You have tagged it as a {{missing image}}, which I understand means 'corrupt or empty.' Since the image is clearly there, and I can view a resized thumbnail, what do you see as the problem with it? EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
..That image Image:German instrument of surrender1a.jpg was nominated at FPC and was tagged with the FPC tag. It wasn't promoted (a different version was promoted).As it failed the nomination the FPC tag is then removed, and since it was a file from Commons it is tagged with the missing image tag since the Wikipedia description page of that image no longer has any contents. The deletion (which has occured) then removes that description page, not the image itself. The image itself still clearly exists, as you said, but in fact it resides on Commons...
Thanks for the detailed reply. Can a random admin who notices the image with the speedy tag do something useful to fix the situation? EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It's just the usual WikiProject fun, againand again. The image seems to suffer from CA, artifacting and tilt/distortion. By the way:
The Working Man's Barnstar
Thanks for cleaning up after LordSunday and helping clear the backlog and preserving my sanity in the process - things that probably wouldn't have been done (properly) for yonks if you didn't. MER-C13:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it sounded like you needed a bit of a break, and were understandably miffed with the mess that had been left. BTW, you'd be a tough voter if you voted at FPC :-). I'd say it's lens distortion rather than tilt (things in the centre look pretty straight), I was looking in the sky for the artifacting, but it's mainly in the water and is quite significant. I'd also add that the focus is a bit funny - I think it may have been focussed on the buildings at the left, which leaves about half the photo at the right pretty soft and a bit awkward really. --jjron (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Just a heads up: I intend to change the order in which new FPs are added to WP:GO to the newest being on top, perhaps this Sunday. It was a lot easier to code. I did my first run with the program on Sunday - there were a few minor issues which I fixed. It's still very sketchy and only I can use it at the moment, but it covers steps 3, 4, 7, 8 (and soon 1, 2, 10 and 11) of the promotion procedure. MER-C10:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In order: 1) Nope. 2) Not an issue, right now it takes input of the form nomination page|image promoted|nominator|creator ("" if not Wikipedian)|short caption from a text file. 3) This is irrelevant. MER-C13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's really weird. I can't remember whether I ran the program for that edit or stopped it earlier. This was an automated edit (I'll start tagging them as such once it's ready for public use). I will be testing all of next week. MER-C11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
phantom-image-ofyours
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hey John,
You have been quite quiet for some time; I hope all is well. About the valuable images, are there any further plans to proceed? We are way past the date we ha hoped to launch the project on. Please let me know if you need any help. Regards Muhammad(talk)16:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
And nomatter how it ends here you are always very welcome at COM:VI, which has increasing activity. We have now passed 200 VIs. And I think it is proving its value right now with the recent scholar image by Muhammad, which is not doing so well at WP:FPC. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Muhammad here. Re Slaunger, yeah I have a look at Commons VI every now and then. It seems to be chugging along nicely and attracting a fair bit of traffic. Well done! Must say that is part of the reason I've put my 'pedia VP proposal on ice. --jjron (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank you John! If I should be a little self-critical though of commons:COM:VI we certainly could use more diversity in the kinds of nominations and also among the reviewers, where less than a handfull are regulars. I hope this will improve over time. I am of course still hoping that more enc-valuable-aware veterans from en and other Wikimedia projects will begin to join more regularly, as I sometimes feel we could have a better feeling for which image works best in the context of an online article. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That was one criticism that had struck me too - that there seemed to only a small set of reviewers, thus potentially decreasing diversity of opinions. I have considered the project, but really don't have the time to spend on it (another reason I went a bit off the idea of VP here). Still, as you said it should continue to grow over time. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Australian Synchrotron
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
G'day,
I was just curious as to how you got inside the synchrotron building in order to photograph it? Was it something like the telescope I photographed the other day (turn up and ask the person in charge to take a photograph)?
I'm a Physics teacher and they introduced a new elective unit at Yr12 a few years back based on the forthcoming Synchrotron. I chose to teach it and they offered PD sessions on the Synchrotron unit, including a tour of the facilities. When I went last year it was still a couple of months before the official opening, but for the most part it was set to go. I didn't think they'd let you take photos in there, but I asked the director of the place and he was happy enough for me to do so. Unfortunately I only had my old A95 rather than the DSLR, and no tripod, etc, and had to stick with the tour group so couldn't spend much time waiting for optimal times or composition, thus explaining why the photos weren't super hi-res. They occasionally run public tours or open days at the facility too (I think there's one in the next month or so), but whether or not they let you take photos then, who knows. And even if they did, I suspect they'd be restricting access and hustling the tour groups along even more when it was potentially big groups of just the general public. There didn't seem to much like what I had from anywhere else in the world though, the nearest was some relatively low res shots of a facility in France, which were apparently publicly released official photos. --jjron (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
POTD notification
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hey John, thanks for the compliments. It is indeed spooky, I hadn't noticed it yet... so I should expect my 3rd FP by 15 October 2009. I have nominated 2 images for review at PPR. Could you please have a look? Regards Muhammad(talk)12:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to purchase a macro lens and was hoping for some guidance from you. Apart from being good in macro, can it be used to take good pictures of landscape and portraits? Muhammad(talk)12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently I own only two lenses, the 17-55mm kit lens and Sigma's 70-300mm telephoto lens which is not very good. The main reason I started photography was because I wanted to explore the micro world. The extension tubes and tele-convertors setup seems complicated, so I think I will go for the dedicated macro lens. About the lighting, there are so many different shoes flashes available at different prices. What makes the ideal flash? Muhammad(talk)15:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I recently proposed thet Wikipedia adopt its own Valued image department. Images with Valued status on Wikipedia would be highly encyclopedic images that succesfuly illustrated a point. I proposed the idea at the village Pump, only to find that you had already not only done so yourself, but had drawn up a rough draft for the project. I also see that, after the success of Valued Images on Commons, the project has fallen to the wayside. I believe that your idea gas great potential, but that it needs a kick start to get it going.
I think its time to be bold. I would be more than willing to help get the project off the ground. What do you think? Elucidate(parlez à moi)Ici pour humor08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've already seen both of those pages, and done an in-depth viewing of them. See here and here. I have also looked at the other records. I really like the idea of initiating this here on Wikipedia, but I doubt that the time is quite right. In time, I believe that a Valued Image department would benefit Wikipedia, but not today. When the time is right, I will be more than willing to initiate this project.And to answer your question, I am not an 'old-timer' from Commons. I created both my Commons and Wikipedia account just two weeks ago. However, I've been around. I'm pretty familiar with policy and the way things work. I think my next goal will be to get the Dog article to GA status: that could prove fun. Elucidate(parlez à moi)Ici pour humor18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've started. I have requested the creation of a Valued image seal, which I hope will be designed by the Commons illustrator LadyofHats. I have created the Valued image main page. While the Valued image and Picture Peer Review departments will be interlinked, I am creating a seperate page for VI. I will post the links to the relevant pages on your talk page as soon as everything is ready. Elucidate(parlez à moi)Ici pour humor12:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Re: One of the risks of putting things up at FPC is that people may oppose them. Opposes that make sense are often very useful; re-editing or withdrawing a nom., etc. is something I've done plenty of times. This particular discussion is odd for several reasons. One of the ones I hesitate to post is that a discussion rarely reaches this length without a single comment on the content. Do you think everyone who's posted spent 32 minutes watching the documentary? DurovaCharge!09:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The project goes live for nominations on 10 November, 2008 at 0:00 UTC
This Wikipedia Valued pictures project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high encyclopedic value, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such educational images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute enyclopedic images of difficult subjects which are very hard or nigh on impossible to obtain. The project will run alongside the existing Wikipedia Featured pictures and Picture peer review projects.
Please visit Valued picture candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Wikipedia is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.
The VP seal is no longer in use. I have requested a new design. It was used in the old version of the page I subst'd onto your page and a number of other user talk pages. It is no longer used on any of the VP pages. I think I might extend the time period for the project, though. The tenth of November is rather soon, and I'm not sure we will have got enough input from other users. I think I'll move the opening date to the first of December. I'm also really busy at the moment, so it might be best if the project start-up were postponed. Elucidate(parlez à moi)Ici pour humor17:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You seem to be artistic and a good photographer - perhaps you could help met to get a artwork for the article on Pier Gerlofs Donia? Thanks in advance,
Thank you for the compliments, but I really specialise in original photographs. I don't really work with scans or reproductions of artwork; occasionally I may help with a restoration, but rarely, and mainly with historic photographs rather than art. I would recommend dropping Durova or Shoemaker's Holiday a note as a good starting point for something such as this, as they tend to be more involved in this area. If they can't help directly, they may be able to point you in the right direction. You may also find some interesting information at Commons:Help:Scanning. Cheers. --jjron (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Note after reading IP's talkpage - I have provided the above information in good faith. Please don't misuse this information or spam the above users' talkpages. FWIW, to the best of my knowledge they are not in the business of creating artwork. And can I suggest that you create an account from which to edit in future? --jjron (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
VPC
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks, for whatever role my earlier work had to it's current incarnation :-). I haven't participated there yet as I haven't had time to spare, and haven't got my head around the final criteria. A quick look through the comments on current noms suggests there may be some finer points of which I am unaware. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Not replacing the line breaks made the display in the preview look very odd hence the replacement. I'll go through and fix them though as it shouldn't take long. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I decided to close them myself as they wouldn't be controversial and they'd been floating about for weeks. I should have logged in with an anon IP before substituting the templates just to get the whole new message thing :D. Yeah, I did mean the preview, incidentally despite fixing it I can't see a visible difference. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I am expecting a complaint or two, but I think across those images there might of been at most one or two opposes; they weren't controversial in any way. Most of the other people closing have been doing the easier ones (not promoted) or ignoring date order and leaving mine there. I wouldn't ordinarily do it, but a few weeks for some of them was getting a little silly. I think Strickland falls is probably readu for promotion (the early opposes were relating to enc in the Hobart Rivulet article and now it is in ND Filter), but I didn't promote that myself as at first appearances it isn't straightforward. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough re: slow connection. Turning images off completely would probably speed things up.
Quite right, I guess that notifying the nominator was on the list first, so that's the one I went for. I started linking to the nomination with the message headings instead of the images too. I also made this fix, I'd just been copying the previous entry which never had a description hence why they were missing. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Acts like drinking alcohol, consuming pork are Haraam (forbidden) for all Muslims of all ages. We are told that after the performance of a successful hajj, all the sins of the believer are wiped away and that he is "like a new born baby". Thus, many people believe, that after hajj, they should not commit sins as they have been given a second chance. However, performance of the forbidden acts before hajj, or delaying hajj itself are grave sins. From what I know, all sects of Islam agree with this, so the old man must have been misinformed or used faulty logic to justify his thinking.
Thanks for informing me. Could you please share the name of the book? Regards Muhammad(talk)07:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in your assumption. Muslims believe every child born is spiritually pure. Being just, God can not make us liable for any sin that was not committed by us. Whatever the ancestors may have done, all babies are supposed to be equal and can not be held accountable for their actions till they reach an age when they can distinguish between right and wrong for themselves. Hope I answered your question. Muhammad(talk)06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jjron. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I tried photoshopping, are the defects removed? Muhammad(talk) 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. --LAX 11:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-Spoonbill-2,-Vic,-3.1.2008.jpg)
. I thought about nominating that image instead of mine, but I'm afraid the quality will not let it to pass, or maybe something could be done to improve the quality? It is really a great image. May I please ask you, if you had a chance to take a look at my other image yet? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(Please take your time). It is the first eruption of that crater since 1924.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
-edit3.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://static.hockeyligan.se/upload/image/fhc/2007-2008/440px/Jonas_Nordquist_tekar_vs_Esa_Pirnes-3736.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://obj.fotosidan.se/obj/photo/cb/cba4d8959bb4168360af771553226082.jpg){kind=link}
-edit3.jpg){kind=link}
-edit3.jpg){kind=link}
