User talk:Fir0002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wolf spider image in depth of field article 2 Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg 3 Merry Christmas 4 Melbourne Zoo 5 RAW continuation 6 Merry Christmas! 7 Mexican Wolf 2 FP promotion 8 Featured picture 9 warnings 10 Voting consistency 11 Commons image needs deleting 12 orb weaver 13 Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg 14 Panoramas 15 Barnstars for you! 16 Panoramas 17 Featured Picture 18 You're Welcome 19 re: ff 20 Fires 21 Image Deletion 22 Unspecified source for Image:Wombat-in-snow.jpg 23 Bushfires 24 Featured picture promotion! 25 FP peer review 26 POTD notification 27 Image:Peacock portrait - melbourne zoo.jpg 28 Happy Wikipedia Day! 29 Your work 30 Congrats 31 Fires? 32 Another FP 33 WOW! 34 As if you don't have enough already... 35 Cactus image added to Flower 36 FPC edits 37 Comet photos 38 Featured picture promotion! 39 POTD 40 FP noms 41 Comet pic 42 Plums 43 photoshop help for panorama 44 Barnstar thanks 45 Another FP 46 Nice work! 47 Comet 48 1 year contributing? 49 Comet P1 McNaught02 pic 50 Fark.com photoshop contest 51 Your License 52 Cairns Birdwing 53 Western honey bee 54 Image:Collage_POV_scene.jpg listed for deletion 55 Subject/headline: 56 FPC comment please 57 One question regarding your FP noms 58 Just amazing! 59 QI Promotion 60 About the Barnstar...and, umm... 61 Hypolimnas bolina 62 all-focus pictures 63 POTD notification 64 QI 65 Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy 66 Fir for president (or at least pic'o'the year) 67 POTD notification 68 Commons Picture of the Year 69 fotocommunity.com 70 Wikipedia Weekly Podcast - interview? 71 POTD notification 72 Love your work 73 Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Mammatus_cloud_panorama.jpg 74 Wow! Great choice in so many ways. 75 Image tagging for Image:Remote_controlled_car.jpg 76 House Sparrow 77 Wikimedia montage 78 Image:Mammatus cloud panorama.jpg 79 Image:Meat eater ant feeding on honey02.jpg

[edit] Wolf spider image in depth of field article

We're trying to clean up the DoF article so that every image clearly illustrates a concept relevant to that article. Although your wolf spider image is interesting and well executed, it's not necessarily obvious what is being shown, especially to a person not familiar with the very shallow DoF in macro photography. The image would be far more instructional if one of the individual images (perhaps the one with the best focus on one set of eyes) were included for comparison. Would you consider adding such an image? I'd be glad to handle captioning and integration with the article. Mentioning the magnification also might be helpful. JeffConrad 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg

Hi there I've came across the picture and found it to be way over sharpened and the colour balance was off (unless, of course, the plants are blue in real life). I've nominated it for delisting as I found it not up to today's standard. If you can fix these problems I am happy to withdraw the nomination. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Hi Peter! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Darwinek - and Merry Christmas to you too! --Fir0002 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne Zoo

The problem is not will the photos, but with the placement of them in the article. The article is already cluttered with images. There is a link for people find your images on Commons. Thank you. Ansett 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAW continuation

I'd like you to see a good comparison too, but I think that unless you know the correct technique for shooting and processing RAW (it can be a little different to JPG) and you're shooting a scene with high dynamic range AND you pay close attention to the histogram (more on that later) then you might not make the most of RAW and conclude that it has no benefits. I don't know the exact details of how you shoot JPG so I can't tell you specifically how it could be improved, but you consistently demonstrate that you don't really understand RAW or its benefits. As you mentioned, the guys over at Fred Miranda shoot in RAW, do tweaks in PS (and I bet they use 16bit images to do the tweaks, because of the extra latitude that 16bit gives you for tweaking - if they don't, they're silly) and then save as a JPG. The important thing to note is that they shoot RAW in the first place. Obviously they do it for a reason. RAW allows far better tweaking than JPG does. It contains far finer values for intensity of RGB so if you make adjustments, you are far more able to avoid posterisation. FACT. This alone is reason to shoot RAW but there are other benefits too. When you mention that a monitor contains more information than the printer, you're missing the point. The reason for working with RAW/16bit images is NOT for better output to either a monitor or printer. It is for post production work with the highest possible quality image so that, as I mentioned above, you don't encounter posterisation among other things. Perhaps I should shoot a challenging scene in both RAW and JPG and show you what I mean. The problem is that we're talking about the benefits of each format for doing post-processing work, not simple shoot-and-display-on-the-web with no tweaking, so it isn't as simple as it sounds. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to shoot a demanding scene with messed up colour balance (yes, that does happen with JPG, the camera doesn't always get it right in AWB and the WB presets are not always right for every scene), bright highlights and deep dark shadows. I'll hand you the JPG as-is and you can attempt to 'rescue' it to try to match the output I got from the RAW after post processing it. It won't have to match my RAW output exactly, just attempt to rescue the image in a similar way. That will at least illustrate whether it is possible to do everything in JPG that it is in RAW and whether there are any practical advantages. I will try not to engineer faults in the JPG. I'll try to make it a clean, fair fight (but it is hard to do when JPG is clearly inferior for this sort of tweaking work). ;-) Are you up for the challenge? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Giddyup! :-) But shoot it in AWB - messing up the WB on purpose isn't fair! Posterization? Hmm... I've never occurred it in my pictures but I guess it's a possible advantage. --Fir0002 02:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas!

Thanks Andonic! --Fir0002 02:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican Wolf 2 FP promotion

Merry Christmas Fir0002!

Looking over the recently promoted FP, I reckon no edit of Mexican Wolf should have been promoted. My tally is:

• Original
  • Support 3.5 (NoClip (1), PharoahHound (1), Froth (0.5), YFB (0.5), Why1991 (0.5))
  • Oppose 4 (NightGyr (0.5), antilived (1), Tewy (0.5), Nautica Shades (1), TerriG (1))
• Edit 1
  • Support 4 (YFB (1), KFP (1), TeriG (1), Why1991 (1))
  • Oppose 2.5 (antilived (1), Tewy (1), Nautica Shades (0.5))
• Edit 2
  • Support 3.5 (YFB (1), KFP (1), froth (1), TerriG (0.5))
  • Oppose 3 (antilived (1), Tewy (0.5), Nautica Shades (0.5), Why1991 (1))

Edit 1 misses the 2/3 majority.
I know it's not a democracy, but this didn't appear to me to be consensus for edit 1.

Thanks for taking a look! Pstuart84 Talk 19:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

When I close noms with multiple edits, first I determine whether people want one version to be promoted. So for a vote like TerriG's (Support Edit 1, weak support edit 2, oppose original) I'd just count that as a support because he wants one version of the pic to get promoted. Then after determining if there is support for it I'd find out which version most people liked. However you could argue to add up each of TerriG's three votes (within his one vote) - but then you'd have to say NoClip's vote would be a support for all of the versions because otherwise he would get less of a "say" into it (only having one vote vs TerriG's three).

I may be wrong in the way I closed it but I feel this is the best way to close a nom with multiple edits without harming the nom. I mean think about it, if there were three version (as in this case) but everyone voted Support Original, Oppose Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2, the original, even though it had unanimous support, wouldn't get promoted because of all the "oppose" votes for edits 1 and 2. If you still think this wasn't correctly closed, perhaps it'd be best to bring it up on WP:FPC for a broader input.

Thanks for bringing it up though, and feel free to contact me any time you have any queries like this! --Fir0002 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

84 does indeed refer to 1984, my year of birth.

Just on the FP thing, your example of Support Original, Oppose Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2 would, by the same method as my counting above, mean the original was promoted (unanimous support) and the two edits not (unanimous opposition). It's not massively important, but I thought it worth raising.

All the best for 2007, Pstuart84 Talk 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it was worth raising, but as mentioned above, after determining if people wanted a version promoted I would tally the votes as you did initially, with Edit 1 being the favourite. --Fir0002 06:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would ask for more discussion in this case. _→AzaToth 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fir0002,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 18, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-18. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Red capsicum and cross section.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 15:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Red capsicum and cross section.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 22, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-22. howcheng {chat} 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Rock dove - natures pics.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hola!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Rock dove - natures pics.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 22, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-22. howcheng {chat} 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] warnings

Hi. Yes, warnings are usually subst'ed, but other than that it looked fine (I did that for you). If you add {{subst:test4-n|Articlename}}, you can add the article's name to the warning. For example,

{{subst:test4-n|User talk:Joyous!}}

would produce

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:Joyous!, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

All of the bracket business you asked about is part of getting the article's name in the correct spot in the template. If you don't add the article name, then the brackets just sit there twiddling their thumbs.

Welcome to adminship, by the way. I'll be happy to help if you have any other questions. Joyous! | Talk 05:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting consistency

Hello Fir, since you had questions about the consistency of my voting at FPC (which is perfectly acceptable) I have to return that favour today. How comes you support , and yet you opposed a couple of months ago. The unedited (!) version of which was POTD at commons two weeks ago. Genuine interest, please take no offense. --Dschwen 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, and you are quite free to ask. But I fail to see a parallel between the two images - they are very different from each other and can't see why you are questioning the consistency of my voting through these two examples. But I'll try to take a comparison between the two and explain why one I would weak support and the other I would oppose. Your image is too dark and has a unevenly polarized sky (lowering the enc) and personally doesn't appeal to me (question of aesthetics). The other image has pleasing brightness and good coloration. True it is marred by the blown out sky on the LHS, but you have to ask yourself what you're missing out on (some clouds and blue sky) and is it possible to take such an image w/o the blown sky. Because of this detraction it only gets a "weak" support. I hope that satisfies your curiosity? --Fir0002 02:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the sky. And I was asking myself what I was missing out on (nothing on my pic either). The unevenness in my pic is minimal and the color of the sky is not uniform in real life either. So I still don't quite see how that would lower enc. But you are of course entitled to you opinion on aesthetics. --Dschwen 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons image needs deleting

As per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre dame basillica delist, the image commons:Image:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg is ready for deletion. I'm not a commons admin but I see you are, so I guess you can do what needs to be done... Raven4x4x 11:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup done it --Fir0002 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] orb weaver

hi,

i just found your (as usual, top quality) pics of orb weavers while sorting the spider pictures. could you provide some additional information about this animal, so i could try to determine it? eg, size, where exactly the picture was taken, time of year (May?) many thanks :)

i suppose these two are the same:

• Orb weaver black bckgrnd02.jpg
• Orb weaver spider day web03.jpg

could you add the Category:Unknown spiders to spider pics that are not determined to species level? i just found some while browsing your history. if they are determined to species level, they are much more useful for the spider pages (and also maybe link different versions of the same spider to each other). btw, i almost had to cry when i saw the all-in-focus picture of the wolf spider (because that's exactly the kind of pictures i'd like to do, but i can't afford a better camera). --Sarefo 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the notice, I'll do that in future. Little hard to go and find the time of year of all previous spider photos, but for the two you mentioned, the black bg one was taken in Jan 2006, and the daylight one was taken in Feb 2006. I think all the orb weaver spiders I've uploaded are of the same species. Thanks for the comment on the wolf spider pic! :) --Fir0002 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

i think i determined the species, and put the pictures into Eriophora transmarina. although it is a bit strange, E. transmarina normally only sits in its web at night, the first three pics look like it's broad daylight. cheers :) --15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg

Aloha! As a courtesy, I thought I'd notify you that the Featured Picture status of Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg, which you created a/or contributed to, is currently being reconsidered. Feel free to weigh in at the discussion here, or correct any faults listed therein. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panoramas

Hello, Fir0002! I am using two panoramas you took on my user page. If you would like that I'd not use them, please notify me. Thanks and happy editing! —sd31415 (sign here) 13:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sd31415!

Not only would I not mind I would consider it an honor - go right ahead! Thanks for writing, --Fir0002 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Happy editing and hope you take more great photographs for Wikipedia! —sd31415 (sign here) 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars for you!

I seriously almost started to drool from admiring your user page. My page looks like road kill compared to your page. For the record, I award you with infinite "Excellent User Page Award". Oh, and have a "Lots of Barnstars Award" for the heck of it. =D Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 13:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved stars to userpage --Fir0002 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I love the archives, very professional and clean looking. I finally stumbled across your user page when I clicked on your signature in FPC. Yeah...flash would be much better, but that would get a little to extreme! =) Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panoramas

Hey Fir. I am in awe of your panoramas and am wondering what your trick is to patching the images together. Do you use a program to do it (which one)? Are there any specific methods you use to actually take them? I don't have an SLR-type camera like yours, so I am unable to lock an exposure, etc. I figured I'd ask you your techniques because your pictures come out so well! Thanks. → JARED ^(t)  21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats again. Raven4x4x 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hola again (that's the second one today),

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 25, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-25. howcheng {chat} 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're Welcome

Well, I guess now you have a new row. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: ff

IE7 certainly wasn't a hassle to install for me, just clicked the next button a few times and I was away. And imitating Firefox's cool ideas? Surely Firefox was imitating Opera for tabbed browsing. And if, for some unknown reason, lightning did hit my house, i think losing my web pages that i was browsing would be the very least of my worries. As for RAM, i have photoshop up pretty much 24/7 and a game (it's just how i work) so every mb of ram counts. You mention 6 extensions earlier, so add that onto Firefox usuing more than IE already, the bulky add on themes and extensions and that all adds up. My downloads work fine anyway, I've used getright and some other download acceleration program and they do speed up my d/ls, after taking your advice and installing the extension into firefox (that was after having to restart after FF freezing up) I noticed little tp no difference. So you can run incompatible sites? Why not just use IE to browse with, then you have no sites like that, what a solution! And it's not a security gain, I've seen plenty of pro FF sites say it is, but many other sites conclude differently. I'm not trying to claim IE is BETTER than FF, it is however at least equal. The reason you didn't think I'd used it is because FF isn't as wonderful as every user thinks. It is just another browser that some people like and most people don't. I have friends who use firefox merely because 'everybody else is'. And surely FF is trying to get away from that 'blatent' IE mentality? I truthfully believe FF is just about equal to IE, and have done for a while, but I use IE purely because every single FF user, and I'm afraid to say even you, sir, has their head about 3 miles up their own backsides. I really don't care for boasters, and that's the users are. They're all biased to FF way beyond belief, so telling them IE is good gives them a conory. See www.spreadinternetexplorer.com/Neverender 899 14:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fires

Fires again? Have I missed something? (on the news) Good luck, stay safe. Viridae^Talk 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Viridae! The Age has got it in their top stories today --Fir0002 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm I had a look at the DSE fire map after I left that. Its so cool in melbourne at the moment that I hadn't really considered the fires issue this weekend. Viridae^Talk 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Deletion

Please put more information on the image description page about why the image is on Wikipedia if you don't want them inadvertantly deleted again. The files right now are not linked to anything and say "temp for discussion." I'd delete them again if I did not know better. You could also put the images on the Commons. They might be safer there as I do not have Admin rights on the Commons :-) -Regards Nv8200p talk 13:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Wombat-in-snow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wombat-in-snow.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bushfires

Swifts Creek was mentioned on ABC news either last night or the night before - I hope things are alright! Leon 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• In The Age too. I looked at the maps though and the fire isn't burning in the direction of Swifts Creek at the moment. Looks all burnt out in that direction and was mainly heading south, but that was just my amateur interpretation... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well... I wouldn't go so far as to say things are bad, but they're not good either!

It was an absolute scorcher yesterday - probably around 45 degrees with a strong wind behind it. Morning it was beautiful skies, and then almost like a nuclear bomb this big plume of white smoke comes up (looked like a really violent cumulus) but it was smoke. Soon there was a massive cloud with amazing coloration behind our hill. Fortunately you couldn't see any flames but still was a frightening day. These photos were taken before the change came in, which although it sent the temperature rocketing down to about 25 it brought strongs winds blowing towards us! Anyway thats all over and it's pretty cool today without any wind, so see how we go. I'll post more photos if I get more time today --Fir0002 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nice photo but scary at the same time! I guess thats one of the fires where all the smoke came from. MODIS AquaMODIS Terra -- Bidgee 01:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture promotion!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Wild shortbeak echidna.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oy!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Wild shortbeak echidna.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 3, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-03. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 08:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And again!! Raven4x4x 08:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oy again!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 4, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-04. howcheng {chat} 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Meat eater ant qeen excavating hole.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 12:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Pardalotus with nesting material.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 11:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FP peer review

I don't really want to wait 3 weeks for an answer, so as the big man on FPC can you give me your comments at Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Starlifter_Despeckle? --froth^T 10:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

[edit] Image:Peacock portrait - melbourne zoo.jpg

That is not a India Blue Peafowl Pavo cristatus. It clearly resembles a hybrid of it with the Green Peafowl. Frankyboy5 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Dragonfly compound eyes02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 11, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-02-11. howcheng {chat} 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Wikipedia Day!

[edit] Your work

If I may say so... wow. You've got some amazing stuff. Hell, it's all amazing. Rawling 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank You! --Fir0002 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Congrats on having the POTM. It is a really nice picture. Keep on uploading pictures like that. Have a nice week and god bless you and everyone you know. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 12:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! But what is POTM - I'm guessing Picture of the Month but I haven't seen anything like it on wiki --Fir0002 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he is reffering to your pano of the month, thinking it is a wiki wide thing. Viridae^Talk 11:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fires?

Hey dude, heard there was a bushfire in Swifts Creek. Hope everything is ok? Stevage 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah everything is OK so far, fires are about 10km to the south of us currently --Fir0002 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another FP

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Hoverfly07.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats again. Raven4x4x 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WOW!

I must say that I am impressed with all these featured pictures that you shot. You are an artist! Another thing, your user page is extraordinary.

--196.202.53.248 00:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Fir0002 06:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes the bring stock photography is quite impressive THANKS FOR IMAGERY! !!!!

[edit] As if you don't have enough already...

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cactus image added to Flower

I moved your image from Flower to Cactus because I had earlier requested an image of this nature for the Cactus article, and because I did not think it showed a flower as well as parts of a flower (the stamens and stigma). Flowers are so diverse, that the page, imo, should include as much of this diversity as possible, without focusing on a particular area of the diversity (the bee close-up should go, too). If you have another image that is not a close-up of part of a flower, but rather a large image of a flower, from a family not covered for that particular area of the page, please add it. Thanks. KP Botany 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FPC edits

Hey Fir, hope everything's OK with you and the fires are keeping away. Just thought I'd mention that I added another edit to the Trench Warfare nomination based on the original upload to the Commons. I've quite often noticed that Commons images have been edited (sometimes not all that well) and replaced since they were first uploaded, so I always check the image's history to avoid making one edit on top of another. In this case, the Commons version was originally uploaded at 1200x1607 and then overwritten by an edit which downsampled it to 800x1071, lost a lot of the midtone detail through lightening and introduced JPEG artifacts. I expect you're already aware of this sort of thing but hopefully a friendly reminder won't hurt. Keep up the good work, and congrats on your pretty awesome run of FPs over the last couple of weeks! --YFB ¿ 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No! I wasn't aware of that! Thanks a lot for pointing it out! I knew of course that there may be more than on e version in the history but I've never bothered checking! Oh and thanks re: FP's this week! --Fir0002 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet photos

Hey Fir, have you had the chance to take any photos of the comet yet? The Age has an excellent shot] of it but I suspect given the right skyward conditions, anyone with a good camera/lens combo could match it. Would be good to see a similar photo on Wikipedia. The ones already on wikipedia aren't bad either though. I'm jealous of you southern hemispherites at the moment.. Its barely pushing above zero celcius here in London today. How close did the bushfires get to Swifts Creek by the way? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually managed to get some last night - I had no idea it was happening till I saw that article you linked to in The Age (I saw it yesterday too)! Which was a real shame as it wasn't as bright last night - I know because my older brother when he went out at around 10 to feed the dogs saw a strong light behind our hill. He thought it was only a flashlight or something to do with the firefighters! Oh well, there are a few I'd upload to wiki - but nothing that spectaular. It was quite an exprience though to see a comet like that - you see pictures and read about them but just looking at it for real is something extraordinary. Too bad about the weather - although we could do with some of London's wet weather! Bushfires got to 6km from Swifts Creek! Luckily we got 15mm of rain and better conditions and the firefighters reckon it's under control now - no smoke and looks like school will be opening on schedule next Wednesday! Great Alpine Road opened on Sunday which was fantastic - for about two weeks we'd been cut off. --Fir0002 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a shame. It was on the front page of Wikipedia for a couple of days prior! It snowed in London overnight last night which was nice to wake up to. First of the winter so far! Sunrise at 8am and sunset at 4pm along with the cold weather hasn't been conducive to much photography here though. :( You've been quite prolific on FPC lately - had more time up your sleeve over the summer? How've you found the 150mm Sigma macro lens? I have the 100mm Canon and am pretty happy with it but DOF has always been an issue and I can see it being even worse at 150mm! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh really?! That'll teach me for not looking at the main page. Nice that it's snowing for you - I was hoping to go up to Hotham last year and do some shots in the snow, but it's wasn't a very good snow season. Is it really that short a day?! That's pretty weird, and as you say wouldn't be very good for photography - except maybe the snow. Yeah I've had a bit more time this summer for photos and wiki, but also I'm kind of cramming it in, as in one week I officially start Yr 12 and except to be occupied with that! The sigma is very good - for sharpness you can't really fault it. Focusing is pretty hard - at extreme macro the Auto-focus doesn't really work that well. This, however, I think is something most macro lenses struggle with so not sure if even the Canon 180L would do much better. Aside from really close up the autofocus is accurate, albeit a bit slow. Distant shots (landscapes etc) turn out reasonable but obviously that's not what this lens is designed for! Color balance can be slightly off sometimes, tending towards the yellows. DOF certainly is a challenge, I usually stick to f/11 or at most f/13 due to diffraction - but this sometimes isn't enough DOF. But overall I'm very happy with it - and it's a really good lens for me (can't travel around myself!) as there is a surprisingly diverse amount of subject matter available. --Fir0002 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture promotion!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Green tent spider.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD

Fir,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:House sparrow04.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 23, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-02-23. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FP noms

If you're going to use the old format for nominations, please remember to add each nomination to the proper categories.

<noinclude>[[Category:Featured picture nominations]][[Category:Featured picture nominations/{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]]</noinclude>

Noclip 14:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet pic

Hey Fir, your comet picture is better than the one on the main page! Congrats! Next time the comet comes around, make sure yours is chosen instead. ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andonic! I'll make sure to do that! ;-) --Fir0002 11:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plums

Hi, I love the pics of plums you took but do you have any idea what variety it was? --Bjwebb (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry! except perhaps "really tasty" plums ;-) --Fir0002 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photoshop help for panorama

Fir002, I have noticed that you have helped edit several peoples panorama's to make them much better and I was hoping you could do the same for me. I just uploaded Image:Real Kaui Panorama1.jpg and I was wondering if you could help photoshop it to make it better. Best regards, Remember 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar! howcheng {chat} 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another FP

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Cactus flower closeup03.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Trebor 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Ulysses Butterfly - melbourne zoo.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work!

Hey Fir, I wanted to commend you on the direction your photo contribution have been taken lately (as far as I can judge from FP). Those are mostly great quality and high value pics. Especially going macro on insects opens up a huge field where lots of high enc high quality images for wikipedia are waiting to be shot by you. Anyway, nice work! --Dschwen(A) 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Dschwen! I agree, the insect world is a vast one which contains many amazing subjects - I hope to continue uploading high quality ones, but I'm afraid the volume will probably start decreasing as I move into Year 12 --Fir0002 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet

Walking around my dorm, I saw a guy who had Image:Comet_P1_McNaught02_-_23-01-07.jpg as his computer wallpaper! I said that I knew you somewhat and he was impressed :-) Just thought you'd like to know --froth^T 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, cool! Thanks for letting me know! --Fir0002 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Comet P1 McNaught02 - 23-01-07.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 year contributing?

By my count, you've been on here for over 2 years. What's with this "1 year contributing" story? :) Stevage 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Easily remedied by my leet Paint skillz. --froth^T 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, very good Froth! I left that 1 year thing there because it was the best way to link to that history page. I intend to do another at 5 years but that's a little way off yet! --Fir0002 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I know Froth's banner is good and all, but why don't you just say "...for more than 1 year" instead? Keeps it factual without having to create a new one.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way Froth, as per our FPC discussions, we strongly discourage watermarks on our uploaded images. >:-S Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet P1 McNaught02 pic

What day was it taken on, please? Bob -  uriel8  (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

January 23rd, 2007 --Fir0002 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fark.com photoshop contest

FYI, your hot metalwork photo was used on FARK.com in a photoshop contest. [1] - Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hahaha, excellent spotting there Ravedave.. Some particularly creative PS'ing there too. Let me know if you spot any of my images in random locations. Apparently one of mine will be in the papers here in London on Monday.. Will be interesting to see what shows up. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your License

Hey,

First of all, I'd like to say that I really like your pictures. I wanted you to know that I think the following message doesn't hold much ground as since the pictures are released under the GFDL, they don't really have to ask you or negotiate with you because the pictures are free for commercial as well as non-commercial use.

"If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you an authorization to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms."

Yonatan (contribs/talk) 15:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true. Publishers could only reuse them in accordance with the GFDL, which means they in turn have to make the image (and its derivations) available to the public. Stevage 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that under the GFDL they'd have to print the whole license along with the picture and I doubt they'd do that. Anyway, no harm done. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the GFDL is pretty stupid anyway. Wikipedia doesn't come close to complying with it, strangely enough. Stevage 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been a bit naive and nonchalant for a while here, but the more I think about/investigate licencing on Wikipedia, the more I realise how silly it is. GFDL doesn't seem to apply particularly well to images at all in the first place, and the requirement to use a CC Commercial licence just plain sucks. I don't see any reason why, except that Wikipedia secretly plans to launch a commercial service and profit from our donated hard work at a later date. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[2] [3] you're not the first. Btw fully agree with you Diliff and support your stance on the Buckingham Palace photo. --Fir0002 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may chime in. I may be wrong here, but this was the explanation I was given. If Wikipedia goes belly up, the point of non-commericial licences is to allow other companies to publish the encyclopaedia. If not, it will be lost forever, as the photos and text could only ever be published by a non-profit company. --liquidGhoul 10:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cairns Birdwing

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Cairns birdwing - melbourne zoo.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western honey bee

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Honeybee landing on milkthistle02.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Collage_POV_scene.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Collage_POV_scene.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject/headline:

Hi there. I would like to comment on a few things. 1. What's with your username? 2. You don't think it's a little conceited to nominate nearly every single photo you upload ^{[citation needed]} as a featured picture? I would think it would be more flattering for someone to nominate something I uploaded than to nominate it myself (I'm sure you'll get some examples of this for you, but I have yet to see any). Your e-penis must be like three miles long. 3. Nearly all the photos of yours I have seen are fantastic, keep up the good work. --Indolences 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In Fir0002's defence, I would also nominate every picture I uploaded as an FP if they were as good as his. Also, since many of his pictures are worthy of being nominated, he's just saving everyone else a lot of work by nominating them for us ;) Stevage 13:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is pushing his photos towards the community, whilst the community should be pulling the photos towards itself. I totally agree with you that the photographs taken by this user are nearly all breathtaking, but I can't nominate myself for the Nobel prize, no matter how much I deserve it. The Internet is serious business. --Indolences 21:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I see it like a guy wandering around selling donuts. Except, instead of selling them, he's giving them away. As long as we keep patting his head, we keep getting free donuts. It costs us nothing, we get awesome photos, fir0002 gets some recognition and improves his skills, there's really no downside here. Stevage 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have time for this junk --Fir0002 05:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, and I'm sorry to hear that I made you feel sad (and you got even by insulting my photography skills). On the other hand, I can see you being hired by National Geographic within the next five years. And I will just assume your username is "Photografir0002". Be seeing you! --Indolences 05:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FPC comment please

G'day, would I be able to have your comments on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scenic railway? Stevage 13:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One question regarding your FP noms

I checked out several of your current FP noms, and none of the ones I looked at had the <!-- additional votes go above this line --> included. Is there any reason why you haven't been including this line? Raven4x4x 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh if you look back far enough you'll notice I never did - back in the old days they never used it and I never got into the habit. I can do that if it makes any difference for you - personally I don't see it doing much --Fir0002 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Mole cricket02.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And this as well.... Raven4x4x 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On the Frog nomination, a straight count of the votes gives 7:4, which isn't quite 2/3. If you count weak votes as half, you get 6:3, which is exactly 2/3. I don't use an exact numerical cut off myself, but I generally tend to look for a little more than a 2/3 majority after [discussion], where a few people suggested that 10:6 or 10:5 was a little close to be promoting. Of course I won't mind if you seek a second opinion, but that's my reasoning.

As for the "all comments above this link", I occasionally find comments left below that line and below the {{-}} template. This leaves an annoying gap, as seen here. I know it isn't a big deal, and people still leave comments there even with the notice, but it might help most people place comments in the right spot. Raven4x4x 09:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just amazing!

Hi, Fir. Although many users must have praised you in the past, yet I couldn't (after I have seen some of your pictures) but write this message. You are an outstanding user, a real artist! Users like you are the ones who make Wikipedia able to compete with Britannica. Thank you for your wonderful pictures. --Meno25 11:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Meno! --Fir0002 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QI Promotion

Template:QICpromoted --Jnpet 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the Barnstar...and, umm...

No problem. You've definitely earned it...oh...you're an Administrator? I didn't know that until now...anyway, excellent work on those pictures. Keep it up. -- Altiris Exeunt 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypolimnas bolina

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Common Eggfly02 - melbourne zoo.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] all-focus pictures

hi,

can you give me a hint how you did the picture of the wulf spider, that was constructed from several pictures? for example, how many layers are necessary, did you focus through the spider manually or automatically, and so on. i'd like to do similar photos, but haven't found anything on the web on it. cheers --Sarefo 20:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

thx for your response :) ok, i thought there's a feature for this in recent photoshop versions that i did not know about yet ;) actually, there are at least two programs for automating what you did, called CombineZ5 and Helicon Focus. [4] I'll try out both of these when i get my new camera (with manual focus) next week. good luck with your studies :) --Sarefo 20:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! Wow that's really made my day. I spent about 3 hrs making this cactus focus bracket and the program did it almost perfectly in a few minutes (a few errors but they should be correctable) --Fir0002 07:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

Hi Peter,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 24, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-24. howcheng {chat} 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QI

Template:QICpromoted--84.161.234.88 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy

Hello, there. As you may or may not know, the Miami Herald recently revealed that professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a lawsuit against Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. for adding false statements to his Wikipedia biography.

For data gathering purposes, an SRS of 20 administrators has been created, you being one of them. I would like you to comment on this situation and its possible implications to Wikipedia, the accused company, and the general welfare of the community in general. (To what extent will this impact Wikipedia? To what extent will this impact those who use Wikipedia often? To what extent is the company guilty? Who do you believe is at fault?) Feel free to comment however you wish. I ask that you email me your responses via my emailuser page so as to reduce bias in your responses. (Again, don't post your responses on my talk page.)

The following are articles from various news agencies that you may use to inform yourself about the situation: Miami Herald, Herald Tribune, Web Pro News, The Smoking Gun.

I thank you for taking your time to express your opinion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at any time. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fir for president (or at least pic'o'the year)

I just dropped by to tell you that you've got my vote for pic'o'the year in Commons. I really enjoy seeing your pictures, they are beautiful work, they inspire me (I enjoy also photography, see f.x. http://www.xn--kda-ula.se), well and they are also a bit of torture to watch ("Why haven't I taken pictures like that?"). Keep up the good work and Wikipedia will become an even more beautiful place. -- PER9000 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

Once again,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 28, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-28. howcheng {chat} 18:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons Picture of the Year

Take a look on your Commons talk page. One of your images has become 3rd in the election. Congratulations! Bryan 11:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow that's terrific - thanks for letting me know! --Fir0002 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fotocommunity.com

Dear Peter,
I am blown away by your featured pictures! Please allow me to invite you to the fotocommunity, one of the fastest growing foto communities on the internet, to share your pictures.
Keep up the great work!
Henning Blatt 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Podcast - interview?

Hey there Fir, I'm a panelist on Wikipedia Weekly the weekly wikipedia podcast[5]. You may have heard of us. Anyway, we're starting a new segment where we will try and interview interesting users/projects to feature some of the different aspects of WP. I was hoping we would be able to talk to you. Maybe a 5 minute piece on who you are and why you are so dedicated to photography on WP! We record using Skype (so you would need that programme, a microphone and a a broadband connection to participate) and can prerecord the interview at pretty much any time that is convenient for you. Tell me what you think, Witty lama 09:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus his head is successfully doubled in size. :P --Ali K 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you're interested! I'm available most of the time, so whenever is convenient for you - give me a buzz. I'm "wittylama" on Skype. we can co-ordinate there. Witty lama 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I missed you the other day. But I'm back in town again and free in the times between 2pm-4pm and 11pm-3am (your time) every day this week. Give me a buzz to work out a time do to this! Witty lama 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Yes, this week should be ok - I'm a uni student so I'm in and out all the time (and live a nocturnal life)!! Contact me on skype at "Wittylama" and we'll set up a time. Basically I'm looking at a 5 mintue thing that we can insert into the next episode when it's recorded. So, it's cool re. time. there's no hurry. contact me. Witty lama 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Calliphora augur whitebackground.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 12, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-12. howcheng {chat} 07:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love your work

Hello! Can you please talk on my user talk, and we can exchange msn's.

I am very interested in your 'artificial' lighning.

Thanks!

Panarchy

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Mammatus_cloud_panorama.jpg

Can you respond to the various inquires on the picture? ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow! Great choice in so many ways.

User:Rkitko selected one of your images for the WikiProject Plants banner--it's gorgeous.[6] KP Botany 01:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Remote_controlled_car.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Remote_controlled_car.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House Sparrow

cannot see any grounds for the change in the main image - previous one was much better quality (an FP actually))

It is extremely poor etiquette to promote your own images, if yours was superior I'm sure others will revert it. The image in the infobox is not the 'main image' on the page, it is an illustrative thumbnail of the species. Normally the male of the species has more distinctive plumage and is used to illustrate the species. The image I put in, is I think a painting, and clearly shows the features of the species at thumbnail size. Wikipedia is not your personal gallery. I shall replace the image with the superior illustration. If you still disagree, how about we discuss it on the House Sparrow talk page? --AGoon 08:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia montage

Hello! I am sorry to tell you this, but I had to delete the Wikimedia logo montage you uploaded back in 2005 since there were absolutely no sources and therefore no way to prove that the images you used could be used in a derivative. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw the above comment and I wish to issue you an apology for all your troubles. I would love to buy you a drink but I don't know you nor where you live, also I'm a minor. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask instead. Where are the sources? 1ne 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I made it, but looks like Wikimedia is too tight to allow people to use their logos, even though they expect photographers to license their images under the GFDL or other free licenses!! --Fir0002 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the images that make up the mosaic? Are they all your images? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mammatus cloud panorama.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Mammatus cloud panorama.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for nominating it! KFP (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

...Finally. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Meat eater ant feeding on honey02.jpg

Found this image being used here: http://www.allhome.biz/contactus.html. Don't know if they've contacted you for additional licensing terms or if he just swiped it and isn't complying under the terms of the GFDL, but I thought you'd want to know. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. are you sure about the species identification? I Googled "meat eater ant" (which is how I found that other page) and the only pages that seem to have this term are Wikimedia pages and mirrors. The reason I ask is because I was writing the POTD caption for Image:Meat eater ant qeen excavating hole.jpg and was trying to find more information about it. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)