Ram-Man

My Archives: 1*2*photo awards    [perform archive]

---

Good evening Derek Ramsay,

Thanks for the recommendation of my photo of the leaf of a red beech.

Sincerely,

Dominicus Bergsma.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! White Pine Pinus strobus Bark.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida Flower Low DoF.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good quality. --Peulle 18:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hybrid Crabapple Malus 'Snowdrift' Closeup 2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 07:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hybrid Magnolia Magnolia 'Randy' Flower and Bud 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 07:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Jong blad van rode beuk Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea'. Locatie, De Famberhorst 01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jong blad van rode beuk Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea'. Locatie, De Famberhorst 01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leatherleaf Mahonia Mahonia bealei 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ --Palauenc05 18:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata Trunk Bark.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 08:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Ram-Man,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pinus bark subcategories

Hi Ram-Man - these subcategories have resulted in photos of natural (wild) and cultivated specimens ending mixed up together in the same subcategory. Please remember it is very important to avoid this! Thanks - MPF (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@MPF: Please cite a relevant policy that justifies uncategorizing images, or else I will simply revert your changes and put them back in appropriate categories. -- Ram-Man 18:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is scientifically important, as cultivated material frequently differs from natural due to the differing environmental conditions. Grouping them together is misleading to users. - MPF (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@MPF: Misleading to which users? And it is not misleading if the image description pages are correct and the images are properly geotagged. "Cultivated" vs. "wild" is an arbitrary grouping anyway. Shall we also group by geographical area? How about different categories for trees on the northern side of mountains vs. the southern side. Two trees standing next to each other can differ significantly by random chance. There is no end to the level of categorization we could do.

The fact is that you've removed categorization, not improved categorization, and this is not acceptable and will be repaired. You're also recategorizing to less precise categories. You should not be moving a tree with species designation Category:Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii to Category:Pinus nigra (cultivated), just because the plant is growing in a particular area. Genetic accuracy is scientifically important, but you seem not to care about that. If you care about the location of each plant, place that in its own appropriate category, but it is that species, so it should be in that category:

So in summary, I will be reverting your changes. If you can come up with better subcategorization, by all means do so, but don't remove correct categories. -- Ram-Man 21:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Create a category Category:Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii (cultivated) if you want (or I can), but bear in mind that an alarmingly high proportion of trees in cultivation are incorrectly or inaccurately labelled, particularly at more detailed levels like subspecific identity; a label cannot be taken as proof of identity without additional verification based on e.g. morphological or genetic examination, or very careful documentation of origin. While your photos from Tyler do appear to be Pinus nigra, they can't be relied on as certain examples of subsp. salzmannii, unlike those growing in its native environment. - MPF (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Re '"Cultivated" vs. "wild" is an arbitrary grouping anyway' - it is not at all arbitary; one is without human interference, the other with. That is a substantive difference; the latter is subject to human error; it also makes a mess of mapping by use of {{GeoGroupTemplate}} (though this has not yet been added to the Pinus nigra categories yet). - MPF (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign. My contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. I has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and it is very expensive for me to acquire this equipment. I has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a camera with a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. --The Photographer 13:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you've already made your goal. Congrats. -- Ram-Man 13:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We are working for the goal 3, if it's possible of course. Thanks :) --The Photographer 14:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of image

Hello! I'm just letting you know that I used the image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iditarod_Trail_Seward_500.jpg in my article at https://www.historyandheadlines.com/march-20-1985-first-woman-win-iditarod-march-womens-history-month/ In the "Historical Evidence" section of the article, I credit you by name and link both to the image's source on Commons as well as to the Creative Commons license. If you're curious, my primary purpose for my website is as a teaching resource for my students (I am a college history teacher). Thank you for making the image freely available! Sincerely, --History and Headlines (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:150px-Wikisource vignette.jpg

File:150px-Wikisource vignette.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Nutshinou ^Talk! 22:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Delaware County Map Request

Hi Derek (Ram-Man),

My name is Mike and I currently live in Delaware County, Broomall to be exact. I came across your map of Delaware County online (originally from the Census Bureau) and wanted to see if it was ok to use the image. I read the copyright information, but to be honest, I wanted to reach out to you directly to ensure I didn't do anything wrong. Please let me know.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Delaware_County,_Pennsylvania.png

Thanks and Happy Fourth! 73.178.236.10 17:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)