User talk:Mactographer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] License tagging for Image:Bartlett-grave.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bartlett-grave.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:PL-amphitheater.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PL-amphitheater.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments on the FPC page
Hi there. You commented "In any case, it’s been highly rated in other forums. Only this forum has seen fit to shred it.". I believe this is probably because on wikipedia, we're more concerned with the factual and encyclopaedic content of our images than other forums, where skill and creativity are more valuable to an image. Wikipedia is striving for an encyclopedia that is both high quality and free of any restrictions (other than basic attribution). Surely you can understand why people were not impressed by the link to your website, as that is something very much discouraged and borderline considered spam. I can also understand your desire to retain some control over the image but unfortunately, that is something you have to give up when you donate images to wikipedia. I've had to do so for some of my most prized images (eg here and here). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MX-2900ZOOM
Please expand this article. It is not clear who makes it, what kind of camera is it. Also, it might be more appropriate to merge it into a more general article. —Centrx→talk • 19:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
 |
The Photographer's Barnstar | |
| I came across your lunar eclipse image on the FPC- it didn't go so well, but I'm impressed by the time and effort you put into it- and I would have voted for it had you not withdrawn the nomination. I hope the FPC doesn't sour your wikipedia experience- you clearly have a lot of technical ability, and a lot to contribute to the project. God bless! Borisblue 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Disderi's camera-
In response to your query about patent dates, I don't know. The information came from Appareil_photographique_historique. If you don't understand french, you can try Babelfish.altavista.com. Anyway, to be precise, the article does not state that this image is of the 12 shot model. Nor does it mention anything about patent dates, so I am no help to you. Perhaps you would be interested in the 8 shot image in that french article though. Oddly, french wikipedia has no article on their own dude. Maybe they should learn english so that they could learn more about their culture. Just kidding. Heh heh.
-If you want to get ahold of me faster, contact me on Commons: User talk:Makthorpe -Mak
[edit] License tagging for Image:Bride-groom-walking.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bride-groom-walking.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spot color photography
Hello. Thanks for the edits, but you didn't go far enough. Upon further research, it appears another article covers the topic. However, I think there are some neutrality issues with the Pop Culture section. The author calls Selective Photography "old hat" and I think that demonstrates a personal POV rather than neutral fact. What do you think? But I am reluctant to tag it as such since it might appear I am taking issue due to my conflicting listing of Spot color photography.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mactographer (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
- Doh! I should have checked for other similar articles, really - I should have expected a fairly well-known photographic technique would already be covered. Anyway, yes, I think you're right there - that section is definitely POVish and the language is too informal. It really should be worded more like "the technique has become less popular in recent years", or something along those lines. However, that is still POV, or at least an unreferenced assertion - if there is proof in some third-party source that spot/selective colour processing gained popularity as a result of Schindler's List, then dropped off again, then that's okay and a reference should be added, but otherwise that whole statement should be removed altogether. ~Matticus TC 13:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
