User talk:Fir0002/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is an archive of my talk page --Fir0002 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Voting templates

Hi. Since you seem like a nice guy, take great photos and obviously know how to do it, I had to ask you this question, from one n00b to a 1337 - How do you make (or rather insert) the little voting graphics, like yours in [1]?

[edit] Great photos

Great pictures mate. I posted a few of them (with attribution) in Australian Hunting Net forum, hope you don't mind. Everyone was impressed!

[edit] Aurora Australis
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Aurora australis 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. ~~~~

-- Enochlau 06:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

User:PiccoloNamek/Gallery

It isn't much, but I'm trying to add to it.

My real portfolio is here:

[2]

PiccoloNamek 09:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the Day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Chestnuts.jpg is up for Pic of the Day tomorrow. You can check the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 15, 2005. -- Solipsist 06:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And Image:Pomegranate03 edit.jpg is up on the 18th. As this will be a weekend, it should also be on the MainPage too. The associated caption is at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 18, 2005. -- Solipsist 06:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
You wait for a Pic of the day for ages, then three come along at once. A golden oldy this time; your Emperor Gum Moth is due for a reappearance on the 19th Sep. Oddly there doesn't appear to have been much of a caption last time. Perhaps most of the article was written later. In any case a freshly minted caption can be checked and improved at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 19, 2005.
And you didn't tell me that you had managed to get a photo of some insect eggs. I've now updated the egg (biology) page to include it, so that article is a little less POV now. Actually the Emperor Gum Moth article is now rather well illustrated with all aspects of the moth's life cycle. Nice job. -- Solipsist 07:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Next one up is Image:MotoX racing03 edit.jpg next Tuesday, with the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 27, 2005. I've added it to Motocross as that seemed a more appropriate illustration than at motorcycle. -- Solipsist 07:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania

Hi Fir,

In case you haven't seen it, you might be interested in this discussion on Commons. -- Solipsist 07:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of the discussion, so thanx for pointing it out. --Fir0002 07:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On a completely different issue, I know this may sound dumb, but I've noticed people refering to wikipedia chat on irc. What is that? I use ICQ but am not familiar with IRC channels. --Fir0002 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you with that one. I know the channels exist, but I don't use them. The starting point would seem to be Wikipedia:IRC channels.
There are also several mailing lists, with pointers at Wikipedia:Mailing lists. -- Solipsist 08:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

Hi, just wanted to say that I am always astounded by your talent in photography; I've actually mentioned you on my user page; I thought I was an alright photographer until I saw your work. It is always spectacular. Keep up the good work! Sputnikcccp 11:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Australian cart.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on the 2nd October. As usual, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 2, 2005. -- Solipsist 08:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Promoted pic: Lavender
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Single lavendar flower02.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. ~~~~


Congratulations on a unanimous verdict :-) ~ Veledan • Talk + new 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

You have experience in this area, so I'm asking you. :)

Do you think this picture would be a viable featured picture:

Carolina Anole
Carolina Anole

Note, that I am not asking how you would vote, but rather if you think that this picture would have a generally favorable response if listed. The only problem I can personally see is a small amount of blur a full-size, but it doesn't appear too distracting, IMO. :) PiccoloNamek 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Well, I went ahead and added it anyway. Here's hoping for the best. Feel free to remove this. Sorry to bother you.

PiccoloNamek 09:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I put up a resampled version on the photo's candidate page. I think that solved the blur problem fairly well. My camera just isn't good enough to use the images without reducing the size by half first.PiccoloNamek 12:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the Day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Misty morning02.jpg is up for Pic of the Day tomorrow — the caption can be edited at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 6, 2005.

I noticed a small irony in that the next FP in the line is Prokudin-Gorskii's Black Sea sunset, where the principle interest is that he was managing such good colour photography in 1915. There is some similarity with the composition of Misty Morning, but now a lot of the attraction is in the near monochrome tonal palette. I guess that's progress over 90 years ;-) -- Solipsist 07:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA vote

Fir, I wanted to drop you a line to ask if you'd be interested in voting on my admin candidacy. I've seen you a lot in voting on FP's and thought you might have a somewhat good or positive idea of me and what kind of work I do. I'm kind of having a personal tiff with a certain user right now and would appreciate your vote if you feel i'm qualified enough. I also answered the usual questions at the bottom of my nomination form you can read if interested. Just thoguht I'd see if you'd help me out with it. Thanks and I'l lsee you around the FP's I'm sure. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne Photo

Hi Fir!

Just a quick note to say that your picture of the Melbourne skyline at night is fantastic! It shows what a nice city Mebourne is. (of course, being a Melburnian myself!) Keep up the photography!!

Skyscraper297 08:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Image_sleuthing#Image:FierceSnake_Olive.jpg

Would you be able to shoot a free replacement image of this snake? It would significantly add to a FA candidate. - Mgm|(talk) 08:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support template

Thanks for the info. Halibutt 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

They deleted it again :( What do you think about creating a redirect? I can undelete them but I don't want to start a delete war. Redirect could be more useful... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the day

Hi Fir

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Large bonfire.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Pic of the Day on Monday. You can make any changes to the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 24, 2005. -- Solipsist 22:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Tour sister project

I've been thinking about proposing a sister project called something like "Wikitour" that would lend itself directly to Wikipedia. While Commons hosts individual images of places/things that have articles on Wikipedia, Wikitour would host "virtual tours" of these places/things.

The basic idea is as follows: a user submits numerous photos of a notable place, which are organized into pages/subpages to create a navigable environment similar to that in Myst, Riven, or the graphical Zork games; the navigation system would be on Wikitour, while the files themselves would be on Commons, with a link in the respective article on WP; examples include castles, museums, caverns, mountains, college campuses (!!!), typical mosques or churches, archaeological sites, etc. Basically, any topic that has an article on Wikipedia has the possibility of its own entry in Wikitour. Users could also submit photos of an object from various angles/distances, rather than a place. For art galleries, this could instead consist of previously uploaded images of paintings/sculptures, which are organized into a single page, representing the contents of a specific art gallery.

As you are the premier photographer on Wikipedia, I wanted to gauge your interest in this, and know whether or not you would help submit this proposal to meta:Proposals for new projects, either by working directly on it or by submitting an example tour of some place around you that already has an article on Wikipedia, or at least has the potential to have an article. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-21 18:47

Please see the Wikitour proposal page and leave your impressions/suggestions on the talk page. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-21 19:50

I'm thinking that I should have probably stuck to my original scope of this simply being a Wikipedia WikiProject, rather than a complete sister project. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 02:39

[edit] Piotrus

Yep, your mum was right. Piotruś (note the Polish letter 'ś') is a diminutive of Piotr, which is Polish for Peter. But FYI my nickname is not a diminuative but a latinization - adding the latin ending -us to my name (as a tribute to one of my favourite poems, Powrót Prokonsula by Zbigniew Herbert. Can you read Polish? If so, you can find this short poem linked on his wiki page. I am not a fan of poetry, but some of Herbert's pieces are awesome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

) I found an English version of it here. Raport z Oblężonego Miasta (Report from the Besieged City) is another one of my favourites. And Czterej Pancerni i Pies are great :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Seagull on sale pier.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on Thursday. As usual, you can review and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 27, 2005. -- Solipsist 20:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And of course Image:Bee mid air.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on Sunday. As this is a weekend it should also appear on the Main Page. You can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 30, 2005. However, at the moment I'm not too happy with the caption as it is a bit too general. If I get a chance I might expand the bee article to discuss the aerodynamics of bee fligh — when I was at college, I recall hearing the adage that "aerodynamically, bees can't fly" and it seems to be one of those ideas that persists despite being completely untrue. There is a pretty good summary of the problem on Straight Dope. -- Solipsist 08:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] request for cc-by-sa licensing

Hi,

The picture of the bee is fantastic -- wow! I have a physics textbook at http://www.lightandmatter.com that is under the creative commons cc-by-sa license rather than the GFDL. The two licenses are similar in spirit (viral copyleft licenses), but differ in details. I was wondering if you'd be willing to offer the picture to me under cc-by-sa for use in the book. I would of course credit you properly in the photo credits (as required by the license). Currently, I have my own (not very good) photo of a butterfly as the chapter opener image for ch. 1 of the Newtonian Physics book, and I'd love to be able to replace it with your much nicer image. TIA for considering my request. --Bcrowell 20:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...actually, now that I think of it, maybe I should just offer my book under a dual license, CC or GFDL at the user's option. I think that would deal with the legal issue. BTW, I showed your photo collection to my wife, who has written a copylefted French textbook, http://www.lightandmatter.com/french/, and her immediate reaction was also "ooh ooh, can I use some of those in my book!" :-) --Bcrowell 21:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

(from my talk page): "Hi! I'm thrilled to hear that you'd like to use my photos for a publication, and I'm more than happy to let you use it. What licensing do you want to use?" That's great! My books are under by-sa version 1.0. Is that OK? Thanks for making these wonderful photos available!--Bcrowell 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commons adminship

I've requested adminship on Commons. Are you an admin there? (if not, you should be :)) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 13:40

I also noticed you have some messages for you on your talk page on Commons. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 13:43

[edit] Uploaded picture size

Hi Fir0002 - Brookie here; when you have a say an 8m pixel digital picture to upload - as mine are with my new camera, is there a way to limit the upload size ? On one of my recent uploads I had a size warning message flash up which I overode as I didn't know how to limit the file size. Hope you can help. :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 08:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Sheep eating grass edit02.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. ~~~~

I hereby declare that you take very good photos. Raven4x4x 07:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the Day

Hi Fir002,

This time it is Image:Redback frontal view.jpg that is up for a reappearance as Pic of the Day on the 14th Nov. I felt a need to rework the caption, so you can check the changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 14, 2005.

They always seem to come in clusters. Next up is Image:Aurora australis panorama.jpg for tomorrow. The caption can be checked at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 15, 2005. And I think you've got a pine cone coming up next weekend, although I haven't written up the caption yet. -- Solipsist 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
As expected, your Montery Pine cone is up for POTD tomorrow at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 19, 2005. I was surprised to find that none of your related photos were on the Monterey Pine page, so I've also added them there as a gallery. -- Solipsist 12:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canon EOS 20D

Hey. I've been in the market for a new camera for quite some time now, and I eventually settled on the Canon EOS 20D. It seems to be a good camera that takes clear, sharp pictures, and would be a good starting place for me to begin building my EOS lens collection. (My ultimate goal is to get the 180mm telephoto macro lens, only $1200 U.S.!) I rememberd that you have an EOS 20D, so I wanted to ask you, how is it? How does it handle? Is it fast? Are there any nagging problems? Is the sensor crop factor a problem? How is the depth of field control? That is very important to me. The reason I ask is because the smaller APS sized sensor will naturally have less DOF than a larger sensor. Anything I should know about before I purchase this camera? Any tips or advice are greatly appericiated!PiccoloNamek 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I think you may be interested in this nomination, especially as parts of it seem to be related to the voting templates issue.. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MIND

Hello. Round four of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Thursday, December 1. This round will be drastically different from round three; part one will consist of a creative project, and part two will be developed from there. The full details will be released when the round opens. Time and speed should not be major factors in this round; thus, there is no exact opening time for the round as speed will not factor into the scoring. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please add Wikipedia:Mind Benders/to do to your watchlist to receive further announcements; the NotificationBot is currently down and all notifications will be placed on that page. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy. If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. Special thanks to Fetofs for helping distribute this message.

[edit] Image additions

Hi, I am a bit concered about your recent addition of a lot of photos to many Canberra articles. In my oppinion many of the photos you have added don't help the articles especially if they are already heavily illustrated. Please see my post at the Canberra wikiproject. --Martyman-(talk) 01:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • With reference to the Old Parliament House photo, I do disagree. The photo that you replaced focussed only on the building and did not include other aspects such as the War Memorial and Mt Ainslie. Your photo was also of the back of the building, not a common view for any building and not to my mind particularly justified as the main photo of the building. I was not responsible for the photo you replaced and have no ownership of it. I am happy to concur that a better photo of the front of the building could be taken and that there could be some judicious editing of the foreground grass and tarmac and the cars parked on the right; not to mention resolution and sharpness. Happy for you to put the issue to the vote on the article discussion page. Regards--A Y Arktos 10:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I find your aparent arogance very annoying. You seem to think that your photos are automatically an improvement to any article whether or not they already have suitable existing photos. You didn't comment when I posted the above comment either to me or the wikiproject, this says to me that you are not particularly concerned with the opinions of the group of people who have been developing the articles you are modifying. Maybe a better way to have gone about this would have been to co-ordinate with the Canberra wikiproject, they coul dhave given quite positive feedback on what topics in the ACT require more/better photos. I removed your photo from the parliamentary triangle article because there was already a photo there of the exact same model (and the article is not about the model). The triangle is visable by the street lights on the main roads and is clearly shown in the map below it. Also I might mention photos of things at night might be very pretty and all, but they are not the most encyclopedic way of illustrating an article, and you must be joking if you think the amount of text on the Mount Ainslie article justifies that many photos (Wikipedia is not a gallery). PS. I agree with AYArktos above. --Martyman-(talk) 11:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Mueck

Hi Fir,

Thanks for the new photo on Ron Mueck. I wrote the original article, so its nice to see it getting illustrated. -- Solipsist 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra pics

I have joined in the discussion on your Canberra pics on the Canberra project page, and am 100% on your side. Thank goodness I've not met such a lack of understanding of the function of pics in any of my work! I find Martymans comments particularly offensive because I know what a whole heap of work image taking, processing, uploading, caption-writing etc is. Please do not be put off WP by the remarks in the Project Discussion. Pics are highly valued on WP (how else do we know what things look like!) but the text people can't understand this. You are outnumbered so I see only two solutions: either make separate image articles or simply take all the troublesome articles off your Watchlist and forget they ever existed. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 10:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Peter - I'd agree with Adrian above and will add some notes, though I think one does have to be careful over layout with the way some browsers can leave big white spaces when paragraphs are 'forced apart' by pics (maybe that's the reason behind their complaint?). Maybe a solution is to use the <gallery> </gallery> format? - MPF 12:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see the comments from your friends above, as they seem to be missing the point as to why people are angry with your contributions to Canberra articles. No one wants you to stop taking pictures, as you're clearly not a bad photographer; the sheer amount of featured pictures you've had is testament to that. Furthermore, there's a lot of places that really do need pictures; most of the suburb articles are completely devoid of them, for instance. Yet the problem people have with your edits is that you're sticking all your images into articles without any consideration for whether they are actually needed to illustrate the point, whether there is already enough images in the article (remember not everyone has broadband) and/or whether the image is actually better than those already there. No one wants you to stop contributing, but if you've got excess images on a topic, please add them to Wikimedia Commons (where they'll be really helpful), instead of cramming them all into any relevant articles. That way, the best images can go in articles (whether yours or others), and no one is likely to have much of an issue with your contributions. Ambi 22:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Sorry I've come a little late to this dispute, but hopefully the dust has started to settle by now. From a cursory look over the large number of comments, it kind of looks like both sides have made some good points but have also sometimes been a little disingenuous. I'm not sure whether the quidelines are still there, but somewhere in the help pages for contributing pictures there is some advice about taking care not to trample on other editor's feelings when replacing or removing images from articles - it used to be recommended to move replaced images to the talk page, but these days shifting them over to Commons is probably better (although that is often too much work).

You asked me to look at the addition and removal of pictures from Lake Burley Griffin. I would hazard a guess that Ambi's revert was largely a reaction to some of the discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canberra#Image additions at the time. However I would have to agree that the additional images did tend to overload the article and several of them weren't particularly necessary. Without knowing the area, I would have to say that it looks like it is quite difficult to make this lake look really interesting (I hope that doesn't offend people too much). The new Image:Captain cook memorial fountain and national library.jpg is probably the best image of an item on the lake and could make a good lead image. The current lead image of the lake at sunset is fine, but I'm not convinced it shows the lake in the best light. Ideally a lead image on an article like this should be a good photo of a view that sums up the place or the thing people most remember about the place - I would imagine that the fountain is what makes the biggest impression on most visitors to Lake Burley Griffin. I like Image:Bridge over lake burley griffin by night04.jpg, but I don't think it illustrates the article on the lake terribly well - its excellent on Commonwealth Avenue, Canberra however. The new panoramas at the bottom are a little disappointing, on the whole I prefer the existing two by John Conway even though they show a few imperfections.

Assuming that the general argument has died down, it might be a good idea to ask Ambi to reevaluate the general revert and consider reinserting some of the new photos. Image:Lake burley griffin04.jpg looks like another good one to consider. It really needs someone with local knowledge to know which views are the most appropriate to illustrate the article. No doubt the same would go for many of the related Canberra articles and it would seem best to work with the folks at WikiProject_Canberra to help decide what the best combination of illustrations would be for each article.

I would also echo some of the comments below that Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg is really rather nice and could be FP material. On the other hand, in the full view it looks uncomfortably high contrast - could it be oversharpened or is this just the general headache with extreme light and shade at that location that User:Martyman was mentioning ? -- Solipsist 17:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have re-added a couple of your photos mentioned above to the Lake Burley Griffin article. I removed the existing sunset photo which I never felt was overly encyclopedia anyway. --Martyman-(talk) 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm happy then. It did seem a little unlikely that all of my photos were not suitable. --Fir0002 05:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dogwood

Hi again - I'm afraid your pic Image:Dogwood tree.jpg isn't a Dogwood in the sense of that page (i.e., not in the genus Cornus); I've moved it to Dogwood (disambiguation) where there is a list of trees that are called 'Dogwood' in OZ, and will see if I can work out which of them it is (so far, I'm sure it isn't Jacksonia scoparia, but haven't checked the others yet) - MPF 12:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly Acacia coriacea, but I'm not certain on that - MPF 12:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Construction sign

First off, I replied on that Canberra project. I'm not sure I know what to do in that situation, though.

I'm looking for a photograph of a light-up construction sign, of the sort pictured here, but which is displaying placeholder text, such as "Buckle up, it's the law" or "No warnings today", ie: there are currently no warnings for the sign to display, but they still want to show that the sign is in working condition. Do you know what I mean? Do you know of any around you? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 14:34

[edit] Your unidentified moth images

Hi Fir0002, your unidentified moth images were identified: :-) Please have a look at this discussion. I uploaded your images again with their scientific names. The old ones will be deleted. I fixed all links in the above mentioned discussion. Greetings, de:Benutzer:olei --84.179.4.111 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Categories

Hi, when uploading pictures into Commons, could you please put them into categories. This makes them easier to find for people looking into the relevant subjects. For instance your Canberra photos should go into commons:Category: Canberra. thanks -- Astrokey44 23:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Peter, just a note to congratulate you on your wonderful photography, a great contribution to Wikipedia. It's good to see young people and people in the country contributing. Do you live anywhere near Dargo, Victoria? I used to spend a lot of time there and have fond memories of the area. Also Metung, Victoria and Paynesville, Victoria. Adam 08:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Griffin article is about to undergo a major expansion - images in the article are organised according to the relevant time period of his career. We are getting relevant images for the sections not illustrared from other Wikiprojects, his work was not confined to Canberra, and the plan is already illustrated by the drawing.--nixie 10:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem I am writing to pay you a complement. I appreciate your photographic additions to the Australian National Botanic Gardens article. The fact that you showed restraint in not overloading the article with photos even though you have more at commons is great. Also I am impressed with how well you managed to capture the rainforest gully. When I have tried to photograph it before (for the article) the dappled sunlight washed out and the shade was too dark. Needless to say the resultant photo was not worth uploading. --Martyman-(talk) 10:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Martyman --Fir0002 05:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I won't revert it if you want to go ahead and change the photo on the Parliamentary Triangle article over to your one, not that I think there is much difference between them. My main problem with your change to that article (and in fact almost all of your Canberra additions) was the over loading of the articles with images, not the images themselves. If you are convinced that your photo is the better one and that you have support behind you then go ahead and replace the one that is there. --Martyman-(talk) 05:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool, I am sorry how the whole thing blew a bit out of proportion. I guess I am just a bit protective of the articles that I (and others) have spent a lot a work on. Anyway many of your photos are appreciated and more may well find homes as articles get expanded and need further illustration. --Martyman-(talk) 05:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow.

Hey, I just saw your gallery, and I must say, it's way good stuff. I have just begun using Terragen, and I would like to ask you how you got that low mist/fog effect on the Terragen page. I'm a new user to Wikipedia, hope to hear from you!The Scurvy Eye 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] PM paintings

Great job on the pictures of the paintings at New Parliament House! I've added a couple pictures to Clifton Pugh, Ivor Hele and Archibald Prize. Do you happen to know which artists did the others as I cant make out some of the small signatures. They may be listed in Category:Australian painters -- Cfitzart 10:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing to think about is copyright. I am not too sure on the rules for photographs of paintings but I am pretty sure they are covered by the original painting copyright. This would mean unless the artist died more than 70 years ago then they should be listed as fair use and the articles they can be used in is severly limited. --Martyman-(talk) 11:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure, I may be wrong and the copyright issue may not be a problem, but I suspect that you need to use fair use for photos of artworks that are still under copyright. I think fairuse is only valid for adding images to the artist's or painting's article. Might be worth lookign if there are any featured articles with photos of recent artwork and checking what license they use. --Martyman-(talk) 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks as though if the artwork is "publicly displayed" then you are free to photograph it. Not sure what this translates to though. Is the inside of a buildign counted as public? I don't know... I would suggest just leaving your existing licenses. --Martyman-(talk) 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

These 2D workds can't be licenced as the GFDL since the artist owns the copyright on the original image, somone who takes a photo of that image cannot then apply some other kind of licence to it since the artist owns the rights for reproduction and so on. These need to by moved off the commons which is for free images only, and uploded to Wikipedia and have a fair use rationale provided for their use.--nixie 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image removal

I noticed that you removed my image from the Platycerium page. You provided no explanation as to why you did this. Would you mind if I did the same to your images? I am not making a comparison between images and I have no problem with your photo. I just have a problem with you removing my image from an article without any good reason. Could you not do that again and begin to consider moving replaced images to somewhere else in the article, especially if there are not many images in the article already. - Shiftchange 20:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australia-related featured images

Hi Fir. Seeing as though you're quite involved with featured images on Wikipedia, would you be able to keep an eye out for high-quality or notable Australia-related images that may be used on the Australia Portal. If you have any in mind, you can make suggestions on its talk page. Thanks, --cj | talk 17:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that ;-)--cj | talk 09:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament House Images

Hi. I think that Image:ParlamentHouseACT.jpg should be replaced on the Parliament House, Canberra article. Your photo Image:Old and new parliament houses across lake.jpg would be suitable but I think it might look better if it was cropped in a bit and maybe the brightness brought up a bit. What do you think? --Martyman-(talk) 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Style

Hi Fir,

Perhaps it is just because you've contributed a more than average number of photos, or maybe you are beginning to develop a characteristic style.

Following a semi-random edit earlier today, I was just reviewing the horse article when this picture caught my eye. OK, well the caption mentioned it was a horse in Australia, but even before that I was thinking "I bet that's a Fir photo" and of course after clicking on the image my suspicions were confirmed. Its not the first time either. I've done a similar thing on other unrelated articles, some three or four occaisions the past; so its not just chance. On the other hand you could just argue that bright 'Australian light' is somehow recognisable. Either way I thought you might like to know. -- Solipsist 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I also had this same thought recently :) ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great photos, but...

Hi Fir, let me be the first to make a complaint about your exceedingly awesome contributions (you make me want to become a photographer). I do not like the way you format the photos you add to articles. Having all of them stacked in a column is not appropriate on Wikipedia for two reasons: they are hard to connect with sections of the article, and they are distracting. Per WP:Images,

"Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A map of a battle and an picture of its aftermath would provide more information to readers. Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text."

Of course, this is only a guideline, but please take it into account when you add images to a page. For example, I just reorganized Gamelan. I feel that the new format better represents the community's preference. What do you think? ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, didn't read your discussion page closely enough. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I completely understand what you mean by "disjointed text." In some instances, having the images alternate right and left definately looks crummy... image placement can be a delicate process. I will also try to think of some good captions for those pictures. And about the solar array, I actually got the idea from a science hobbyist website, and only after I did some more research did I find out about the MythBusters episode. In any case, it's just about done... it just needs to be programmed, but considering that it's winter in North America, it might be a while before it's completed. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for the gorgeous image you took for the lead section of the Lake Burley Griffin article. It's made the article much nicer to look at, and illustrates the article better than anything we had before. Ambi 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Splendid composition! Could hardly do better on the sky conditions, too. But, if you have the opportunity, try to get another one with the very top of the fountain not cut off. Forgive me, if this is already on your "to do" list. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both for your compliments, but to address your issue Walter, I live a good 600k from Canberra and took these photos on a school camp. So I'm unlikely to get another chance at photographing Canberra for a while :-(. Image:Captain cook memorial fountain and national library02.jpg probably has more of the top of the fountain in view. --Fir0002 23:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
tI agree with your choice, Fir0002. The superior placement of the fountain with respect to the National Library and the cloud background of Image:Captain_cook_memorial_fountain_and_national_library.jpg make that image better than Image:Captain cook memorial founain and national library02.jpg despite it being slightly cut off at the top. The higher wind of the former interacts with the fountain in a pleasing way. I like them both, despite the quibbles. You may get back to Canberra before me. I live 9000 km away. I liked it when I was there a couple of years ago. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Mueck


I would have liked to take photos of Ron Mueck's work in the Fondation Cartier exhibition. Unfortunately, it was not allowed. Is it authorized in the National Gallery of Australia ?
--Gloumouth1 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gloumouth,
I'm pretty sure that it was OK to take photos, as our tour lady didn't stop me or other people taking photos of the impressive sculpture. I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure if it is OK to license it the way I did, but I'm sure others will be able to find out. There was one sculpture we weren't allowed to photograph, but the tour lady made sure we knew. --Fir0002 05:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, I really love the picture you took (the sculpture is amazing). Congratulation. --Gloumouth1 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually this is generally a good point. The licensing on this picture may be wrong, or it may be fine. It might be an idea to review the Copyright FAQ and its section on derivative works. As with the painting of Oz politians above, a lot of the issues will depend on the details of how and where the photographs were taken, as well as subtleties of Australian copyright law (of which I know little).

Ron Mueck's sculpture would certainly be in copyright. So the photo would be a derivative work. However under UK and Canadian law (but not US) there are specific exceptions from copyright infringement for photographs of sculptures in public places. You would need to check Australian law, but there is a good chance it would follow some Commonwealth precedent and be similar to the UK law. There is then the question of whether the national art gallery is a public space (or however it is phrase in the relevant law). A sculpture in the street nearly always is, but a lot of art galleries are private spaces that the public are allowed to visit - in particular if you have paid for admission you may well have tacitly subscribed to a set of terms and conditions issued by the art gallery that are likely to limit the publishing of photographs. Your guide may have been assuming that a school party would only be likely to be taking photographs for private use.

Similarly with the paintings of Australian politicians - your photographs are likely to be derivative works of copyrighted paintings. However, when a photograph or painting is commissioned, I think the copyright is often possessed by the commissioner (or that may be just US law and is why most of the US-Gov photos are PD). So if these portraits were commissioned by the Australian government, it is possible they are actually the equivalent of Crown Copyright in Australia (or some such - possibly even PD), in which case your photos would be derivate of those copyright terms.

It can get quite complicated to work out the details, but as you develop as a photographer it become important to know these things, along with other laws restricting the use of photos showing people (often mistakenly thought to be a copyright issue). If you haven't already read it, this shorthand guide (pdf) to UK photographer's rights is really quite interesting. I put another link on the Copyright FAQ for a similar guide for US photographers. Of course, what you really need is a similar summary of the Australian law — it would be worth looking around the internet to see whether someone has already written something (let me know if you find one). -- Solipsist 13:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I'll try investigate copyright laws, but atm, I'm a little busy. I do remember that the guide told us that the National Art Gallery was a gallery which belonged to all Australians, meaning that it is publicly owned I think. Also I'm pretty sure you don't have to pay anything to go in. --Fir0002 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kid.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Kid.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.

[edit] Bob Hawke portrait photo

Peter, that's a very fine photo of the Bob Hawke portrait at Parliament House. I'm intrigued to know how you took it since there is a ban on photography of the portraits and there is usually a security guard within a few feet of them all the time. I have been tempted to photograph them late at night many times but never had the nerve. Also I am a little dubious about the copyright status of a photo of a work by a living artist, but I will leave that to others. If you're ever in Parliament House in a sitting week, let me know. Adam 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra Photos

Hi, and sorry for the delay of the feedback. I am rather busy recently, and can do only very few edits on Wikipedia. About the Pics: I think a Ratio of up to 2:1 of Text to Pictures on an article looks good for me, of course nicely mixed and not clustered. I checked only one Canberra related page, which had a lot of panoramas in the bottom, and in generally looked a bit image heavy. Hence I can understand that other users removed some pics. However, most of the time your images were IMHO superior to the other images (e.g. the canberra triangle pic). When I upload a larger number of pictures about one topic to Wikipedia, i put only a few in the article, and linked the rest to the commons. In any case, I am looking forward for many more pics from you, regarldess if they are in an article or "only" on the commons. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/r/User_talk%7EFir0002_Archive_3_1a39.html"