User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Kaaba

Original
Original

My edit Hi Muhammad,

I've done an edit as shown here (my edit). I'll let you decide if you think it's better. I was a bit mindful of the size. It definitely benefited from a downsize, but I wanted to keep it above the 1000px rather than right on the limit; I settled on 1200px on the long size. FWIW I stripped the camera data in case of people opposing for no other reason than the camera it was taken with.

I will support whichever you think is best, as suggested on PPR. If you'd like me to create the actual nom I would also be willing to do that. I'll let you decide.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll nominate, though no saying I'm going to be able to be any more convincing than you! I'll wait till my current candidates clear though, and hopefully the FPC page quietens down a bit. --jjron (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Gee it's busy on there. Now, having been watching the way recent voting has been going, I must say I somewhat despair for this image. Unfortunately encyclopaedic value seems to be getting driven out at the expense of "quality" at all costs; conversely I am seeing a significant number of images getting promoted because of their so-called quality and despite their lack of encyclopaedic value.
What I am saying is that Wikipedia FPC looks to be quite rapidly degenerating into something more like Commons FPC (which I have no interest in). As such, I fear this image will be shot down on quality grounds with very little regard to rarity, encyclopaedic value, etc. I will still nominate and support, but I have to be honest, on current trends I wouldn't say the chances of it getting promoted are high. I also want to have another play around with the fullsize version before nominating, just to see what I can do with it. --jjron (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Muhammad, I'll nominate sometime tomorrow if you think that sounds OK. If not, let me know. In the meantime I have replaced your original with my edit in the five articles it was in for the nomination. --jjron (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, missed your comment on my talkpage re the enc vs prettiness. I basically tried to raise this issue recently (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Lists_aint_Articles) but only gained moderate support for my proposal. You could raise it again more directly, but a lot of the people that vote on prettiness rather than encyclopaedic value also don't read the talkpage. Conversely some of the culprits that do read the talkpage disagreed with my comments, probably largely in support of their own quality with low encyclopaedic value images. --jjron (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's off and running! Good luck. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Spinning Dancer

Hi. I am sorry, but I don't see the illusion, and because I have seen other people have said that same thing, I fear that it might no have encyclopediac value if it only works for some people. However, I can see the illusion on the one on the bottom right that bears the letter "R" on it. I do believe that it is just me doing something wrong, and I will continue to try to understand it. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew I was doing something wrong. Now that I see it, it is in fact amazing. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, hadn't been on Wiki for a few days, so was too late to vote. I hadn't voted on it previously as I personally wasn't able to get the illusion to work reliably, even after much trying. On the other hand I wasn't opposed to it; I somehow got it to reverse once, which made it interesting, but then couldn't do so again. Anyway, looks like you didn't need my vote anyway! --jjron (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spinning Dancer
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Spinning Dancer.gif, 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. MER-C 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

POTD
POTD

Hi Muhammad Mahdi Karim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Tugboat diagram-en edit1a.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 23, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-03-23. howcheng {chat} 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ThanksMuhammad(talk) 06:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
POTD
POTD

Hi again,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:California-Condor3-Szmurlo edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 31, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-03-31. howcheng {chat} 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

POTD
POTD

Once more,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Snail diagram-en edit1.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 5, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-04-05. howcheng {chat} 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Four-spotted Chaser
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Dragonfly macro.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. MER-C 06:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Salaam, --Blechnic (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valued Pictures Proposal

Hi Muhammad,

Sorry, I'd gone away after dropping that comment re my VP proposal on FPC talk. Anyway, since you expressed an interest in my ideas, I've detailed my thoughts there. Not sure if it's the right direction or not. See Valued Pictures Proposal. Your input would be valued.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vodacom Tanzania Limited

Thanks man for your contribution on the article about Vodacom Tanzania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoLLoMboje (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POTD notification

POTD
POTD

Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Elephant seal colony edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 28, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-04-28. howcheng {chat} 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Muhammad(talk) 11:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valued Pictures

Hi Muhammad,

Yeah, not sure about the VP thing atm. I am still steaming a bit about the discussion on the talkpage. I also wasn't sure if there were any administrative hurdles that we'd need to jump to get it up and running, i.e., can we just start this thing, or does it have to be approved somewhere 'higher up'. I don't know, perhaps I just start it and if someone wants to say its not allowed, then so be it.

The other thing was that I hadn't decided on all the details. For example, I'm not totally happy with the 'certified assessors' thing, and I know that that's one area that a number of others seemed to have most difficulty. Perhaps if I changed that to say three supports from anyone, not including the nominator, i.e, that starts making it harder to vote stack, and there's not that much vote-stacking at FPC really.

The other problem with the certified assessors I thought about is that it limits it to a certain group of people. Now say someone comes along with a basketweaving picture; well I don't really know enough to say whether it's valuable, and maybe no one else does either. And if a few people from the basketweaving group come along and agree that it is valuable, well maybe that's what matters. It would become pretty obvious if they started doing that with multiple images that clearly weren't up to scratch, and then you'd have to do something about it.

Anyway, would be glad to hear your thoughts on it. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the opinion poll has been open for quite some time. I'm interested that (last time I checked) no one had put an Oppose vote down, yet in the comments a few people clearly opposed. Not sure what to make of that. What do you think should be done? It looks like I think it was Option 2 (basically my proposal without necessarily working in with Commons) had the consensus. --jjron (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think there's a problem with working it through PPR? I preferred the PPR route for a number of reasons, chiefly to keep things simple, especially to people that don't really deal with these image processes a lot, i.e., the picture projects are still restricted to just two places, but you can choose to have your PPR assessed for Valued status. By contrast I find the Commons system with so many different picture projects going on confusing, so I wanted to avoid that. Did you have a particular reason/s to suggest separating it? --jjron (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Don't forget my original proposal covered that possible 'conflict' between PPR and VP, and also possible future FP. That would be handled in the nomination template (maybe if I actually created the template it would be clearer to people other than me :-).) To quote:

People putting images up for peer review would also be able to have them assessed as VPs; additionally they would be able to opt out of the VP process, and simply attract comments as per the current PPR process, or only have them assessed for VP.

In other words when you put an image up on PPR you specify if you want PPR only, VP only, or both PPR and VP. If it passed VP and was hence nominated at FP (which I suspect wouldn't be uncommon), that's perfectly acceptable. I also said:

VP would not affect FPC in any way, e.g., an image would not need to be a VP in order to be nominated at FPC. However, I would propose that if a VP went on to become an FP, the FP template would replace the VP template in recognition of its higher status (rather than the image being classed as both).

That is, it would stay as a VP, unless that was superseded by success at FPC. It could create a bit of fussing for the closers perhaps (i.e., replace VP template with FP template, and remove from VP gallery to go to FP gallery), but I don't think it's that complex given what else they do. --jjron (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I'm pretty busy in real-life atm, but I did spend a bit of time working on templates, wording, etc, last night. I might try to put something together on a draft version over the weekend though, just so people can see what it would actually look like (possibly just on a few subpages of my userpage). Then I'll take the discussion to PPR Talk as Mikaul suggested to try to get a few more people's input, before taking it all 'live'. I'll drop you note when I put up anything substantial. --jjron (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, have done a fair amount of work on this thing. There is a trial version at User:Jjron/VP Trial (hope you don't mind I hijacked your Kaaba image ;-). I have put up a discussion at PPR talk - Wikipedia_talk:Picture_peer_review#Valued_Pictures_Proposal for comments. Let's see how it goes. --jjron (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just heading over to have a look at PPR talk now and add some comments. I haven't been on much since putting it up, in fact have only looked at the page once quickly last week. Haven't seen what they're doing on Commons either - do you have a link to where they're doing that (or is it just on the VI pages)? Doesn't have to launch in a week if we're not ready. Do you think we need to do anything in particular about it? --jjron (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture

It depends on quality and topic of the photo but until now we haven't declared a nomination standard yet. However, we have already displayed a picture of Kaaba before and i dont think its a good idea to redisplay the same picture topic. But we still request your photo in the Photography department on WP:KSA, OK boss ? Best Regards ,  A M M A R  16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)