User talk:Charlesolivercork

Editing
If in editing you mean putting them on to the pages, then sure! Please, keep up the great work. The Cork Wikipedia pages are in dire need of updating with high quality images. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagairefan (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Cork city, 2017
Hi! Great photos of Cork! :D It is great to see someone finally update them, especially with a great camera. If you can, you should try get some updated photos of:


 * St. Patrick's Street (currently undergoing roadworks until September so may be best to wait)
 * Washington Street (especially the Courthouse and view towards The Capitol)
 * The Capitol
 * South Mall (no modern photos of this street at all!)
 * Opera Lane
 * Kent Train Station (like St Patrick's Street, currently undergoing renovation, should be done in a month or so)
 * Pairc Ui Chaoimh
 * The Docklands (Lapp's Quay and Albert Quay)

Great work, again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagairefan (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Flag
Hiya. And welcome to the project. In a recent series of edits, you uploaded a file to Wikimedia Commons (File:CorkCityFlag.jpg), and then "used it" on the article on Cork city. During the upload process, the licence you included was "Creative Commons 4.0", with a note that it was your "own work". Can you explain on what basis the flag of the city of Cork (or that version of it) represents your work? Did you create the original? Or that copy? If so, how? For myself it seems very similar in size, aspect ratio, font-choice, format, and file-type to this representation, the copyright for which seems to be claimed by the Hampshire Flag Company Ltd. While I might perhaps question their claim of copyright over the original flag, they may well be able to claim some rights over that representation/version. Can you help me understand your own? How is it your work for example? Thanks. (PS - when putting images in an infobox, there's no need to wrap them in thumbnail syntax). Guliolopez (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Misleading
Hiya. I was intrigued by this edit and edit summary. Can you expand a little on how the previous image was "misleading"? Also, given that related edit summaries suggest a preference for avoiding "underexposed" images [or those where the subject is in shadow], I'm intrigued by the selection of an image which is mostly in shadow and perhaps slightly less than crisp in focus. Can you expand a little on the rationale for the change? Guliolopez (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the previous image looked good and did not give a realistic impression of the bus station. Half of the image was the side of the Merchant quay shopping center.The image I put up is more 'what you see is what you get'. You know you are looking at a bus station. The new image has a bus in it.

Headsup :Cork_County_Cricket_Club_(est._1874)_-_geograph.org.uk_-_489912.jpg ‎ is on the chopping block for being underexposed.The next time I see cricket being played I'm going to replace that image.

RE "dusty old fusspots"
Hi. RE this edit/edit summ.

Indeed, the project is improved by new contributions/contributors. And those who support new contributors.

However, the project is not improved by personal attacks. And those who edit in their own interests.

You suggest that the image should be changed because it will improve the experience of the one editor (who added it to the article).

However can you explain how the changed image will improve the experience of the one thousand readers (who view that article daily).

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

OK,I withdraw the comment,apologies.(How do you know that by 'dusty old fusspots' I was referring to you?) New content will help prevent these articles from having the feel of old encyclopedias in grandparents parlours. One way your cropped version improves the article is that it looks better.(ps I really appreciate hardworking editors like yourself)

Rules
Hi. In fear that referring to rules or guidelines results in me being labelled a "dusty old fusspot" (again), I would note two things.

One, freedom of panorama does not typically apply to two-dimensional works. Just because the City Council placed an information sign in a public place doesn't mean that they have relinquished their rights to the copyright on its content. It is unlikely that own-work/CC-4 can apply to this work.

Two, edit summary guidelines typically expect users to explain edits. In the absence of an edit summary, can you explain why this image is any better than its predecessor?

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Apparently as an addendum to Guliolopez's comments above: what makes File:Ch2crop.jpg preferable to this image of Cork City Hall? I would argue that the angle of the image you've replaced gives a better sense of depth, and that the almost-summer lighting of the replaced image gives a much better view of the facade than this shadowed, mid-February evening image.


 * (Also, I was walking around town today and I know for a fact that City Hall is not dry in your photo.)


 * Also, as I noted elsewhere, it's not tremendously polite to replace someone else's situation with only an edit summary to explain it. You can't get consensus for your proposals from edit summaries, and you can't stealth-change someone else's proposals. ~ Maltrópa loquace 20:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey.Thanks for the feedback.I'm not trying to be stealthy but I take in onboard that I could be a bit more considerate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesolivercork (talk • contribs)


 * While you're being considerate to other editors, you might also consider being considerate of editing guidelines. Specifically those about editing in the best interests of the project. Rather than other interests. I suggest this because, absolutely, the project could do with more and better images of some subjects. However, I would respectfully submit that some of the images you seem determined to replace, do not all fall into that category. While I will absolutely admit to perhaps falling short of AgF in highlighting my concerns, I have to note that - for example - the subjectivity of the edit summ here gave me some pause. (In that, what I read in this edit summ was: "this image is better - because I took it" rather than "this image is better - because I can objectively assess that"). I, for example, found the existing image (which, FYI, I neither took, added nor have any association with) was aesthetically "fine". In that it was bright, uncharacteristically sunny, covered the subject well, captured the surroundings, and was generally accurately illustrative of the subject. At the very least, before continuing to replace existing images with your own, you might objectively question whether an image's author is best-placed to judge the aesthetic merits of his-own image - relative to that of another he is seeking to replace. And perhaps take the time to categorise your uploads. So that others can find them. And perhaps more objectively assess them. Guliolopez (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2018 (UT

I agree with Guliolopez. I may be a bit biased as I much prefer sunny days to cloudy days, I think it is a fair assessment to assume that pictures in sunlight are generally better than those on dull (especially wet) days. I would argue we revert to the original image that was there prior to the edit to the current more ‘aestechically pleasing’ image. I definitely agree that the whole page is lacking in high quality pictures, and some recent replacements (County Hall, Patrick Street and Parnell Bus Station) are good, but some were not so much (Shandon in particular). —DylanGLC2017 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, your opinions are important to me.

Valued image criteria
Hi. I think I mentioned as much before, but prior to replacing images (which had been independently assessed under COM:VICR as being an illustrative/valuable representation of its subject), you might consider seeking similar feedback. "A better angle" would not seem to be sufficient criteria for overriding more objective or criteria-based assessment (which perhaps considered more than just "angle"....) Guliolopez (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Montage
Please stop with adding your overly big, non-sizable montages in articles. There are people with small screens and you montage will take over their complete screen. So it is per definition non an improvement what you are doing. The fact that something is possible and easy, will not always mean that it is a good idea to do. The Banner talk 19:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello.The montages are sizeable.Currently is set to 180 and can be raised or lowered.It is very standard for city articles to have montages.
 * If you set the size, the system can not resize them to fit a different screen size. It stays at that setting, even when you have a screen the size of an apartment block or a small mobile phone. The Banner talk 19:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to ignore the arguments against montages... The Banner talk 13:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ow, and now you start editwarring over it... The Banner talk 13:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The montages are now single, moderately sized images, how is this me ignoring you arguments? Reverting some ones goodfaith edits and pasting in " not an improvement " for everything is not productive.
 * If you set the size, the system can not resize them to fit a different screen size. It stays at that setting, even when you have a screen the size of an apartment block or a small mobile phone. That is the problem with the montages. What you see as a "moderately sized image" is completely dependent on ''your screen size" and can work out completely different for other screen sizes. The Banner talk 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The collage is now a singe image with the same settings as the current image.