User talk:JinOuKim

'''To Peer Reviewers, My name is Jin Kim and used my username is JinOuKim. Through all of your reviews, I understand there is a re-direct war on my "Computational Vision page." I do not know how to fix it completely yet. If any of you guys know how to fix this please send me an email to kimjinwoo609@gmial.com or leave a message here. an I improperly moved the sandbox out so my page was an orphan, did not properly show, and had other technical issues. I deleted my original page and moved the sandbox again to this article.'''

Peer Review for Computer Vision article
Note: Based on the article history, this student's version wasn't uploaded until November 24th. Additionally, this topic's article was already well-developed (over 30KB).

The feedback below is for the only version this student submitted (Nov 24th)

1. Quality of Information:2

2. Article size:2

3. Readability:1 - Structure difficult to follow and terminology not well defined.

4. Refs:1 - References are not properly formatted

5. Links:1 - Many links are unnecessary.

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting:1 - Sections don't follow a logical order

8. Writing:1 - Hard to understand concepts as a layman

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2

10. Outstanding?:1 - Needs formatting and organizational improvement

Total:      14 out of 20

JacobKhouri (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

'''To JacobKhouri,

Thanks for your peer review.

I formatted my reference section in a proper way and worked on the structure to help your logical understanding. What do you mean by "hard to understand concepts as a layman?"'''

Peer Reviews
1. Quality of Information: 2 - up to date content

2. Article size: 2 – Meets size requirement

3. Readability: 2 – Easy to read

4. Refs: 2 – References 5-8 look to be the same. With reduction has sufficient amount of references.

5. Links: 1 - More links should be added throughout the middle portion of the article

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - No Comments

7. Formatting: 2 – Well organized, but as a suggestions you do not need a heading for a subject with a single sentence.

8. Writing: 2 – Written well

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 0 not a registered user

10. Outstanding?: 2 – In depth about different imaging techniques

Total: 17 out of 20

JahedaK (talk) 8:10 PM, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

'''Dear JahedaK,

Thanks for your peer review.

I understand there is a re-direct war. I do not know how to fix it yet. If you know it, please send me an email, kimjinwoo609@gmail.com'''

Peer Review 2
1. Quality of Information: 2 - Has up to date content

2. Article Size: 2 - Meets minimum requirement.

3. Readability: 2 - Mostly readable, but some parts could be clearer

4. References: 2 - Repetitive references, but they meet the minimum number

5. Links: 2 - Adequate amount of links.

6. Responsive to Comments: 2 - There were no comments on talk page

7. Formatting: 2 - well formatted

8. Writing: 1 - Could have been better written, minor grammar errors throughout

9. Used Real Name: 1 - Name not registered

10. Outstanding: 2

Total: 18/20

Mahwish Khan (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

'''Dear Mahwish,

I also found some grammatical issues on my page. If you tell me what they are, it would be a lot easier for me to fix it right away. As I mentioned above, I realize there is a re-direct war. If you know how to fix it, please comment under or send me an email: kimjinwoo609@gmail.com'''

December 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Computational Vision, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. ''We already have an article on this subject, duplication of it is not acceptable. Please improve the existing article Computer vision, further attempts to revert will be considered vandalism.'' Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Deep Hierarchy vs Flat Hierarchy.png
Thanks for uploading File:Deep Hierarchy vs Flat Hierarchy.png, which you've attributed to Ales Leonardis. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)