User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Archive 3

Sue for Copyvio
Well, I'm really not the best person to ask about that. It is possible in theory, but I've never tried, and I have no idea how it would work out. It would be particularly complicated if the person who misused an image is not in the same country as you. I'm not sure if you were aware, but Apple used the image of mine of the Colosseum in Rome (and another image from wikipedia) in a very prominent advertisement for the latest version of their operating system a bit over a year ago. I was quite angry because a company like Apple should know better than that. I asked User:Spikebrennan, who is a lawyer in the US and is sometimes active in FPC what he thought about suing Apple. I don't remember his exact response but he essentially said he didn't think that there was much of a case. I was quite surprised as it seemed quite a simple case and Apple potentially made a LOT of money from the advertisement, but I was quite busy at the time and never pursued it any further than that. All I know is, the law doesn't always work in the way that is fair and right, and sometimes it probably isn't worth pursuing unless you are rich and there is lots of money at stake. Unfortunately it probably doesn't apply to you or I! That said, I don't mean to pry into your personal life but you must be fairly well off by Tanzanian standards, if you can afford a good digital camera and you obviously have been well educated. :-) I assume you studied English at school? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Elephant in Mikumi
So I finally got around to commenting on this. :-) --jjron (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Islam
Hi, good news up your alley. It looks like Cirt is working on a featured portal drive on a subject that interests you. One of your recent FPs is already among the selected pictures there. Would you like to review and suggest more? Best regards, Durova Charge! 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution which is being used in rotation displaying related Featured Pictures in the portal, here: Portal:Islam/Selected picture/3. Cirt (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It was my pleasure submitting that particular photograph --Muhammad (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

 * Looks like the 150mm sure paid off! :) --Fir0002 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, it was all in the milk carton :P Well done, I was waiting for this to happen. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was all the great FPC wikipedians who provided tips, reviews and encouragement :) Thank you! --Muhammad (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Visual Wikipedia
A tag has been placed on Visual Wikipedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. TrulyBlue (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've deleted the article as I'm afraid that you offered no suggestion of importance. Please review WP:WEB. If you feel that you can bring the article into compliance with that and would like the deleted version userfied so that you can work on it, please let me know at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There were giants on the earth in those days
Yes. It's not much of a secret that I edit on commons under my real name, but I don't want the drama-fest of en-wiki to show up on searches of my real name. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

VPC in Wiki Signpost?
Hey there! I had a thought - why not write an article about VPC and get it in an issue of the Wikipedia Signpost to draw more attention to the project!? So, if it's possible, could you answer a few questions with as many details as possible (I think I might have some of the facts wrong)?

What do you think of the current Valued Pictures system?
 * I think we have started off quite well. We have the process running and we have a couple of nominations present. We might need to sort out a few of the criteria to solve some of the hot discussions going on, on the talk page.

What do you see the main purpose of VPC to be?
 * To provide motivation to interested individuals who can not meet the high technical standards of FPs, with the final goal of improving the encyclopedia with valuable and interesting images.

Are you happy with the success that VPC has experienced so far?
 * So far, so good. More exposure will probably do it good and the ad in the signpost will hopefully speed things up.

'''Where do you see VPC in 6 months? 1 year? 5 years?'''
 * In 6 months, very active with nominations. In 5 years, inactive as most photographers will buy better gadgets and improve their skills for the glory of FPs :)

'''At 8 VP nominations, you're one of the greatest contributors to the project so far. Any comment?'''
 * VPC has been open for some time now, and though IMO we have done well, we do need to speed things up. At commons, they have a banner on the top of each page when an announcement is being made. I think a banner asking for "Your contributions at VPC are required" for a week or so with our new logo, will probably do the project some good.

Any more thoughts/tidbits/ideas? Thanks a bunch! Intothewoods29 (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we are probably going to get more VPs then FPs, IMO we could have a VP of the month displayed on the main page as an added incentive to contributors. More discussion about this is probably required. --Muhammad (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mali manuscripts
Hi and apologies for the delay. Attempting to catch up with backlog today. Here's the link to the Mali maniscripts collection. Reviewing it again, it appears that most of the visual files in this group are significantly lower resolution than the Persian manuscripts group. So it might not be possible to get an FP here, but if you do find anything worth working on please let me know. Best regards, Durova Charge! 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Macro technique
Hello Muhammad! I'm just getting started doing macro photography and I was wondering if you had any pointers. Particularly I'm running into the problem of either not getting good enough DOF or not getting a sharp image (depending on how small my aperture is set). When you're shooting insect pictures, do you use a tripod or rest your camera on the ground or do you go handheld? Do you shoot at Aperture priority? Do you have a particular aperture you try to hit for small insects or do you just set it depending on the situation? Do you boost the ISO at all or leave it low to minimize noise? Just curious :) Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the advise! It is very helpful. One more question, what is your technique for noise reduction? I assume you're using Photoshop, but what specific filters/settings do you find most useful? BTW, here's my first (uploaded) attempt at insect macro photography: File:Indianmeal_moth_2009.jpg. I hope to do a lot more. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mikumi panorama.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 5, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-05.  howcheng  {chat} 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fulfilling my request. --Muhammad (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wa alaikum assalam
Wa alaikum assalam, I am not Palestinian, I am from Yemen. I know user:Tiamut and user:Al Ameer son are Palestinians. Your project sounds interesting, I would love to read your article when it is completed. Please send me the link! Awesome gallery btw, you got talent masha'Allah. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Questions
I do not live in Palestine, nor have I ever lived there. My parents were born and raised there, and I make sure to visit every summer. Therefore, I cannot fully answer on behalf of the Palestinians. I could tell you that when I go there, the only music I find that young people listen to modern Arabic pop music (not a fan myself), while generally older folk listen to the hall of famers like Umm Kulthum, Sabah Fakhri, Fairuz, and others. Dancing is also generic, but the dabka is still popular, and people are always clapping in a rhythmic unison when they dance. In general, other recreation that I've seen, includes playing cards (mostly a game called "Rumey" or "14") and a backgammon game called jaish baish. Over there, everyone knows the people in their neighborhood and the vicinity, and friends (usually lifelong buddies and cousins) gather to smoke hookah, play billiards, crack jokes, talk about events going on in their area, or tell funny stories. My family lives close to the coast, so we frequent the beaches often. We're from the Galilee not the West Bank or Gaza, so conflict in our parts is rare (except during the 2006 War). Because of where I'm from in Palestine specifically, I cannot give you a personal take on how the Israeli-Arab conflict affected our ways of entertainment. However, through WikiProject Palestine's efforts, Wikipedia has some decent articles on Palestinian culture; take a look at Cinema in Palestine, Dabka, Palestinian costumes, Palestinian cuisine. If you want to know more on Entertainment though, I truly recommend you visit This Week in Palestine]. Scroll through the articles in the "Dance", "Songs", "Palestinian Customs and Traditions". --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about licensing
Hi Muhammad, I was looking at some of your excellent macro shots and I noticed that most of your images are licensed under GFDL 1.2-only. I was wondering if you were aware of the impending migration of Wikipedia from the GFDL license to Creative Commons-Attribution-Share Alike? Specifically, there has been talk that this may affect the use of GFDL 1.2-only media on Wikimedia projects. I'm not really sure I understand the issue myself, but I was wondering why you choose GFDL 1.2-only? Is that a better license for images than the Creative Commons licenses? I'm not trying to suggest that you change your licensing, I was just hoping maybe you could enlighten me on the issues. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Kaldari, I upload GFDL 1.2-only because the newer version(1.3) allows the work to be used as CC-BY-SA as well. I do not mind the non-commercial use of my images but I do not want to allow businesses to benefit at my expense and as GFDL is commercially more restrictive, I release my images with that license. I was not aware of the migration (Thanks for the link), however, the page mentions that "We also propose to continue to permit GFDL 1.2-only media uploads for the forseeable future, to address concerns regarding strong and weak copyleft, until such concerns are fully resolved", so I guess its ok for now. --Muhammad (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation! I have one more question if you could indulge me (hope I'm not becoming a pest yet). You mentioned that the GFDL 1.2 is more commercially restrictive than CC-BY-SA. I was always under the impression that they were roughly equivalent on the issue of commercial reuse. Could you explain what the difference is specifically? I know that for reuse in general (commercial or non-commercial) the GFDL is more restrictive (or "burdensome" depending on who you're asking), in that it requires including the full text of the license rather than just a URL to the license (although this condition seems to be generally ignored in practice), but I'm not aware of what the difference is regarding commercial reuse. I realize you're probably not a lawyer, so you may not be sure about these issues yourself, but any clarification you could offer would be greatly appreciated. I'm very interesting in the issue of free licenses for photography, but there is still much that I'm not clear about. Thanks again for your time! Kaldari (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd poke my nose in again (having Muhammed's talk page on my watchlist!), as I have similar concerns to him, although I haven't resorted to releasing as GFDL only. Incidentally, I have found that since changing the licensing text on the image page infobox to a tersely worded summary of the conditions of the license, I have had a lot more people contacting me to consider purchasing my images. This is a good thing, but it does make me wonder how many commercial entities have used my images inappropriately in the past, assuming incorrectly that since Wikipedia provides information to the public for no cost, that all content must be free too. The default license text contains only the bare minimum and doesn't do much to explain to the layman what you can and cannot do with the images, which is the reason why I wrote my licensing terms in the first place. Anyway, not to put words in Muhammad's mouth, but yes, I believe that requiring the full text of the license is the main reason why it is more restrictive than CC-BY-SA. As far as I can tell, the other differences are fairly inconsequential, but it would be nice if a copyright lawyer would put together a definitive guide to the pros, cons and differences between the two. It has been a while since I had a good read of the GFDL license, but I don't believe it requires any content using the image to also be released under the same terms as the license, whereas CC-BY-SA does. In practise this is also quite restrictive because it would, in theory, mean that if a photo was used in say, a website, that the entire website would have to be CC-BY-SA too, which would be unacceptable for a commercial entity with its own copyrighted content. It really is a big can of worms, and I'm interested in your thoughts too. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I understand you correctly, for some people, the full license requirement of the GFDL is a feature rather than a bug :) Since no one actually wants to follow the terms of the GFDL verbatim (at least not for images), you can restrict commercial reuse by insisting that commercial reusers follow the GFDL 100% or pay you to relicense the image to them. For everyone else, you let it slide. So it's kind of a back-door non-commercial clause (or at least a way of exercising more control over the reuse of your images). Interesting. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. :-) It is just a simple way of stopping commercial entities (that would and should normally pay for good quality images) from exploiting Wiki's free-content for their own gains, while also keeping quality images available to the public for general non-commercial use (since non-commercial use would generally be more friendly towards the GFDL/CC-BY-SA terms). I know that technically, Wikipedia wants to offer content with commercial licensing (apparently so that it can reserve the right to sell content down the track?), but hey, since we're already donating our time and photographic skills to a good cause, I don't see the harm in trying to maintain a semblance of control over how our content is used outside of the project. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that the reason Wikipedia insists on commercial freedom for its content is much more fundamental than what you suggest. Non-commercial licenses (even Creative Commons ones) are not true "free licenses" and thus do not fit the definition of free cultural works. Wikimedia's mission is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Although the GFDL is technically a free license, it doesn't fit Wikimedia's mission as well as CC-by-sa does (especially not for images and non-text media), thus the migration. The way that the GFDL is being used by contributors such as Muhammad and Fir0002 is a bit troubling since it seems to be going in the opposite direction—creating more restrictions on use instead of fewer. I don't believe that contributors to Wikipedia should be expecting to make money off of their contributions. It creates a conflict of interest as it could arguably be seen as exploiting Wikipedia to market one's work. Of course it is their decision how they want to license their contributions and currently there is no prohibition against using GFDL-1.2-only. Personally, I don't think it's quite in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, but that's only my personal opinion and certainly not binding on anyone else. Of course I realize the argument for non-commercial licenses is that it limits other people from exploiting your work for their own gain, but if a work is truly "free" (even under strong copy-left) that is a control that must be given up by the creator. A work cannot really be considered part of the public commons if its use is still being controlled in such fundamental ways. Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're saying and that might indeed be part of the reasoning, but I don't see why Wikimedia's mission can't restrict the content to non-commercial use only. I'm sorry, I think anyone who donates commercial quality images to Wikipedia for free is by definition a generous person. I don't think that either Muhammad or Fir0002 are expecting to make money from their images on Wikipedia, but what they would likely expect is that those commercial entities should pay for media content when they can afford to purchase the content and will attempt to make money from that content. I'm always glad to help when a non-commercial publisher or individual contacts me to ask permission to use my image. I might even offer it for free without the CC-BY-SA licensing restrictions if they asked me and had a good reason. But I just don't like the idea of someone profiting financially from my donation of content to the Wikipedia. A vaguely similar analogy is that of a professional sportsperson. While many of them completely agree that they are paid too much for doing what they would often gladly do for free, the fact is that because of the nature of capitalism in our society and the commercialisation of sport, somebody is going to profit from the ticket sales and TV franchising etc, so why should the clubs, TV stations and promoters make all the profits from the sweat of the sportspeople? They don't deserve it more than the sportspeople that the public pay to see. For the same reason, I support photographers' restrictions on commercial use of Wikimedia's images. Wikimedia could completely avoid the issue by allowing a Creative Commons non-commercial license. I don't understand why they need to make it commercial. You say you don't think it is quite in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, but likewise, I don't think their policy on commercial licensing is quite in line with the spirit of Wikipedia either, which is that information and content should be free. If it were free, then by definition it wouldn't be commercial, would it? ;-) By the way, re-reading your reply, I see that you seem to be using the word 'free' to mean 'without restriction' rather than the more commonly used defintion of 'without monetary cost'. I think the latter is the more important goal though. I don't see the harm in restricting Wikipedia's content to the website itself and it's associated publications. Particularly the media content. This is the encyclopaedia and this is where the information belongs IMO. I'm not against people using it elsewhere per-se, but the effect of restrictions on them isn't nearly as much of an issue as potential exploitation of content is. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably would have agreed with you a year or two ago (when I was only active on Wikipedia). The more I've been involved on Commons, WikiSource, and other projects however, the more I've realized that these projects are bigger than the sum of their parts. Commons for example, rather than just being a place to hold images for the encyclopedia, is actually turning into a pretty significant project in its own right (especially with the recent Yorck and Bundesarchiv image donations). Ideally, the Commons is supposed to be a free image repository shared by everyone on the planet. People are supposed to be able to go there and find images that are freely reusable (as in no strings attached) for whatever project they're working on. They're not supposed to worry about whether or not their project is going to generate money in some way in order to decide if they can use images from the Commons. In the best case scenario someone may need to charge money for something simply to recoup their production costs. In the worst case, someone may be trying to recycle content from Commons to make a quick buck without doing any work. In either case, Commons is probably not the right place for contributors who are worried about such issues. If you think of your contributions in terms of "commercial quality" and "commercial value", you probably should be licensing them under a non-commercial (or fully copyrighted) license, which means not on Wikimedia projects. The ideals of the free culture movement (of which Wikimedia is a seminal part) evolved to overcome the problems of copyright. For example, what do you do when you want to get permission to use a photo when the photographer is dead? In the case of using GFDL-1.2-only, the photograph might as well be fully copyrighted. If you want to stay within the letter of the law in that case, you're out of luck. And as long as one of Muhammad or Fir0002's beautiful images are gracing a particular Wikipedia article, the impetus for another photographer to create a new image of that subject and release it under a truly free license is lost. Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diliff, does that mean that if an image is released under the CC-BY-SA license and used in a book, the entire book, including the original work of the author must also be released under the same license? Kaldari, I think Dillif answered your questions. I am a bit confused now :( --Muhammad (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm sorry for confusing you. I have re-read the CC-BY-SA license and I think it only applies when your photo is used in a Derivative work, not a Collective work. (See the definitions here). So no, if your photo is just included in a book, then the whole book does not have to be CC-BY-SA, but if the photo is used as part of another image somehow, then I believe the image would have to be CC-BY-SA, but that seems to be the only situation. So yes, the GFDL is the more restrictive license IMO. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No apologies required. Thanks for the clarification. I am thinking about writing a book and it seemed harsh otherwise :) --Muhammad (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, however, that if you include a GFDL 1.2 image in a book, the entire book would be required to be released under the GFDL. In other words, the GFDL is a "strong copyleft" license, while CC-by-sa is a "weak copyleft" license. This is actually a rather simplistic view, as the details are quite complicated, but in the case of publishing a photo in a book, that characterization is basically accurate. The person who originally created the GFDL 1.2-only license template on Commons, Gregory Maxwell, actually did so because they believed that CC-by-sa wasn't a strong enough (or as you say, "harsh enough") copyleft license. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Forcing the entire contents to be released under that license is harsh but I see the need of such a license. So basically GFDL is more restrictive, by forcing derivatives to be released under a similar license? --Muhammad (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. You really stirred up the hornet's nest in FPC talk... :-) And perhaps I'm the hornet... I do feel strongly about it though. It is such a ridiculous licensing system, and now the revelation that CC-BY-SA might not even be compatible with GFDL because GFDL swallows up anything it comes into contact with makes it even worse. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only possible solution I see is to license all images GFDL 1.2 and explicitly state on the image page the conditions of the license, including its ability to gobble up the would be commercial work and the two page license attachment. This would hopefully stop them being cheap. --Muhammad (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Licensing Statement
I like how your statement in the license template of your images informs about the license. I was hoping you wouldn't mind if I use the same statement in my photographs template :=)  Zoo Fari  02:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use it. I myself borrowed it from Dillif who borrowed some parts of it from other photographers. --Muhammad (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Afwan
I was away when you posed your question and just got back into the swing of things today. I'm sorry I could not be of any help. If you still need such information, do let me know, though I suspect the time has probably passed. I hope you found what you needed. Anyway, nice to meet you and let me know if I can ever be of any help in the future. Salamat.  T i a m u t talk 14:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, here goes: 1. Are you currently living in Palestine?

I am a Palestinian who lives in Nazareth and carries Israeli citizenship. We call the land we live in Palestine, even though an administrative body named Israel controls its borders and other stuff in between. 2. What do Palestinians do for entertainment? Do you have any cultural dances, songs, plays?

Palestinians my age in Nazareth spend a lot of time visiting one another at each others homes. When we do go out, it's usually to eat (my favourite being mezze and fish in Acre). There are no nightclubs here or in other Arab towns and we do not go to nightclubs in Jewish areas, so the only time we dance is at weddings. There, we dance to popular Arabic music and usually do the traditional debke. At weddings, particularly when we go to pick up the bride, we do sing traditional songs like Jina we jina we jina, jibnal aroos wa jina and do the Awiha improvisations. There are a couple of theaters in Nazareth where we can watch plays written by local Palestinians. There is also one in Haifa (Masrah al-Midain) where original Palestinian productions are also put forth. Lately, film production, usually joint Palestinian-international productions, have been working in Nazareth a lot. I work a bit in the film industry myself these days and am proud to be a part of the new Nasrawood. :)

3. How have the activities in 2 above decreased due to the Israeli-Arab conflict?

I am not sure how to answer that question. The conflict has been ongoing for about a century now. No one I know has any recollection of how festive we were before it started. I can say that I used to worry a lot that we were losing knowledge of our traditional songs and dances, but there is a revival of sorts from among the younger generations to preserve those traditions. (See the article on Rim Banna for example).

Nazareth has never been much of a dancing town. People here are a little conservative with expressions of happiness. (I've nicknamed it "Happy grumpy town": people seem happy being grumpy.) Song does remain an important element of cultural expression. We can see traditional oud performances in town at local restaurants, as well as Arabic-Jazz fusion groups, and sometimes even Arabic hip hop.

Anyway, if you have any followup questions, don't hesitate. Salamat.  T i a m u t talk 15:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Template for copyright on images
Hi Muhammad, I noticed you're adding some copyright info to your images, which is fine and dandy (many of us do it), but you're adding it as raw wikicode on the image page, which take up a lot of unnecessary space. I was a bit bold and used the code from one of your images to create commons:User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/licensing. Now you don't have to copy+paste all the code and you can just place on the image page to call this template. Feel free to revert my edits; I only did it to this image so far. But I feel it's much more efficient and a lot cleaner (I'm working to clean up all our FP image pages, and this is an easy fix). Thanks, Muhammad! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In writing that previous post, I assumed you may not know how to/hadn't thought of using a template like that, but seeing that you're using commons:User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Author, you apparently do. Just trying to play it safe originally; no offense meant. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 06:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I had created a licensing template but there was a licensing mistake and some commons users who tried to fix it copied the contents of the template to the image page. Thanks for helping out. --Muhammad (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Extension tubes
I'd recommend the kenko autofocus set (totalling to 68mm or so). I have heard of people using 2-3 sets on a macro lens without trouble. They don't really affect image quality (the results I get with my 70-200 are as sharp as without them). They do however affect the effective aperture of the lens, so you have to watch out a bit for diffraction softening. I wouldn't worry about damage, I have used all three of my tubes on my 400 (2-3x the weight of the 150mm) without issue and my 70-200 is of comparable weight. There is a formula (magnification = lens mag + tube length/focal length), which would suggest that the 150mm is capable of 1.45:1 with a full kenko set. However, internally focusing macro lenses change focal length a bit with focusing, so apparently you can achieve 1.68:1 (nearly double) magnification with a set. The main downside is reduced working distance. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you a formula, (magnification = lens magnification + tube length/focal length), it is only a ballpark figure though, the actual number will be greater. You are limited by light fall off and working distance, after you reach those limits you are either better off with a MP-65-E, or perhaps reverse mounting a lens. Have a look at ( or ) for reverse mount examples, for extension tube examples, and for combination reverse mount and extension tube examples.Noodle snacks (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Two methods. Either reverse mount a lens directly to the body, or on the end of the lens using a macro coupling ring. I own a 67-52mm macro coupling ring (tried it with my 50mm f1.8 II), but the working distance is very small with my 70-200. Either approach is extremely cheap to try if you have another lens to try it with. Approximately speaking I can fill the frame with the "Alt" text on my keyboard. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sigma has a 72mm filter. Depending on what the lens you plan to use is (30-50mm prime is ideal, doesn't matter if its an old one) you will need a 72-x adaptor, where x is the filter diameter of the other lens. Get one of your lenses and hold it backwards with both caps off. You can see the magnifying effect with your naked eye. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Aeshna cyanea freshly slipped with time.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 20, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-20. Yes, that's tomorrow. Sorry for the late notice.  howcheng  {chat} 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about the different image, but your comment on the image page answers that. Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Svg version of steroidogenesis
I thought you might want to know that the svg-version of the steroidogenesis image now is for nomination on Featured picture candidates/Steroidogenesis as well, if you want to add a vote or comment. Cheers. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have left my comments --Muhammad (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)