User talk:NewYorkPhotography

Welcome!
Hello, NewYorkPhotography, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Flatiron Building
Please do not add photographs to articles which are duplicative of photos which are already there. In addition, we don;t allow watermarked photographs. BMK (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi BMK. Despite reading up quite a lot, I'm clearly in the dark and one of many noobs. I really don't want to be an annoying noob though, and will read up more soon. Heck, I don't even know where or how to respond to your message or action. So please excuse me for the noob mistakes, as well as for my not knowing where to respond. Do as you must - too bad if the photo gets removed, that would clearly be due to my own misreading etc. I really tried to get it all right. And reading up further, I might get it soon ;)


 * Responding here is fine. Uploading your images to Commons is also fine, only next time don't watermark them, it's considered to be advertising. When you go to add your image to an article, be as objective as possible: "Is my image better than the ones that are already there?  Does it add anything to the article?"  Please remember that our primary concerns are content and information, not artistic quality.  An image which is better from a photographic or artistic point of view may not be better for displaying in an article at a small size.  Your Flatiron picture, for instance, was certain'y more interesting than some of the ones we have thee, but one of the reasons it made a more striking picture was the way you had enhanced it, by making it essentially a B&W picture with splashes of color in the taxis.  That makes a "better" picture, but not a better representation of the building.  (Also, the building was set back pretty far in the image, making it difficult to see at the size we have available for display.)  If you keep in mind that the images we use need to be functional and not necessarily artistic, you'll be OK. (Of course, if we can get both function and a striking visual, that's the best of both worlds.)  Good luck. BMK (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, about the waternarked image. Just go to the image's page on Commons, find the link that says "upload a new version", and upload the image without the watermark.  Once you do, I'll withdraw the deletion request. BMK (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responses and clarifications, BMK. As well as for the announced deletion request withdrawal. Yet, imo removing the watermark won't make the image more valuable and of essential contribution to the subject. I'll reconsider, read up, clean up, and will only add photos of more clear significance. Cheers!
 * If your new uploaded photographs have watermarks, they will be nominated for deletion, and removed from any articles you may add them to. See WP:PROMO. BMK (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. What I was saying: AND the watermark should be gone AND the photo should be of higher significance. So please do push the deletion request through. I can't seem to find a delete or replace button. Thanks again!
 * Deletions are done by admins as the result of community discussion. I'm not an admin either here on English Wikipedia or on Commons, so I cannot delete the image, nor could I even if I was an admin because I nominated it and participated in the discussion. It has to be done by an "uninvolved" admin.  If you want to push the deletion along, go to the image's page, hit the edit tab, and put at the top of the page: "  ", that might do it, although I don't really understand your objection to uploading the same image without the watermark (which I assume you have, and which you can upload easily by using the "upload a new version" link on the file's page, as mentioned above).  The fact that the image isn't used in an article here doesn't make it inappropriate to be in the Commons repository.  All sorts of places use Commons as a resource, and there are Wikipedias in all kinds of languages that could choose to use it. BMK (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you've sidestepped or ignored my requests and suggestions that you upload the image without the watermark, I can only conclude that the only reason you're interested in uploading your images to Commons is to promote your photography. Therefore, I have re-uploaded the Flatiron Building image with the watermark cropped out, and removed all mention of "Tux Photography" and its website from the filename and the file information. Under these conditions I'll withdraw the nomination for deletion. You're still free to upload a version of the full photograph without the watermark, but please do not re-add the promotional mentions of your website or "Tux Photography". BMK (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BMK? I have thanked you numerous times, I have a job, I live in a different time zone, I have apologized for several things... I really see no hints towards the conclusion you're landing up here. Last things I said were: hey, that is so kind of you, telling me it's okay if I simply upload a version without a watermark. And: I can't seem to find a delete or replace button. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt here, don't I? I really do not understand how you or what you added up to come to this conclusion about my motives. I was pretty clear and pretty submissive/feeling guilty about the photograph after your explanation. And I don't want you subsequently cropping my photo, after I nodded when you asked me to think about the actual contribution of it, apart from an esthetical photography thing. I'm really displeased now. Please do not conclude such, and please don't use my photograph - I told you I did NOT want to share it, after realizing its limited significance. And I can't help the fact that I could not find the buttons or links letting my alter or replace. Hence "I don't really understand your objection to uploading the same image without the watermark" is weird. I never said so. In fact, I agreed with you about its significance. So, please remove it, give me a break and let me have it deleted myself. Please. Don't take over with incorrect arguments.
 * You've uploaded your image under a license that allows cropping. You know what to do if you want the full image without watermark, since I've told you at least three times: go to the file page, and look for the link that says "upload a new version of this file", right underneath the "File history" section. BMK (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Like I understand the license stuff. You couldn't fill that one in after my first responses of not understanding it all? Give me a break, pal. Please. I live in a different part of the world, and not so much online. I don't know about licenses and 20 minutes of reading got me no further. Now, if you would give me a moment to simply DO AS I PROMISED earlier and as I really tried. That would be really nice. I'm not asking you anything special, BMK. Just the benefit of the doubt. I have uploaded ONE image to Wikipedia, and have now spent about 5 hours and I still don't get it all. Do laugh at me for being a dumb noob. But then treat me like one. On my way there, right now. Again.

Well. Back here now. You remember I said "I can't seem to find a delete or replace button"? I may hope so, since "since I've told you at least three times". Well, funny thing... there is none such. I couldn't and I can't. "upload a new version of this file" - there is and was no such option. As I told you. As I tried 100% doing the right thing right. I told/asked you, given this non-option, to push it through. That was 100% the right thing to do. So I really don't get this: "Given this discussion on en.wiki, it appears to me that the uploader is primarily interested in using Commons as a way to promote their photography. Numerous suggestions and requests to re-upload this same image without the watermark have been sidestepped or ignored.". And I don't like that, BMK. I will try and do the "speedydelete|request" thing. Or, let me guess: that won't work anymore since you replaced it? Heck, I wish I never even tried this, you know?
 * Well "pal", you're out of luck, because my attempt to help you has just ended. BMK (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is because... not fixing it within 20 hours yet doing and trying 100% fair is worth getting pissed about or anything? Seriously, have I been talking Russian to you? I have been open, honest, clear, obeying, apologizing, true and truly trying. What is your problem? You like tricking me? What's the deal, man??? And now I am the one who should say sorry for a "pal" or for what else? While for no reason you just went out and said "Given this discussion on en.wiki, it appears to me that the uploader is primarily interested in using Commons as a way to promote their photography. Numerous suggestions and requests to re-upload this same image without the watermark have been sidestepped or ignored.". What did I ever seriously do wrong? For real?