Hello, High Contrast. You have new messages at SkyBon's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Airshow
Hi there, High Contrast! The tickets are not that expensive (around $14 per person, if you know where to park your car. If you plan on parking on their premises, it is much more expensive, naturally). I will not be going to this show, because it is kinda difficult to attend such public events with a two-year old son :). I'm sure that some of the Russian Wikipedia users will be going to MAKS-2009 and after that will upload some cool pictures to Commons (meanwhile, check out these pictures here [1]). Happy editing! KNewman (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, I have now some 1000 rubles ($1 = 34 RUR) to go to MAKS airshow. I'll take my camera there and make some photos. And thanks again for notifying me about MAKS airshow! SkyBonTalk/Contributions21:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Can you please have a "special attention" on the Almaz-Antey-presence there, please? Should look roughly like this. If you can find a vehicle looking like the one in the background of this image, feel free to photograph it. Thank you! --High Contrast (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you asked on WT:CHINA about an unknown airport in China from a picture you had taken. Is it possible that the airport is in Chongqing? That is on the sign that is half visible through the window.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for your answer! Chongqing is possible. I do not remember if it was the airport of Chongqing or Xian. I tended to Chongqing but I was not sure. So, I am quite pleased that you could identify "Chongqing" in chinese writing. Thanks for helping! --High Contrast (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Thank you!
High Contrast - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.
I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.
Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I have just added some images to the corresponding articles. I do not have any special knowledge about volleyball, so I assume I would't be a good helper. Nevertheless, I will add photographs. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on which one. One set were sent to me by a user who took pictures of the US one. He gave us full rights to use it in email. The image of the German one came from a page that no longer exists. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the image you once uploaded to en:wiki was transferred to Commons. There, a Commons user asked for the exact source here. Perhaps you can give a short statement there. --High Contrast (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needing Admin help with Commons, and en.wikipedia, de.wikipedia, etc.
Hi, I posted this info to User:JMilburn's talk page, but I just got an answer from him saying that he "has problems with Categorization" on Wikimedia Commons and can not help with this, so I am re-printing my note to him for you. Maybe YOU can help. This is crazy! Here:
Sorry once again. As you probably know, I upload photos for the musicians' biography articles, but only when I know we have a need for it. I first find the photo(s) that would complement our articles, and I email the photographers to ask permission, and then usually have to respond to them to explain Creative Commons, and which licenses we accept here. It's often long and tedious but I've done it and uploaded about 700 photos mostly manually to Commons. But there is a new complication: I negotiated with a German photographer (Heinrich Klaffs) to upload some photos from his Flickr photostream. He changed the licensing for the entire bulk of them to Commons, (CC-BY-SA) which was nice of him.. perhaps initially a mistake he made, instead of changing the Creative Commons license for the few photos I requested, he may have accidentally changed the license to all his pics. I do know he is enjoying it anyhow. I never upload ALL of someone's photos especially if there's a string of them that are nearly identical (why be greedy?). I normally take my time, and copyedit the articles where they will appear, creating infoboxes, wikification and wording, etc. However, (perhaps because of that Flickr "photo finder bot" intended to help editors find and upload "free" images, there's a problem!
PROBLEM. There now appear to be at least two other editors ALSO uploading ALL of his stuff --although I'd been slowly uploading some of the photos. When I first discovered this, I tried to communicate with the first; a German editor who has a user and talk page here on en.Wikipedia, but after writing and beginning the subject, his response was negative. He just said, so?. I had a bad feeling about this, and sure enough, he has created a Category in Commons: Category:Photographs by Heinrich Klaffs [4] Now. if he was merely using the de.Wikipedia to place the photos, it would solve 1/2 of the problem, but still, it creates duplicates in Commons! And, on de.Wikipedia there's apparently been a decision not to add infoboxes there. So I'm finding photos that Freimut Bahlo (talk) just left on the en.Wikipedia pages, (if he got that far). At first, I felt like, "grin and bear it", but now I feel like I'm a janitor having to follow behind him and having to check every single photo of his when I do want to upload a needed photo from that source. I almost feel like he considers this a race of some kind. ??!
Now I find yet another editor, doing the same thing, calling it Category:Hamburg in the 1970s! [5]
The problem now, is that in many cases, there are not only duplicates but even triplicates of the same photo!
WHAT TO DO? I'd like to communicate with everybody but am unsure if it's a problem of WP:OWN with someone (me?) but this is insane! BTW- I've now uploaded and placed close to 700 photos so the list required an extra page- you can find a link there from my Userpage. Please, what to do? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CAN YOU HELP? I don't know what to do about this, and if so many people are uploading the same pictures, it could present big problems in Commons. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, durch Zufall fand ich die obige Seite. Wenn ich das recht verstehe ist das eine Seite über 10 Leute der Aufklärungsstaffel VP-4 der U.S. Navy. Eigentlich totaler Unsinn. Muss jeder Mist in Wikipedia bleiben? Vielleicht kannst du das ja mal überprüfen. Danke und Grüße Cobatfor (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Auf en:wiki ist das so eine Sache: die hiesigen Relevanzkriterien sind wesentlich "lockerer" als auf de:wiki. Ich kann mir gut vorstellen, dass dieser Artikel hier seine Berechtigung hat. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi High Contrast. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! SalvioLet's talk about it!14:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, High Contrast. I noticed that you nominated the page Flowerhorn for speedy deletion, because of the rather... interesting... article that was created there. However, originally the page redirected to the article Flowerhorn cichlid, so in cases like this there's no need for deletion - you can simply restore the redirect. (I've done this for you.) Also, note that as... interesting... as the page was, it didn't qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G1, as it was possible to understand what it meant. The speedy deletion criteria are strictly defined, and must be adhered to very closely. Have a look at the essay Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters for more info, and let me know if you have any questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)13:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that this site was originally used as a redirect. You should keep in mind that it was not my purpose to delete redirects. But the fact the you tried to insult me by advising me to read this article shows effectfully that you did not study sufficiently what was the problem with this "intermediate article". --High Contrast (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Sorry if you thought the link I posted was insulting - I did not intend to insult you at all. And when I said that the article was "interesting", I was referring to the fact that it was really bad. (That was the old British understatement at work there; sorry if it confused you.) As I'm sure you would agree, the article was either the product of someone who has no idea what kind of thing should go in Wikipedia, or of someone intentionally putting content in Wikipedia that they knew didn't come up to our standards. If it had been a new article and not previously a redirect, it would have been eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3, in my opinion. Because it was originally a redirect, though, Twinkle warned the wrong user, and the real author got away without any warnings. And if the page had been deleted, then Flowerhorn cichlid would have lost a useful redirect. It's always a good idea to check the page history for this kind of thing. That, and more good advice, is contained in the essay I linked to above - I really do recommend reading it. Alternatively, feel free to ask me any questions you might have about speedy deletion - I'll be happy to help. — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)23:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your opinion in this case, but have no interest in engaging in futile swapping back and forth. Here's what I think: while your photo may have more pixels, Southafrica2010's photo shows more clearly what the car looks like. Aside from the harsh late-afternoon lighting, the stripe and the fender extensions bother me about the München one. Also, the background is superior with no other cars to distract. Anyhow, neither is perfect (Hr. Buetikofer's car having that bullbar on it), and since I am sure there is a better photo of a Scout II out there waiting to be taken I won't worry too much about it. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I wasn't offended in the least since I am aware that you are a good editor and photographer. Just stating my reasons why I thought the Swiss photo better. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just followed the "rule" to use the image of best quality - as such I did this replacement. Nevertheless, If you think the Swiss Scout image is of a better encyclopedic value then just undo my edit - you are definately more experienced with automobile topics on Wiki(m)pedia. Regars, High Contrast (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very obvious that you have already created precedents. Nevertheless, this image shows only insufficiently the ship itself. Major parts of this vessel are hidden or covered by objects. The "newer image" by me introduces are full-scale complete view of the whole vessel. --High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The featured picture shows the vessel in it's surrounding. In the background the "Michel", one of the most famous churches of Hamburg is visible and gives in that way a link to the place where it's moored.
This is not a game or a simple sanbox playings. The argument by me cannot be washed out by you: I am saying an article about this ship has a basic need for an image which documentates this vessel completely. The Landungsbrücken-image can be used in the article of the Port of Hamburg in order to show the whole scenery. Anyway, curiously that you bring in the mighty Michel-tower which is well covered behind the ship's mast. And no, I will revert nothing as you did previously. --High Contrast (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I apologize if the term "game" was offending you; this was not intended.
To the facts: You replaced the image and you didn't even replace the caption, so there was a picture from 2014 with a caption telling "2011". I just put back the right picture to the existing caption.
And IMO the newer picture also shows only a part of this nice vessel. The complete stern for example, is covered.
As it seems, that one single picture is not able to give an impression of the whole ship, what would you think to put in a gallery similar to the one in the german article? Cheers --P e z i (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ray_Carles_260971neu000.jpg){kind=link}
