User talk:Qono

If you end up proposing photography again, send me a line. I would have supported it. Jacqke (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacqke: I've proposed adding Fine-art photography if you would like to support it. Qono (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reasons for the importance scale. For example Category:High-importance Photography articles, in which the only camera manufacturing companies are Canon and Nikon. But Zeiss is included too.
Also i don't see the Nikon Lenses an the same importance level than the Pentax company history article. Also i did see the Nikon article is rated "Top Importance", so there are three levels difference.
Can you please help me understand the ratings? --Angerdan (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Angerdan: I would consider Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss to be of high importance in the realm of photography, but the individual products that they manufacture to be of lesser importance — typically low importance unless the item is iconic in some way or represents a critical landmark in the development of photographic technology. Qono (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've twice undone the longstanding (2015) designation of Gohlke as "top" importance. This is a two-time Guggenheim, two-time NEA and Fulbright Grant winner who has a near-unequaled record of one-man and group exhibition at prestigious institutions and who was a seminal figure in the "New Topographics" movement that redefined American landscape photography in the second half of the Twentieth Century. What possible basis is there for a downgrade, especially alongside the long list of lesser figures you've recently tagged as "High"? Please restore the "Top" category you've twice removed without explanation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Gohlke is an important figure, certainly, but not centrally important to the development of the medium, which is roughly the criteria I've been using for "Top" designations. Qono (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is manifestly false per widespread RS and per what I have commented above. Moreover several of your Top picks have worked within traditional bounds and come nowhere near contributing to the development of the medium --rather they have just done fine work. You seem to be relying on your personal opinion rather than independent recognition. Please consider WP:NOR. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've account for my methodology at the same discussion on the WikiProject Photography talk page. I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith and keep it civil. Qono (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be doing quite a few assessments of photographers but apparently not considering the other project assessments class ratings already there. The class rating of articles is the same for all projects, so if it is a C-class they are all C-class but some of the edits you made add different classes. You should not do this and if an article really is of a higher or lower quality you should review the article carefully and then make sure thay are all the same. I don't know your experience at assessments and I don't know if you have reviewed Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/Assessment but you appear to be assessing many if not all photographers with a High-importance rating, so I hope you are considering if they really are that importance in the overall scheme of things. In my 30+ years as a professional photographer I have never heard of some of the photographers you have rated as high and would have expected to at least have heard of them. I do notice that the Photography project does not seem to have an assessment team so I suppose you are on your own in that regard. I know that when we set up the assessments for the Ireland project we discussed, and then provided examples, of the type of articles for each importance rating. I've readjusted the few photographers who are on my watchlist and I'm not going to follow you around. This is just a friendly post to make you aware of the usual assessment processes that I have done 10+ years so have a decent amount of experience. Generally a more conservative rating is best. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I share this view. There are way too many new "High" ratings. @Hoary: and I are also discussing on the Frank Gohlke talk page. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: I haven't seen it written in the guidelines that quality ratings should be the same for every WikiProject. Can you provide a link? I hesitate to re-class an article on behalf of a project that I'm not a part of.

I've responded to the importance assessment comment at the same discussion on the WikiProject Photography talk page. Qono (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ansel Adams you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RockMagnetist -- RockMagnetist (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RockMagnetist: Thanks so much! Looking forward to it. Qono (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed the article. You did a great job - I really enjoyed reviewing it! RockMagnetist(talk) 01:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RockMagnetist: My first GA! Thank you for your review and all of your contributions. The article is in really good shape. I hope you will join me if and when I put this through FA nomination. You're the number 2 contributor on this article now, by a fair margin! Thanks again, either way. Qono (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd be delighted to help when you think it's time (although maybe let it mellow for a little while). Let me know. I would say it's pretty close to FA already. That German page you tagged looks like a useful resource. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ansel Adams you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ansel Adams for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RockMagnetist -- RockMagnetist (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qono: Would you like to do a DYK? RockMagnetist(talk) 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RockMagnetist: Good call. I've added it here. Qono (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! It's very satisfying to have it paired with a featured picture. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ansel Adams at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd like to suggest that you stop the bold changes on the list of photographers until we have a discussion of them. I may just revert your bold changes, per WP:BRD as some of the changes are really nonsensical. When you marked Muybridge as "reliable sources needed", it indicates to me that there are solid reasons to question your recent changes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I initiated discussion of my changes on the talk page before my edits and there were not strong objections. The tags indicate that no source has been added to justify inclusion on the list, which is particularly important for a list that includes living persons WP:BLPSOURCE. I encourage you to add sources per WP:VERIFY. Qono (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you had tacit agreement for some changes, but what you initiated is quite severe and some edits are just plain wrong (e.g. tagging Muybridge and removing notable photographers from the list). The respective pages are already verified for notability. Per WP:BRD I reverted your recent changes-- see the discussion on the article talk page. Let's discuss there where everyone can see. Please refrain from restoring your version until a clear concensus is obtained.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind fixing your modification of my RFC post to read better? I welcome the input but the way you have laid in your text is disruptive to the flow. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but I made an edit to try to improve the formatting. Let me know if I've missed the mark! Qono (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took out my original RFC comments as you had edited them. Your bold section questions are fine. I can see you are well-intentioned, but it's a general rule that you do not edit the comments other editors.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't object to the consensus tag you placed on the age birth/death dates item at at list of Photographers, but you should probably let someone else do those tags and close it. It is not good practice for you to be judging concensus as you are in interested party. Also, the discussion seems over, so you could probably replace the request for closure tag at the Admin noticeboard. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @ThatMontrealIP: With the unanimity on that section, I thought it safe to mark it resolved, but will certainly seek a clearer consensus on the other questions. If my proposals don't generate a resolution or discussion, I will replace the request for closure, but I wanted to make an attempt reach a consensus where possible first. Qono (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best approach is to let an uninvolved party take care of things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still photography. You cannot self-close as withdrawn when there has been support for deletion. You especially cannot self-close for your chosen outcome of redirect. The close was out of process and your closing remark that there is consensus for redirect cannot be supported. Only two out of six participants !voted for redirect, one of which was you. The relevant guideline is at WP:WDAFD. SpinningSpark 09:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was perhaps partially my fault for adding that particular comment. Perhaps what I should have said is that this could have been done (redirect) rather than list for deletion, although given the varied opinions offered on the best course of action, it is probably good to have had the AfD discussion. Withdrawing typically would be done before other comments are given or perhaps in an over-whelming case for "keep". Sorry if my comment was erroneous. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No a problem, everyone makes mistakes (even me :-)). Non-admin closures should only be done when the result is completely uncontroversial. For a nominator self-close, that should be strictly beyond doubt. If you wish, you can still withdraw your nomination with a statement in the discussion, you just can't close. I note that the only delete vote has switched to my recommendation of a dab page. You might want to consider that as well. SpinningSpark 10:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Based on the comments, I had thought that my AfD for a redirect was the wrong process, so I was trying to correct that. I'm still unclear if there should be an AfD for a redirect or if it should just be boldly redirected, but I'm happy to have the discussion in this AfD lead the way in this case. Qono (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think my own suggestion would have been something you could have done before the AfD, or perhaps before the varied responses, but once there was an actual discussion ongoing then it's reasonable to let it follow the course. As it happens, it may be the result is a DAB which includes a link to what could have been the redirected target anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it reasonable to let the discussion run in these circumstances, but it is required in guidelines at WP:WDAFD, WP:CLOSEAFD (bullet #3), and again at WP:SKCRIT (bullet #1). SpinningSpark 16:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Qono, This is similar to advice I gave you above about marking issues you are involved in as "concensus" items. If there's a discussion going, and you have a stake in it, even if the result seems obvious, it is best to let an iuninvolved party draw the conclusions. The pushing of a discussion in one direction or another by an involved party, via close or concensus tags, isn't good practice IMHO. Leave it to someone with no stake. For an AfD, make a comment to the effect that "this is withdrawn", or for RFCs, "this seems to have reached concensus, can an uninvolved party mark it as such?" works just fine. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qono. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Ansel Adams at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Dhtwiki (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you did at Leak 04-13 (Bait Ones). The article is tagged as "use British English" and so you spell it "characterized" and cite WP:ENGVAR. Don't do this. We do not cite change the national variety of English on an article when one is established or set up already per MOS:RETAIN, and as Paul is English, we should not be using American spelling. Also, please don't insert spacing into headings where it wasn't before if you can help it (however, I see you used Visual Edit, so maybe that's why). Ss112 08:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, Apologies for using the wrong version of "characterized". My citation of WP:ENGVAR was in my change of the dates to DMY format, not my copyedit. Sorry for the confusion.

Mediawiki recommends using spaces in the headings, so my changes there seem appropriate. Qono (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for nominating the article for 'In The News'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer^T•C 01:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bud, clearly there's a near 50/50 split between people who want "killing" versus "assassination". Is there a compromise to be made here? Perhaps use one word in the title and the other in the lead sentence? NickCT (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT, We could propose "Killing of Qasem Soleimani" as the new title and, if that gets approved, change the short description to include "assassination". I don't think we're going to get anywhere with proposing "assassination" again in the title, and at least "killing" is a step in the right direction. Qono (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qono - I will support your title, if you support the use of the word "assassination" in the lead sentence. NickCT (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT, It's not really up to me what's in the lead, I'm just proposing that we move forward with "Killing of Qasem Soleimani" since "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" was met with such resistance. Qono (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qono - I know it's not up to you. But if we both proposed that as a compromise, it would likely carry. Anyway, I guess I'll just continue to push for assassination in the title. NickCT (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will write somewhere else when I figure out where, but start here. It seems that you want to delete the page for color developing agent 4. Maybe with digital photography so common, we should completely forget about film photography. But film is still in use, including still for most movies. The color developing agents are the chemicals that make color film and color prints work. Even with current digital cameras, silver halide chemistry is still common for printing digital images. CD4 is used in the very popular C41 chemistry, and its equivalent for movie film. But maybe black and white photography was good enough, and there was no need for color film. Gah4 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 2001:16b8:4848:8800:71ee:d69b:e48c:17cc has been removing the templates you added to Nikon F-mount without a legitimate explanation and risking WP:3RR. They don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not a tech manual. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"without a legitimate explanation": You both are the ones without reasons, i requested them several times. 2001:16B8:4848:8800:71EE:D69B:E48C:17CC (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69, Thanks for the heads-up. I've reverted the removal of the templates and started a discussion on the talk page. Hopefully, this user will join us there. Qono (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reversed my replacement of the main image in Julia Margaret Cameron with the restored version, which is a featured picture, and was to have been Wikipedia:Picture of the day. You can see the FPC nomination here. Why do you think the present wishy-washy version is better than the carefully restored featured picture? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, the alteration by Wikipedia editors of an original work of art as digitized and published by reliable, authoritative sources is a type of original research. These restorations can be valuable—particularly so when the restoration is of a merely illustrative image—but in the context of the visual arts, it is best to use a reproduction (or restoration) as presented by a museum or other authoritative source, not by a Wikipedia editor. Qono (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Let's see what Adam Cuerden thinks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to move this discussion to the article’s talk page, since it is about the content of the article, to get the input of uninvolved editors.

Also, pinging the creator of an image when the inclusion of that image is under dispute is a form of canvassing, which is not a productive way to move the conversation forward. I welcome feedback from all, but, again, it’s best to hear from those who aren’t directly involved. Qono (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not alright to tell someone when you revert something that's been stable for literal years? It's minor dust and scratch removal, which pretty much every encyclopedia does, with links to the unrestored version. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 20:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, Adam Cuerden I've started an RfC on this matter on the article's talk page. This is an interesting dispute and I'm curious what uninvolved editors think. I welcome your policy-based arguments in that space. Qono (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the comment you have left on my talk page. In informing Adam Cuerden about this problem, I was asking him whether he agreed with your argument. As the person who restored the featured picture, he has an interest in its use. My input into this matter is only with regard to scheduling a featured picture to appear as Picture of the Day on the main page of the English language Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qono. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yo soy ésa".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Normchou. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2023 China balloon incident without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. For example, this incident involves not only the US & China but also Canada. Perhaps you should use the talk page before removing too much information from WP:LEAD. Normchou ^💬 04:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to David Wilkie Wynfield has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have recently added some content on the article Provoke Magazine. I was wondering if you would provide some feedback? I am fairly new to Wikipedia so any suggestions would be appreciated. It would also be helpful if you could point me in the direction in any other wikipedians who may be interested in looking over this article as well. Thank you. Andrew34jack (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ludovisi Throne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Museum of Fine Arts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd request that you revert your close as it does not in any way address the sources. You just asserted they are not sufficient, but no user has actually provided any source that disputes the change while several have been provided that support it. nableezy - 07:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and feedback regarding my close of the RfC.

In my closing statement, I did mention the sources provided by proponents of the change. My role as the closer is not to judge the sources myself but to summarize the consensus (or lack thereof) among the discussion participants.

There were several participants who expressed concerns about the sufficiency and relevance of the sources provided. These concerns were significant enough to conclude that there was no consensus to support the change. Even without alternative sources explicitly disputing the claim, the arguments against the change were sufficient to determine that consensus was not reached.

Thank you again for your engagement in this discussion. Qono (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But then I provided additional sources and nothing was offered to show the unsupported claim that it isn’t well sourced. When people say wait for the sources and then the sources are provided it is not "no consensus". If you’re unwilling to reopen the discussion then I’ll have to request a review of the closure. nableezy - 15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your follow-up message.

I took into account the sources you provided as well as those mentioned by other participants in the discussion. It seems that participants who expressed the need for more sources are not ignoring the fact that there are some sources characterizing the attack as a success. Rather, they are seeking a more thorough representation among reliable sources to justify a change to the infobox, where there is no space for nuance.

I was responding to a request for closure, and given the arc of the discussion and that there was no consensus in the previous RfC on the same issue, I don't believe reopening it would be useful. If you feel that my closure was not a reasonable summation, you are welcome to request a review.

Thanks again for your engagement. Qono (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]