David: George Burgess and I are writing a shark biology book for non-profit Hopkins Press. We are intending to use your excellent sawfish photo taken at the Ga Aquarium. The caption will read: "A Smalltooth Sawfish swimming in the Ocean Voyager tank of the Georgia Aquarium. Photo by David Iliff. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0, from Wikimedia Commons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pristis_pectinata_-_Georgia_Aquarium_Jan_2006.jpg."

George questions the identification. He wrote: "Even without carefully looking at the one you found, I'll bet it's an Australian species (microdon), the only species that is CITES legal in the aquarium trade."

I responded: "The photographer of the "small tooth" photo says the photo was taken in 2006 and the fish could have already been there a while. Were the CITES restrictions in place then? I don't want to contradict the published caption without firsthand, etc info."

Can you please clarify, one way or the other. thanks, Gene genehelfman@gmail.comGenehelfman (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

As seen from the image shown of the Victoria Harbour in Wikipedia, I would like to check with you on the quotation of the image, please find the details below:

Usage: internal use for office decoration

Could I check with you if it is an RF or RM image and basically I would like to use it for hanging at the reception area in my office, please kindly let me know, thanks.

Thanks, Ginny Email: ginny.wong@brookfieldgrs.com Tel: +852 2822 6820 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.185.194 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Grose Valley, NSW, Australia - April 2013.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Aix galericulata (Male), Richmond Park, UK - May 2013.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to bother you, I am writing this correspondence to bring an image to your attention. I recently came across an image of the philly skyline that may be of interest to you. Even thought. the image seem like the comcast building is incomplete, it give a good scale of the buildings relationships to one another esp. Liberty Place bldgs, mellon bldg, verizon tower, & the blue cross blue shield bldg, which I & everyone else who does not live in philly can appreciate. I am writing to you because I do not have an acct in wiki. http://bodyofproof.wikia.com/wiki/File:Phil-skyline.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.154.38 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Corvus corax (Common Raven), Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 08:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Marmota flaviventris (Yellow Bellied Marmot), Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 08:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 09:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a picture of the Radcliffe Camera, Oxford in Wikipedia, under OXFORD. I would like permission to use it in a book I am preparing.

I understand that I need to print "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0" underneath the picture. Do I need to do anything else? If so, what and please tell me how to do it.

Thanks Meurig W Williams Email: tudur07@aol.com Phone: (941) 358-0900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.64.34 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Prague Old Town Square, Czech Republic - Oct 2010.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 12:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great range of Wimby photos. Thank you. More tennis player pictures always welcome. Sirobi (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I'm actually not quite done uploading. I've got a few more, of Bernard Tomic, Kei Nishikori and Sam Querrey. Which photos did you see already? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at most of them, so will keep an eye out for new ones. (Recently added some myself from Roland Garros & have some from 1st day at Wimbledon to upload, but not of same quality). Your page is great by the way; wonderful shots. Hope you can get to other tennis tournaments in the future Sirobi (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

I'd like to use the photo of Windsor Castle at sunset to represent Berkshire on a set of County Playing Cards I'm producing. I'm happy to include the suggested attribution "Photo by David Iliff. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0" in the photo credits.

Could you let me know if that will be okay. My email address is: stephen.gawtry@ntlworld.com

Many thanks,

Stephen Gawtry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.43.238 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Great photo of the Jamison Valley from 2008. I'm in the process of revising Kings Tableland. While I'm generally aware of the geography of the area, I just wanted to confirm with you that the spur to the left of this image is the Kings Tableland. Your confirmation, or otherwise, would be appreciated. Thanks mate. Hope you're enjoying London. Rangasyd (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yep, I believe it is. I know where the photo was taken and I've had a look on Google Maps. It's definitely it on the left. Whether it's specifically the spur in the foreground on the left, I'm not entirely sure as I don't know where it officially begins, but it's certainly the land on the left side of the valley. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Rangasyd (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there !

I came across this lovely image and I'd like to use it as a view outside of windows in a 3d Academic setting. I'd like to ask permissoni to use it, if I could. Please advise.

The link for your image is below.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Keble_College_Oxford_University_Panorama_-_May_2010.jpg/800px-Keble_College_Oxford_University_Panorama_-_May_2010.jpg

Thank you and now I post the sign off as instructed by the four symbols for this talk message. Rlee2007 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Petra Martic Portrait, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Kei Nishikori 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the coordinator of the Asian Girl Campaign. We'll be publishing a digital booklet which contains Information Sheets on Status of Girls in Asia. We'll be using the photo "Karen Padaung Girl Portrait" in the booklet. We will credit your name to the photos. May I know if we can credit you using the following manner, without listing the "CC-BY-SA 3.0? (This is so that the CC-By-SA will not repeatedly appear in many photos.) Photo Credit: David Iliff Thank you for the photo! If you have any similar photos you would like to contribute, please contact me! Regards, Lilian Yap p/s: When you reply, can you send an email to goh1014@goh.org.tw)? Thank you!

I'm the coordinator of the Asian Girl Campaign. We'll be publishing a digital booklet which contains Information Sheets on Status of Girls in Asia. We'll be using the photo "Karen Padaung Girl Portrait" in the booklet. We will credit your name to the photos.

May I know if we can credit you using the following manner, without listing the "CC-BY-SA 3.0? (This is so that the CC-By-SA will not repeatedly appear in many photos.) Photo Credit: David Iliff

Thank you for the photo!

If you have any similar photos you would like to contribute, please contact me!

Regards, Lilian Yap

p/s: When you reply, can you send an email to goh1014@goh.org.tw)? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.230.143.116 (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr David Liff, I am publishing a new blog for Languages teaching. The name is http://speakworlds.wordpress.com/. I live in Italy and i am bilingual Italian/French. I try to publish post on my blog on different subjects, like visiting London,France, Italy and I would like to publish some photos you own. I'll publish this attribution: Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0. Is it enough? At the moment photos are about Picadilly Circus and Covent Garden. May be I'll need some more. Could you send me an answer about your copyright? I thank you for attention. Best regards.

Maria Elisabetta Sironi mesironi@fastwebnet.it

Hey Diliff - came across this [1] and thought you might be interested. Cheers, --Fir0002 04:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am preparing a brochure (with 86.166.176.221 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)a distribution of about 100 copies) for a London Based music charity which is presenting its annual gala concert next week. We would like to use the sunset panorama on the back cover, together with a message of support from the Mayor of London. The photograph would be attributed: "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0"[reply]

We would be very grateful to receive this permission. Time is short and I initially thought that anything on Wikimedia commons could be freely used, so did not follow this up until now,

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. With thanks

Dr Lesley Willner Executive Director North London Piano School Registered Charity No: 1054483

Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 22, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-08-22. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Wood Duck 2, St James's Park, London - April 2012.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 24, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-08-24. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David

I am producing a leaflet promoting an event being held in Brighton next year and would very much like to use your image of Brighton Pier along the bottom of the reverse of the flyer.

I am quite happy to place your credit on the flyer and wondered if there were any other boxes you would like ticked before I proceed.

Please contact me at gavinives@me.com

thank you

Gavin — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinIves (talk • contribs) 09:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Gavin. I tried to email you but your mail server is blocking emails from Yahoo by the looks of things. Here's the error I'm getting as a bounce-back: Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <gavinives@me.com>:

Remote host said: 550 5.7.0 Blocked - see https://support.proofpoint.com/dnsbl-lookup.cgi?ip=72.30.239.6: gavinives@me.com [RCPT_TO]. I replied to let you know that attribution to myself is fine as long as you also cite the licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

Not sure why my email is bouncing your reply, but thank you for coming back so quickly.

You can also message me at gavin@aya-creative.co.uk.

I will include the following credit "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0" on the flyer.

many thanks

Gavin Ives — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinIves (talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I have edited the caption in the nomination. If you find time, please give your valuable comment. Thanks in advance.:)--Nikhil(talk) 13:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Do you have a photo of the top of the hill please on which you took this photo? Also one taken looking up to the top of the Hill from down in The Walk? Is there a large Grey Stone Building or Wall on the left hand side of the top of the Hill, looking down the Walk, or was there one in early history? Do you have any history of this hill? Very important to me to find this out. Or perhaps you can let me know where to email to find out this information please. Many thanks for your reply,

Kind regards,

Mary Hooley Mizzi from tropical North Queensland Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.163.70.109 (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Mary. Unfortunately no that's the only photo I have of Windsor Castle and I don't have any photos of the hill it was taken from. Sorry I can't help with whatever it is you're looking for specifically. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to congratulate you on today's Picture of the Day. Lovely work, thanks - Pointillist (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Albert Bridge, London - Oct 2012.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs,

We would like to use your image for our magazine and website www.textileworld.com, for editorial usage only.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hong_Kong_Night_Skyline_non-HDR.jpg

We will be happy to run your attribution.

Please advise for Thursday August 29, and we thank you for your help.

Best Regards, Julie Davis Art Director Textile World jdavis@textileworld.com 678-569-4892 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.214.194 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David I just sent you a message on facebook, but I realized I could get in touch here. Please see below the content of the message I have sent on facebook.

I am contacting you regarding a panoramic click of yours that we are going to use for a webpage. Actually we are going to hold a Workshop at our uni next year, and are using your click 'London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008'. We understand that we need to attribute the photo to you as 'Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0'.

However given my limited (or lack of) knowledge on copyright laws, I just needed to confirm from you whether it's okay or do we need to do more.

Here's the link to where we have used the picture: http://networks.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/news/tma-2014/ (as you may notice, the page is still under construction). Best Wishes 138.37.89.38 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Amna amna.wahid@eecs.qmul.ac.uk EECS, Queen Mary, University of London[reply]

PS: I think we have already put it up, but will take it down if need be (the page is still under construction).

Amna, your use of David Iliff's material is none of my business – I'm not in any way speaking on behalf of David – but as a general principle it might be better to:

• place the credit next to the image rather than at the foot of the page.

In the credit:

• link something like "[original] image/photo/photograph" to the source;
• link the photographer's name to an appropriate site/blog or wikipedia user page;
• link the license to its definition.

For an example, look at how http://www.london-traveltips.com/ credited David's work. In your situation an appropriate credit might be something like Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License CC-BY-SA 3.0 but without the external link icons. This is just my impression and of course David may disagree. - Pointillist (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Pointillist, it would be better if the attribution and license were directly below the image, so that there is no confusion about the license terms or author. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Iliee, I used one of your photo with credits of course :) You may find it at http://www.plakati.com.hr/gradovi/index.htm

Best regards, Melita Migan Zgombic mmzgombic@promoprint.hr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.149.72 (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Melita. Thanks for contacting me to advise me of the use of this photo. However, you have not adhered to the terms of the license as you must also say that the photo is licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. Also, you have spelt my name incorrectly - it is David Iliff, not Iliee. Finally, I find it a little distasteful that you are selling prints of my photo. I don't mind if you use it in a publication with credit, but to sell prints as if you are an official distributor of my photography is not ethical in my opinion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image! I was astonished!! Kudos to you, good sir! :) Altaïr Skywalker 47 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

I have recently set up a small executive search from based in the City and am launching a small website (3 pages). There will not be a lot of traffic to it but I need a corporate face! I wanted to use 3 of your pictures on the site if I may, they will be an image on the site alongside contact details and a brief summary of who we are. I would like to use the following ones:

Cabot Square, Canary Wharf - June 2008 - the whole image on the landing page 30 St Mary Axe in the City of London - on the about us page A panorama of modern London, taken from the Golden Gallery of Saint Paul’s Cathedral - the left hand 1/3 featuring Paternoster square on the contact page.

I would of course be more than happy to attribute the photos to you on the site, either on each page or as a separate note on the last page (contact us), again attributing the pictures to you.

Thanks for your consideration

Andrew

afarr@farrconsulting.co.uk

86.144.172.91 (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Abbotsbury, Dorset, UK - May 2012.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 29, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-09-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am interested in using your 'Hong Kong Skyline Panorama - Dec 2008' image for a report for university that I'm writing about my year long work experience in Hong Kong. How would I best be able to attribute this work to you? I don't have any experience with this sort of references so I would appreciate any clarification you can supply.

Currently I have written the following on the image: Iliff, D. (10/12/2007)

And within my bibliography: Iliff, D. (10/12/2007), Hong Kong Skyline Panorama, Hong Kong

This follows my universities reference standards, but please let me know if you prefer it in another form (maybe writing your name as 'David Iliff' instead?), or is I have omitted any information.

Please e-mail me at raqueldias66@hotmail.com

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Raquel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.173.3 (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - we're currently looking for an image of Waddesdon Manor to use in a documentary we are making for ITV about the National Trust and we have seen the image you have posted on Wikipedia. If you were happy we would like to gain permission to use the image?

Please contact me for more information at nationaltreasures2013@gmail.com Many thanks

Ntrust (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Diliff. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsbury image

On the talk page of this file you say that if people want to re-use the image they have to give personal named attribution to yourself. I believe this contradicts the terms of use for any content on Wikipedia: "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." It therefore would be sufficient to merely link a url to the source of the image, and it is not necessary to give your name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.49 (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use your photos of Yosemite National Park for a painting. Would it be possible?Cleo2008 (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia. I do not have a talk page or have found out how to get one. could you email me on my gmail account?Cleo2008 (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:L'Oceanografic, Valencia, Spain 2 - Jan 07-cropped.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 16, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-10-16. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for answering late. I had some problems with the Internet since I write from an hospital. I am using Wikipedia for years for research, but I am just finding out, about the talk pages and how to provide or edit articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for answering and creating a Talk page for me. Sorry for being a nuisance, but I am not used to talk pages etc. I have so far only used e-mail and the forum of my artist community, never used any social network. I had never formal education in the English Language, so I may make mistakes. My e-mail is cleo85100@gmail.com Regards Cleo2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleo2008 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Iliff, I am writing to thank you for making your photograph available for publication through Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. We plan to use the following photograph for inclusion in Harold Kalman's book, Heritage Planning, to be published in 2014 by Routledge. The image that we plan to use is:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Central_Station_Main_Concourse_Rectilinear_projection_Jan_2006.jpg

You will be credited as the photographer in the caption. "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0"

If you have any questions or please please post your reply.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skicbbc (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Diliff. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Colin°^Talk 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Diliff,

I want to use your Hong Kong picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg   

I want to use it as the "background" for my website to sell my ebook. Besides giving you credit on the page, do I owe you any money?

152sam 152sam (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Stockwell Bus Garage 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 09:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David I am currently writing a book about bridges that I have visited at some stage during my 70 years of life. All the bridges featured have associated stories, relating to my global travels. I should like to use b & w version of your splendid photograph of tower bridge. Wikimedia Commons File: Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg. This is new territory for me and I need to be certain that I following the licensing and attribution rules to the letter of the law. I would suggest using your attribution wording beneath the photograph i.e. Photograph by David ILIFF. License (CC - By - SA 3.0) At the back of the book there will be a list of images and I propose listing the following in respect of your photograph - Page - 37 - Tower Bridge London - Photograph courtesy of copyright owner David Iliff. Wikimedia Commons File: Tower Bridge London Feb 2006 jpg - Released for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike 3.0 unported license (CC - By - SA 3.0) I hope to hear from you soon.

Regards

Chris R. Pownall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.117.244 (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Chris. The attribution you've described sounds fine to me. Thanks for confirming with me and thanks for respecting the license. Regards, David. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently using the CA mode, actually, and am curious as to the best way to set the aperture so that I can get sharper images at full size, without downsampling. I noticed a similar issue with File:Panorama of Sambisari Temple Complex 03.jpg (I managed to get back there on a clear day). I'm still rather confused, even after reading the manual, about the different settings which are not semi-automated. Would lighting have affected it? The Kalasan images were taken fairly early. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I think I get some of it. I'd want to use the Av mode and set the aperture to f/5.6, f/7.1, or f/8 (assuming daylight conditions), then ... allow the shutter speed to be set automatically? Or would I generally need to tweak the settings further? Apologies if these are quite basic questions... just hoping to contribute better images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Chris. I'm not sure why CA would be selecting the exposure settings used in those images, it looks like the camera made a big mistake to be honest as there is usually no need to stop down so much in daylight situations (unless you have some specialist reason for doing so, like extreme depth of field, or slowing down the shutter speed for intentional motion blur, etc). But you're right that using Av mode and selecting somewhere between f/5.6 to f/8 would be ideal. Anything above perhaps f/11 results in diffraction limited softness. You'd still have to monitor the shutter speed though, because when you're in Av mode, the aperture you select is fixed and the camera selects the appropriate shutter speed. Sometimes as a result if the scene is too dark, it selects a shutter speed that is too slow and you end up with blur. A good rule of thumb if you're hand holding the camera is that you shouldn't let the shutter speed fall below the focal length you're using. Also, I would have used ISO 100 as it's the least noisy. I'm not sure if the camera automatically chooses ISO itself in CA mode (my camera doesn't have that option), but if it does, I would try to avoid those 'auto' modes. It's far better to get an understanding of how shutter speed, aperture and ISO affect the exposure. Eventually with experience you develop a sixth sense about what the appropriate values are for different situations. But yeah, in summary, keeping the aperture around f/8 is a safe bet. It's usually the sharpest aperture and doesn't reduce the light entering the camera too much but it's only a rule of thumb and it varies from lens to lens. Different situations call for different settings. As for basic questions, not a problem at all. At least you're interested in learning more. Most people are happy to just press the shutter and hope for the best. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the info. I will try to work with it a bit the next time I have a clear day (darned rainy season!) and some spare time. I want to revisit Kadisoka Temple, a half excavated temple discovered only in 2000, to get pictures without as many shadows (example of my only visit thus far... going at around 9 a.m. would be much better). I agree, the situational awareness for better photographs seems to be developing slowly but surely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Any thoughts about this? I did f/8 with ISO 100, as you suggested, and I think it's much better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Eureka Tower, Melbourne - Nov 2008.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 17, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-12-17. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Galina Vishnevskaya edit 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 24, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-12-24. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

  I have never used a talk page before and would like to know how to get a large print 6ft x 2ft if possible of the

File:New York Midtown Skyline at night - Jan 2006 edit1.jpg. Is it even possible and if not, what is the largest size I can get? What link? Me and my wife are on the west cost and we got the opportunity to visit New York and take pictures from the empire state building but they didn't look like the above picture...it is beautiful and we are hoping to obtain a large print with full resolution to hang up on our wall...a very special memory. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.90.239 (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the inclusion of a modern photo. I selected it from those recent photos available. Justification: I was re-writing the article, so, having done the hard labour, I got to choose the pics, and I liked that richly-textured photograph.

I creditted the artist, because I believe that when a work is displayed for its artistry (rather than just for the record of the subject matter) that the photographer ought to be creditted like any other artist. (I feel rather strongly about this).

As far as I am concerned, Duncan Harris's image is as valid a piece of artwork as the watercolour, the drawing, the engraving etc. Maybe it's not right up there with the Canaletto. Photography, as an art-form needs to be recognised (as well as recognised for its value in recording historic events.) Hence the photo.

If you have a brilliant photo of St Paul's, let's look at it! Amandajm (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree that photography can be an artform, but I just don't believe that the photo we're talking about is remotely artistic or particularly valuable. St Paul's Cathedral comprises at best 10% of the total space in the image, and is predominantly obscured by buildings and surrounded by cranes. It may be contemporary in the sense that there has been a lot of construction taking place around it, but that would make it (vaguely) relevant to the history section, not "St Paul's in photography and film". I believe that a photo being represented as artwork should be recognised independently of Wikipedia editors, for the same reason that we require citations for facts on the encyclopaedia. A contemporary photo by someone who has no particular reputation as an artist doesn't have enough notability to justify inclusion on the basis of being art, in my opinion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Diliff, you've done something in the negative- a deletion, for reasons that you see as valid and are prepared to argue. I disagree, but don't consider it worthy of an argument (or even putting it before other editors to decide), simply in order to get my choice reinstated. That's not important.

What I am going to say to you is that deleting things is very easy. We now have a gallery which would be better if it was brought back to the same length as the others, for purposes of layout. Now for the positive part of the action.

Would you mind finding a replacement picture that meets your assessment of what that gallery ought to contain?

Amandajm (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it follows that there must be a replacement. Adding content just to fill a gap doesn't sound like a step forward for the article. Why is 3 images not sufficient? Galleries should contain only images necessary for the viewer to learn from them. I'm not aware of any notable photographic artwork of St Paul's Cathedral, so I have no prospective replacement to offer. But until one of us does, I think the gallery is fine with 3 images. Sometimes less is more. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me that even though I think that the inclusion of a Modern image is good, the gallery is better without it?

I disagree with you about the quality of the image. It is very different in style to the sort of images that you take yourself, but is equally valid from an artistic point of view. What I see, when I look at it, is a wonderfully rich composition in which the cathedral is an essential element. It carries some of the earlier implications of the building in the context of its landscape. It gives the building context which is lacking from the in-text images. I would like to se it reinstated.

Amandajm (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that I refuse to accept a modern artistic image in that particular gallery. I'm saying that in the absence of any notable, contemporary, artistic St Paul's Cathedral photos, we shouldn't add a mediocre image just for the sake of it. That's why I suggested we take it to the talk page, because two editors who disagree on the inclusion of content aren't going to make much progress on the issue if they argue in isolation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I got to the Wikimedia Indonesia headquarters and used their wi-fi, so I was able to do the stitching. Doesn't look as warped, I think, but I'd like a second opinion:

• Transverse Equirectangular
• Stereographic

I tried the rectilinear projection, but the tree looked too warped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2009 Wikipedians are visiting German and Austrian State Parliaments to take pictures of their members. They have been made available under a free license on Wikimedia Commons. They can be used in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects but also outside of Wikipedia - in compliance with the license conditions - for example by the Members of Parliament themselves. Besides the creation of free pictures of politicians, the project offers the deputies the opportunity to ask questions about Wikipedia and to discuss „their“ Wikipedia article (eg. to indicate possible problems with personal rights). For Wikipedians this offers the chance to explain their idea of „Free Knowledge“ and the work of the Wikimedia projects. In addition these contacts give Wikipedia photographers access to places that are not accessible to the public in order to produce free images. We now have the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February and perform a photography and editing project for the 764 MEPs there. In particular as the next elections for the European Parliament are upcoming in May, these new articles and photos are under a strong focus of the public. Volunteers should sign up on our Google form - note the section on the Commons project page about selection.--Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, after seeing your nomination here I wanted to ask you something. How many exposures do you suggest for a good HDR image? I tried this with 3 images (the main issue was the light in the entrance way), but I don't think it turned out as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, what program do you use? I used the built-in feature in Photoshop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too would be interested in David's advice. I think he uses Photomatrix. For my St Matthews church interiors I tried several techniques. I misremembered on my FPC and didn't end up using "exposure blend" at all. I tried using Hugin's command-line (align_image_stack and enfuse) for exposure blending but wasn't impressed with the results this time. For Interior-1 (initial upload version), Interior-2, Interior-3 and Interior-4 I used Photoshop Merge to HDR and the "Highlight Compression" option to produce a 16-bit tiff for import to Lightroom. This seemed to produce reasonable results -- there wasn't a whole lot of detail in the highlights, just the glass window whites that I didn't want blown. I wasn't impressed with the Photoshop tonemapping options. Then I discovered Lightroom could actually import 32-bit HDR tiffs so there was no need to map or blend down to 16 or 8 bit beforehand. I tried this for Interior-5 and redid Interior-1 (second upload version). Lightroom's controls in the "basic" panel are all rather magic rather than being just exposure level sliders (I thoroughly recommend The Digital Negative by Jeff Schewe) so using them to adjust the range of an image does do a degree of local tone mapping. For interior shots 2 and 3, I also repeated some of the brighter-exposure shots with my hand covering the window to avoid lens flare which was seriously reducing the contrast and detail in the lower darker areas of the picture. I hand-blended the with/without-hand pair shots before doing the HDR merge. If I hadn't does this trick with covering the window, I wouldn't have got a usable picture for those two scenes. -- Colin°^Talk 16:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the input, Colin. I didn't think to save to TIFF in order to eliminate compression, which should certainly take care of any noise concerns I had. Next time I'll try that. To remove your hand (assuming that it was photographed) would I be correct in assuming that you used the "remove ghosting" feature? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi Chris (and Colin). Colin is right that I use Photomatix to do the HDR tone mapping. Good HDR imaging requires patience and the right equipment, often meaning you need to use a tripod given the wide range of exposures and the need to minimise any camera movement between frames. Lately I've been using 5 bracketed frames instead of 3, and with an exposure range of -4EV, -2EV, 0EV, +2EV and +4EV (Not sure if your cameras supports this, I know my old 5D MKi only let me do 3 bracketed frames from -2EV to +2EV). I'm not 100% sure whether using 5 frames is measurably better but if the dynamic range of a scene is extreme, I err on the side of caution. Not all scenes really 'work' with HDR imaging though. I don't think your example is particularly bad - all the important details are basically visible. I suspect that your 'brighter' exposure wasn't bright enough to show the extreme shadow details though. You may need to widen the bracketing, although you quickly end up losing the ability to handhold the camera, or keep it steady enough to avoid misalignment. Colin is right - you should always work with TIFF files until you're ready to 'save for the web'. It won't magically remove noise issues though - noise is noise and is in the original RAW files. One thing I would recommend is to get hold of a copy of Lightroom if you're not already using it. If you are, you're not taking full advantage of its features, especially the ability to 'correct' some of the lens' flaws such as chromatic aberration and geometric distortion (Your kit lens exhibits quite a lot of these flaws and I can see they're not being corrected in your images). Another thing that it does well is remove chrominance noise (random patchy red and blue colour noise) in high ISO shots automatically - it's technically an option but it's enabled by default and I've never needed to touch that dial. You still end up with luminance noise (random difference in the 'brightness' of pixels), which can also be reduced, but usually at the expense of detail, but it's far less objectionable than chrominance noise. See here for visual explanations. Anyway, Lightroom isn't absolutely essential but it will make a difference in the technical quality of your images. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate reply to Colin to keep things simple (hopefully). Re Interior-1, Interior-2 and Interior-3, it looks like you haven't taken a sufficiently short exposure on the negative EV side to avoid blowing out the windows? Or are those blown highlights introduced with processing? Flare from long exposures on bright subjects is a tricky one. I had a bit of a blow out on my recent Church image too, but thankfully not really an issue as there was no stained glass detail to preserve there. I haven't tried Hugin's enfusing but PTGui also does built in fusing and doesn't usually do a terrible job. It tends to result in a very flat image that requires a lot of post-production work to bring it back to life though. For that reason I prefer Photomatix. Photomatix does have a habit of producing fairly horrific images when using the default settings though. I tend to start with a far more 'toned down' preset and work from there. Sometimes I still end up dialing down the saturation after importing it back into Photoshop/Lightroom. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I've checked and the original shots aren't blown (apart from the lights in 3) but there's not a huge amount of detail in those white windows. If I reduce the brightness all you see is the shadow of the security grid outside (to stop kids breaking the windows) and dirt, and the glare from these windows is kinda real -- eliminating it entirely would be false. This was late morning, overcast sky. If I reduce the level too much then it looks odd and fake. Photos 2 and 3 do seem to lack a bit of highlight detail after processing, probably because I used Photoshop's highlight compression rather than saving the 32-bit tiff. I've re-read the chapter in Jeff Schewe's book and confirm that he recommends saving HDR from Photoshop to 32-bit tiff and importing to Lightroom. He claims Lightrooms 2012 process was designed for full 32-bit and has tone mapping algorithms to produce your 8-bit jpg output. Also, the "exposure" slider changes to +/- 10 rather than +/- 5 when fed a 32-bit source image. Not sure what Lightroom would make of a 32-bit 100MP stitched panorama, though. However, I'm really surprised you said you did tonemapping on each frame before stitching, as I'd thought that would be a recipe for frames that don't blend well. -- Colin°^Talk
    • I've actually been using Lightroom to remove CA and distortion (or, at least, trying to) so I'm not sure why both issues remain prominent in some of these images; I'll have to assume that the automatic settings in Lightroom just aren't doing it. The 60D only allows for two bracketed images (plus the target exposure) so I'd have to just set the exposure twice manually, using AEB; the tripod is not an issue, as I picked one up the day I took the above picture. I'll have a see about Photomatix in case I try to take interior church shots... there are a couple notable churches around here (though for some reason I've had a heck of a time finding sources on them) and quality interiors would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What version of Lightroom are you using? In any case, it doesn't automatically remove CA and distortion - you need to tick the enable profile corrections and the remove chromatic aberration boxes and then set it as the default develop setting - that will apply the setting to all future photos you import. See here for how to do that. Those instructions are for Lightroom 4. It's slightly different (but functionally almost identically) for Lightroom 5 as CA and lens correction options are on the same tab. As for notable churches in Indonesia, I wouldn't have guessed that. What about notable mosques? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, just in this province we already have an article on Ganjuran Church (very unique style, I think), and about 100km away in Semarang there are Semarang Cathedral and Blenduk Church, both of which already have articles. There are at least three more church buildings in Yogyakarta that are probably notable, but I've yet to track down enough sources to write articles. Tons of mosques, naturally (though the ones that have articles already are not in this province). Not sure how they would take a foreigner (bule) with a large camera and tripod standing outside the mosque taking pictures though.

Just opened it; appears I was mistaken (sorry!). It's Camera Raw 8.0. Though I have been changing the profile to that of my lens (Canon EF-S 18–55mm lens) and using the automatic CA feature in Camera Raw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Well Camera Raw should be functionally the same as Lightroom as far as lens corrections and CA removal goes. Not sure why but it definitely doesn't seem to be working well in some of your photos - the CA is noticeable. As for taking photos of the mosques, I don't see why they would take issue with it. I must admit, I've never tried photographing mosques as there aren't really any historically or architecturally interesting ones here in London.. but from what I understand, Muslims are encouraged to be hospitable to visitors and their curiosity. I don't see the problem of photographing a mosque from the outside. Photographing the inside, I can understand if they were to be less encouraging, but there's no harm in asking. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • They usually are (I went to the Demak Great Mosque a couple years ago, got a full tour) but as with all individuals reactions may vary. I got a lot of odd looks while at the Great Mosque of Solo/Surakarta (outside the mosque). Mind you, it was as they were going for Friday prayers so...

Is it possible that the harsh lighting could overwhelm the automatic settings? I've noticed that images with a lot of cloud cover (which leads to blown highlights if the sun is out) seem to have some leftover CA after running the filter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently my friend has Lightroom 5; any thoughts on which is the better of the two versions? With Camera Raw, with Lightroom 5 and Auto Upright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you just need to be sensitive to when you're visiting. Just as you're probably not going to be welcomed if you turn up wanting to take photos in the middle of a Church service (although then again perhaps they might welcome an 'action shot'!). I don't know how well known Wikipedia is over there amongst the common people but it might open some doors if you say you're 'working with' Wikipedia to improve our coverage of Indonesia and Islam. I usually don't mention that kind of thing though, especially if the conversation may lead to the issue of Wikipedia and 'commercial photography' as it relates to their venue. ;-) It's frustrating that there is a real disparity between the educational goals of Wikipedia (which most organisations would be more than happy with) and the free-commercial-use that Commons requires (and which rings alarm bells in most museums etc). I don't think harsh lighting could 'overwhelm' automatic settings. Can you give me an example of where there is residual CA after running the filter? It may not be CA at all, it could be lens flare or something? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The default CA removal on Lightroom (when you check the box) is a fairly light touch. This is often enough but some lenses the purple CA round lights in the corners can be more (e.g., my fisheye). Then you may need to move the slider up just a few pixels more, and/or use the colour-picker to refine which colours to remove. But using too much can lead to a grey edge appearing or also false correction of purple coloured items. There's a local adjustment tool too, See this for more details. -- Colin°^Talk 13:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, I suppose I'm lucky enough to have a collection of lenses that exhibit minimal CA, and when they do, it's easily corrected without further adjustments... That's a nice tutorial, and wow, I have never seen such bad green and purple fringing as in that rowing example. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't think of any off the top of my head (haven't uploaded any of mine). Don't often try talking about Wikipedia when going to a museum or something (I did at the National Press Monument so I could get some of the sources)... I don't think most people here recognise the commercial aspects, but the there is name recognition... at the very least students and teachers recognise it, though less for the photography and more for the chance to plagiarise.

Colin, that is a very useful link. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the devil... Take a look at this one in Camera Raw or Lightroom; even after Auto-CA adjustments there is a bit of CA on his hair. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for me is that quite often when they see my camera gear, they (usually security) ask me if I am a professional photographer taking commercial photos inside, which they have been told not to allow. That puts me in a tricky situation, as I am not taking photos with commercial intentions and I usually play down my equipment and say I am not professional, but the photos I take, if uploaded to Commons, are in theory free to be used commercially. Who is at fault/liable if this happens? The re-user of the image, or me as the photographer who told a white lie in order to be allowed to take photos? I'm not entirely sure. Just because a licence states that an image is available for commercial use, it doesn't hold that the uploader has this right. We saw an example of this recently when that photo of the astronaut was found to be uploaded by NASA under a CC-BY-SA licence without the photographer's permission. Would NASA be liable if the photo had been subsequently used commercially? Interesting questions... Anyway, I forgot to reply to you earlier about which of the two version is better. I think the one processed with Lightroom. It seems to have a bit more constrast, especially more vibrancy in the sky. As I said previously, Camera RAW and Lightroom in theory should be capable of identical processing, however the default settings will probably vary slightly between them. This could account for the difference. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the input. I'm starting from very little knowledge in the technical aspects (my old camera was more of a point a shoot), so a bit of direct feedback is always useful. I think there would would be separate charges at most museums here for commercial photography (I know there is one for filmography), but they've yet to ask me about it. It helps that DSLRs are rather common, though a tripod could probably give pause... I've only brought it to one museum so far, and he didn't seem concerned after he ensured that it wasn't a weapon (military museum staffed by soldiers, after all). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Olympic Road Race Womens winners, London - July 2012.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 20, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-01-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:National Press Monument, Solo (panorama) Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 23:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Guildhall, City of London - Diliff.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 23:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]