Poco a poco

Hallo Poco a poco, en welkom op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia!

Welcome message in English

Hartelijk dank voor je belangstelling voor Wikipedia! We werken hier aan het ideaal van een vrij beschikbare, vrij bewerkbare, volledige en neutrale gemeenschapsencyclopedie. We waarderen het enorm als ook jij hieraan wilt bijdragen!

De Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is sinds 19 juni 2001 online en telt inmiddels 2.157.549 artikelen. In de loop van de jaren zijn er voor het schrijven of bewerken van artikelen en voor de onderlinge samenwerking een aantal uitgangspunten en richtlijnen geformuleerd. Neem die als nieuwkomer ter harte. Lees ook eerst even de informatie in dit venster voordat je aan de slag gaat. Geen van de richtlijnen heeft kracht van wet, want Wikipedia is en blijft vóór alles vrij bewerkbaar, maar een beetje houvast voordat je in het diepe springt kan nooit kwaad.

• De vijf pijlers van Wikipedia
  Uitgangspunten en richtlijnen in vijf regels
• Snelcursus
  Leer stap-voor-stap bewerken in een ogenblik
• Tips voor het schrijven van een goed artikel
  Slimme aanwijzingen van ervaren Wikipedianen
• Dingen die je beter niet kunt doen
  Veelgemaakte fouten en hoe je ze vermijdt
• Conventies en relevantie
  Nuttige hulp voor het schrijven van een nieuw artikel
• Portaal:Hulp en beheer
  Algemene handleiding van Wikipedia
• Zandbak
  Voor het experimenteren met bewerken
• Helpdesk
  Voor al je vragen over Wikipedia en over zaken buiten Wikipedia
• Veelgestelde vragen
  Antwoorden op de meest gehoorde vragen
• Coachingsprogramma
  Een coach helpt je bij jouw eerste stappen op Wikipedia

Deze pagina, die nu op je scherm staat, is trouwens je persoonlijke overlegpagina, de plaats waar je berichten van andere Wikipedianen ontvangt en ze kunt beantwoorden. Iedere gebruiker heeft zo'n pagina. Wil je een nieuw overleg met iemand anders beginnen, dan kan dat dus op zijn of haar overlegpagina. Sluit je bijdragen op overlegpagina's altijd af met vier tildes, dus zo: ~~~~. Een druk op de handtekeningknop (zie afbeelding) heeft hetzelfde effect: je bericht wordt automatisch ondertekend met je gebruikersnaam en de datum en tijd waarop je je boodschap voltooide. Versturen doe je met de knop "Wijzigingen publiceren".

• Mezelf14 _overleg 4 apr 2015 19:05 (CEST)

Adding images to articles

Dear Poco a poco,

Thank you for contributing to the Dutch Wikipedia but pleas be careful when you insert your own photographs into articles. In this case the image is hardly relevant without relevant context plus you broke the page lay-out. In this case the image actually had nothing to do with the subject. The article is about a local lake, not the town or the surround landscape. You broke up the lay-out as well. Last not least, this edit. We have a local guideline wp:BTNI. If something isn't an improvement but a "neutral" edit don't change it. In this case the older image was a lot better since it was less remote and the size of the image is much better imho. Please be aware that an image being a quality image at commons doesn't make the image suitable for an article and neither does it make an image the most useful image to be in an article. Natuur12 (overleg) 5 apr 2015 15:52 (CEST)

Hello Natuur12, please, let me elaborate a bit my motivation and those edits you mentioned. I really appreciate the way you approached the topic and I thank you for your patience. To my motivation: those pictures of "mine" have got the green label in Commons as Quality Images or even some of them as Featured Pictures. Actually nobody in the movement has contributed with such an amount of featured and quality material as I did. I contribute in the movement mainly as a photographer, but have been criticized in Commons, that the content I contribute with, is not being used in the other projects of the WMF, so that's why I agreed to edit more and photograph less. I agreed to do that because I cannot see any other way to find a usage of the quality content I provide in the Wikipedia projects. I have asked some people in some projects to make use of a vast amount of pictures of high quality standards, but nobody seems to care. That is the reason why I include "my" pictures in the WP projects, the same way that most other quality photographers in Commons seem to do. So, my intention is to replace good content by HQ content and to provide additional views of places that have not been illustrated in the articles (but are relevant).

Now to the articles you mentioned:

• this one was obviously a site in Reykjanes showing a typical landscape of lave. I would have liked to add a link to the volcanic area of Gunnuhver but there is no article existing in this Wikipedia and my language skills are very limited to write longer sentences that are grammatically right. I still believe that an image would help to have an impression how a typical landscape look in that part of Iceland. Layout is a browser topic, nothing of general validity.
• this one is my fault but also a fault of the article. Laugarvatn is not only a lake, it is also a town (and surrounding area), but for some reason it is not mentioned in the Dutch article, as it is e.g. in the version in English. I didn't read it carefully since my Dutch is not really good.
• this one really frustrates me. As a thumb they could look the same to you but they really aren't. The one I added is awarded as a Quality Image in Commons fulfilling this exigent criteria, they one you want to keep it not a Quality Image and will not become one (bad lighting with too dark subject, green fringes of chromatic aberration, lack of detail everywhere). So, in Commons these 2 pictures are 2 leagues but in Wikipedia it doesn't seem to mind. There is, I guess, something wrong here...Poco a poco (overleg) 5 apr 2015 19:09 (CEST) PD: The image in the main page of this Wikipedia (sorry, both Commons and nl.wp) is mine.

Dear Poco a poco,

I inserted some of the photographs you took in a couple of articles. Your images are really great but it is hard to insert them in relevant articles. When it comes to the first edit, the article is just a stub and the space left for images is limited but I agree that it can use some images so I'll try to create a gallery which includes your picture.

When it comes to the third image it i quite simple. While your image has higher technical standards the other image fits the page lay-out better and it is possible to see the subject properly without clicking at the image. People are not judged bases on the images they provide at this wiki btw and that can hardly be an argument when discussing content. Natuur12 (overleg) 5 apr 2015 20:39 (CEST)

One of my favourites, ever.

Hi Natuur12, thanks for your feedback and help! I will keep editing here but promise to be more careful and ask myself twice before I add content whether it is an improvement for the general public. Regarding the third article, I understood that your point is the composition. I can offer some other pictures of high quality ([1], [2], [3]) or even featured ([4],[5]), the one on the right I really like. Poco a poco (overleg) 5 apr 2015 22:17 (CEST)

Sorry for the late responce,I forgot to reply. One of those QI's is fine imho but please be carefull that people might see it as self promotion if your only activity is inserting your own photographs. Of course that's not your motive but it sure is something to keep in mind :). Natuur12 (overleg) 7 apr 2015 19:29 (CEST)