User talk:Thisisbossi/Archive 2008

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

← Archive 2007 | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 →

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 3726 - Winkelmatten - Matterhorn.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 4285 - Thun - Aarekanal.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 1089 - Hallstatt - Salzbergwerk - Salt Lamps.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 5297 - Wengernalp - Wengernalpbahn.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 5016 - Grindelwald - Obere Gletscher.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Image:5210 - Near Eigergletscher Station.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sometime before tomorrow I am going to oppose this image at QI. The reason is that at least for these last few days, I have been trying to keep images from being deposited wherever QIBot puts unassessed images and because the light on the rocks is too harsh in the image, maybe a few other things.

I enjoyed reading the wikipage about the piles of rocks though and I was wondering if you know what purpose this pile had. While sorting through the QI nominations, I kind of enjoyed putting the ancient pylon thing into the Optics gallery along with the more modern stuff that is already there.

To me, a marker for a grave site or an accident is a different kind of interesting than a marker for astronomical purposes or early attempts at surveying. In the upper peninsula of Michigan, the last time I went through there, a bunch of hippies had been there a little before then and there were piles of rocks (not this intricate) all around that they had built. Those were cool as well, but for a different reason than the ones I mentioned earlier.

I am asking this about that image because I was going to place it on the article but it is not as good as others that are there, unless you could honestly report what its purpose for existing was. -- carol 04:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, there's nothing too fancy for it: the cairn's purpose is just for wayfinding during snowy conditions. Some of the rocks have red/white and blue/white markings sprayed on them for novice and expert trails, respectively. Of course, when it snows, the markings disappear -- so the rocks serve as the guide signs. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 05:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2529a - München - Olympiaturm from Olympiastadion - Genesis.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Image:2332-2337_-_München_-_Neues_Rathaus_-_Spiral_Stair.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:2332-2337_-_München_-_Neues_Rathaus_-_Spiral_Stair.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Erik Baas 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:2311-2314_-_München_-_Neues_Rathaus.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:2311-2314_-_München_-_Neues_Rathaus.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Erik Baas 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:2352-2355_-_München_-_Altes_Rathaus.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:2352-2355_-_München_-_Altes_Rathaus.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Erik Baas 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 5165 - Near Eigergletscher Station.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Image:1173a4a - Obertraun - Stormwater Management - equalized.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your painted versions of this image were a nice surprise when looking at the nominated one. Image:1173a4a - Obertraun - Stormwater Management - equalized.JPG starts to look like the illustrations in my elementary school textbooks and early reading books (most from late 1950s and early 1960s).

That was nice to find there! -- carol 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 5506 - Iseltwald - Brienzersee.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Serbia/Kosovo imagery

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

look declared Kosovo as a region which is not free. here These are old maps and she has to upload a new ones here and here Greetings --Cp6 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain it the way I see it: He's been trying to revert User:Hoshie's changes to a number of world and European maps introducing Kosovo (per the precedent set by partially-recognised Palestine and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which are also shown as distinct territories), and one of these changes was to the Freedom in the World map. While Kosovo was rated as an occupied territory in 2007, the newly independent Republic of Kosovo has not yet been rated, that's why it should be in grey; he keeps reverting to a version of his which shows Kosovo as part of Serbia and in red. —Nightstallion (?) 07:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:1847_-_Salzburg_-_Mirabellgarten_-_Flowers.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:1847_-_Salzburg_-_Mirabellgarten_-_Flowers.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 12:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:2228_-_Salzburg_-_Flowers.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:2228_-_Salzburg_-_Flowers.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:1852_-_Salzburg_-_Mirabellgarten_-_Roses.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:1852_-_Salzburg_-_Mirabellgarten_-_Roses.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 13:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:1763_-_Salzburg_-_Stiftskirche_St_Peter_-_Viola.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:1763_-_Salzburg_-_Stiftskirche_St_Peter_-_Viola.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:1464_-_Nationalpark_Hohe_Tauern_-_Flowers.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:1464_-_Nationalpark_Hohe_Tauern_-_Flowers.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 14:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why all the redundant cats?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I have noticed you are adding species categories to a lot of plant Images. Images, which are already in their respective species galleries in accordance with the guidelines in COM:TOL. What is the point of also adding it to a species category? A lot of renaming of species go on these years due to genetic research. If each image gets a species categpry instead of only having it in a species gallery, the amount of work to do if a scientific name is changed is much larger; each image would need a cat change. When they are in a gallery only the gallery needs to be moved. For me it seems like you are adding a lot of redundant information, which increases the later maintenance burden. Cheers, -- Slaunger 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob -- I thought I was helping out, but I didn't realise flora and fauna changed names much (actually, I didn't think they did at all). I'd think a bot could take care of any significant moves; but I'll not toil with whatever COM:TOL has arranged and I'll just stick to the genus from now on. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered : User talk:Yug/Camera

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have an answer on this page. 220.135.4.212 06:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:3894_-_Gornergrat_-_Flowers.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:3894_-_Gornergrat_-_Flowers.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:4178_-_Thun_-_Schloss_Thun_-_Flowers.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:4178_-_Thun_-_Schloss_Thun_-_Flowers.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:4519_-_Bern_-_Rosengarten_-_Flower.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:4519_-_Bern_-_Rosengarten_-_Flower.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:5202_-_Near_Eigergletscher_Station_-_Flowers.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:5202_-_Near_Eigergletscher_Station_-_Flowers.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:5852_-_Schynige_Platte_-_Flower.JPG

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image deletion warning

Image:5852_-_Schynige_Platte_-_Flower.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Karelj 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 3766 - Gornergrat - Aster alpinus.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Do you have shots of the full plant too? --Dschwen 04:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Alas, it never occurred to me at the time; but I'll certainly keep that in mind for my next trip! --Thisisbossi 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 4220 - Thun - Petunia.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Not as good as the Aster, but ok. Same question: Any shots of the full plant (for encyclopedic value)? --Dschwen 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 3818 - Riffelberg - Matterhorn viewed from Gornergratbahn.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments a bit hazy, but maybe unavoidable FRZ 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hydrangea

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am not a specialist for giving advice and you make very fine pictures, but this one of yours didn't convince me. I think light was not really with you this very day, because with a higher level I think DOF would have be better. Also with this size of pixels you may choose not to be so close an then to re-crop afterwards, DOF is generally better with distance. Furthermore, for real macrophoto I am not the one able to give technical explainations. Sorry. Cheers. --B.navez 03:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 4524 - Bern - Rosengarten - Hemerocallis.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments A 'classic' flower picture, but meets QI standards. -- MJJR 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 4890bricon - Mürren-Gimmelwald - Centaurea.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Excellent example of colour contrast, DOF is OK. --Ikiwaner 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Circle linking

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To be really "linked", the circles should in some way go visibly over or under each other at their intersections, so as to make some form of knot-theoretical link (see http://katlas.org/wiki/The_Thistlethwaite_Link_Table for a list of knot-theoretical links). If there's no visible evidence of over/under crossing, then you have overlapping circles, but not linked circles. A Venn diagram is not generally an example of linked circles... AnonMoos 02:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Such a category would remain quite underpopulated unless something happened such that we should have more than one person in that category... which would prompt a rewrite of quite a number of other articles. I liked that comment .

Norsk bokmål: Du har et imponerende antall Babel-bokser, men siden du er user-da-2 bør du kunne legge til user-no-1 også

English: If you did not understand the previous sentence in Norwegian you can safely ignore it

Regards, Finn Rindahl 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with the Valued images project

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As you may have seen, this project is going live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC. Before then, there are a few things to be finished off, and any help you can give will be welcome. The latest discussion is at Commons talk:Valued images candidates#Open action items for Valued images.

When the project launches publicly on 1 June, it will need reviewers who are able to jump in quickly and provide prompt feedback. During those critical first few weeks it will be important to have a decent number of reviewers who are prepared to put in the effort to make sure the first nominations are well-reviewed, as that will set the standard for the future.

Would you help, please, with the final tasks now, and also pledge your help with some reviewing on 1 June and thereafter? --MichaelMaggs 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Red Light Cameras

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hola, contesto en español porque mi inglés es muy malo: creo que tienes razón en lo que observas. De todos modos, he hecho un nuevo ajuste, que creo atiende a over-categorization y a Category:Objects on roads. Si vieras algo mal, por favor, corrígelo. Saludos, --Tano4595 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

user-editable CC template?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, after a few talks on the theme on COM:VP, and after being convinced on advantages of "CC-by" towards "Attribution", I started to design a more intelligent user-editable CC-template (well, the developer+programming-work would be done by Rocket000).

I now learn that CC and Attribution ARE the same, such template therefore would not be of any use.

In case you're interested, I please invite you to talk on User talk:WeHaWoe/TestSite#Looks like bad luck for the project 8( for kind of brainstorming. Best, Wolfgang, WeHaWoe 09:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Geography by state

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just spotted that you are removing a lot Category:Geography of the United States from a number of Category:Geography of STATE items. I'm just curious as to why... it's common practice to have such a tree of categories. Would Category:Geography of the United States by state be preferable within Category:Geography of the United States? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hola, aprovecho tu es-3 para dejar de lado mi pobre manejo del idioma inglés (si no se entiende lo que escribo, por favor, hazlo saber). Respecto de tu pregunta: Category:States of the United States pertenece a Category:Geography of the United States. Por tanto, Category:Alabama, etc., son de hecho pertenecientes a "Geography of the United States", y agregarlo una vez más resulta en un problema de Over-categorization.

Respecto de la otra pregunta, veo que existe Category:Categories by state of the United States, supongo que es usada en los casos que corresponde.

Saludos, --Tano4595 13:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I assume that your es-3 will assist with my poor command of English (if you do not understand what I write, please let me know). Regarding your question: Category:States of the United States belongs to Category:Geography of the United States. Therefore, Category:Alabama, etc., in fact belong to "Geography of the United States" and adding it again becomes a problem of over-categorisation.

With regard to the other question, I see Category:Categories by state of the United States, which I suppose is used in such situations.

Sincerely, --Tano4595 13:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Parking buildings / NZ

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Thisisbossi - if you find your changes reverted, please look at the edit summaries, they may explain why. In the specific case, I in the first instance mainly reverted your changes because you dumped three pictures into "multi-storey" when they were in fact a single-storey car park building (there is a cinema above, and not more parking, as I explained in the edit summaries). As by that time, you hadn't deleted the car parking buildings cat yet (which would fit perfectly as a generic category containing both multi-storey and NON-multi-storey car parking buildings) I moved them back. Next time I look, you again (!) move those three pictures into multi-storey, and delete the in-between cat. Since you were rather thorough, I couldn't just undo that, so I moved them into car parks in NZ this time. I still feel that a category covering BOTH multi-storey and non-multi-storey car parking is sensible, but in any case, please don't change those three images all over again. Regards and happy editing - Ingolfson (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. I'll see about bringing back the car park buildings categories to fit them in such that they can encompass both single and multi-story structures. There was one photo in particular which was clearly a single-story structure and I was quite confused as to how to categorise it... your suggestion would work well. However, do you think it should be car park buildings which includes the single-storey carparks and is parent to the categories for multi-storey, garages, and carports; or would you recommend a distinct single-storey carparks? Right now I think I'm leaning toward the latter... it'd probably be easier to scale in the future, if more single-storey media is added. I'll see if I can work it in tonight. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the former, as a hierachical structure is more typical of Commons (and multi-storey car parks ARE a subcat of "just car park buildings"). However, I would not oppose it if you still think the other option is better. Ingolfson (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried implementing the former, but it necessitated an additional branch which I didn't personally feel to be necessary... basically it placed all the car park structures into the buildings category, leaving open car parks all by itself. It just seemed like a bit too much branching out with the categories. How's it look now? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump - Summary of responses

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here is a summary of responses based on the above. A * signifies that I interpolated the vote here based on the response above. Please remove the * if you concur with my interpolation. User:Thisisbossi

I have no idea what this means so I can't remove the * on my name or figure out why it is there and under that heading????? WayneRay (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Based on the responses people had written, I attempted to place them into the pro-category or pro-gallery group. However, in your case, I was not quite sure which stance you were taking (if any). Therefore, feel free to move your name into whichever group you feel more accurately fits your viewpoint. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One way or another voting

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I am very unhappy with the one way or the other voting. Given a situation of total freedom (within some license and software restrictions); like "Anyone can upload images" and "Anyone can edit" -- I am uncertain about the reason the problem has been reduced to a one way or another solution.

The problem that created the situation in which it is being discussed is that a few people were disembling categories or dismembering them (whatever language you prefer). To have the actions of not more than five or six people reduce an intelligent group to having to "vote" one way or another and no inbetween where those people are required to cease their activity is something I cannot fathom. I am decided on that -- I think that neither galleries nor categories should be dissembled. It is not an indecision, as I am very decided about that.

To me, to have a vote which is strictly one way or the other because a few people were not tolerant, is to also answer intolerance with intolerance.

I am very decided about things there. -- carol (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But I am not sure what it was that you were proposing as an alternative. Note that I am not advocating eliminating galleries; I'm only seeking to have TOL brought into conformance with what is already policy everywhere else on Commons. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a web log about my campus. How they had made sidewalks and sometimes those sidewalks were used, but paths were made where the efficient way to get through the area to the destination was. I don't think that the people who insist on using the sidewalks should be able to move people off from the paths and the inverse -- people on paths should not move the sidewalk people to the path. I was going to write a paper for my technical writing class (an arguement or something) that was in favor of waiting with making the sidewalks until the paths were made....

I had two people disembling my categories and not telling me that they were going to do this. Today, that number of people is three. I want them to not do that. In an arguement about "the" in the category name or not, the more logical solution is to put both categories in place (neither with templates saying that "You Have to Use the Other") and see which category gets more populated. I would opt first for no arguement -- to let the person making the category tree do that without interference. Unless there is a real problem. The arguements I have seen about English grammar often end with insisting that one or another version be used.

The world is complicated. The earth is large and people on it are small in comparison. The differences between people and all of the other things are incredible in their multitudes. I suggest that additional complication not be added and that it doesn't need to be added even.

Two people were disembing my categories. I wanted that to stop. -- carol (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm still at a bit of a loss as to how that applies to galleries. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two user names here, instead of not allowing them to disemble categories; a vote for one or the other was established. I am very decided. The undoing of an individuals efforts should not happen without an equal attempt by both to communicate. This vote is one paintball (template pasting) software vs. another template pasting (paintball) software.

It was a completely different issue that ignited it. -- carol (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

plants in any town or country category

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Such Categories are something what makes no sense. That plants you take fotos grow everywhere. why other user create similar categories is because they take fotos of plants native in that country (Endemism). plants cultivated widespread like yours dont need a location, that are cultivars. please stop that kind of categories. greatings. --BotBln (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thisisbossi leave the TOL people the Plants of galleries and categories and put your photographs into Flora of categories. This is the reason I do that; the TOL people have something very important they are doing and do not want others messing with their Plants of categories. Heh, I am going to start calling them the Diff TrOLs (Dschwen has a request to stop pasting diffs on his talk page....) -- carol (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to satisfy the where portion of Commons:Categories. I'll use "Flora of...". --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To try and avoid edit warring as much as possible (since I know the two of us aren't the only people this happens to), I've reopened a previous discussion at the Village Pump. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did what I could. I am in literally in a wrong wrong wrong situation where I am located on this planet (speaking of native and not). It seems that any way that I attempt describe my situation gets used against me even. I refuse to "clean up" after the child who is making a lot of money, yet can do a fraction of the things I can and have done. The child does not clean up after himself so to make the landlady happy, a cleaning service has been contracted. They were here yesterday (I clean up after myself mostly). The ants that were in the building which I moved to outside where they could eat happily and not be a problem are gone (and their food that I put there). A new variety of ants has entered the building -- since the people were here yesterday. These bite and are not interested in just eating.

I have hundreds of things like this that happen here, I tell this one.

My option to not get a job that did not pay me enough to live where I was living (once again) when the circumstances occurred that moved me here was one that perhaps I should have opted for earlier in my life. To have a bunch of children inform me that I was not qualified to do the things that I had done and to be this age and fairly successful in the world of capitalism (I was at the least good enough on my "day" jobs) and not be allowed into the academic world due to not completing a degree (but what I did complete....) and to only have one year where my income was the same as my mothers. My mom, her husband had to insist that she complete her high school degree. A school bus driver (arguably one of the most socialistic jobs available in this country) lecturing me about finances -- she learned in my childhood that finding a new "dad" for her kids was probably not a good idea to conduct in the high school as I attended it!!!!!

When I start to think about what is wrong here, where I am physically and with all of these computer environments -- my mind goes back to some of these problems way back. I am sorry about this spew here. Not as sorry as I am about the ants that are biting me now as I am in this world I do not like, that was made by telling me I was not good enough for things I had already done.

The strong sense I have that I am working alone on anything I work on since I have been here -- then seeing it all always get used elsewhere fairly successfully. This Flora of stuff is much the same. I did not work alone to get here is one of the big big problems with this situation. Not paying qualified people enough money to live where they work is a really really big problem. I would have no problem watching/seeing stuff I helped to build get used successfully elsewhere; it is the nature of the GPL and what I thought was great about it. I was successful in the other world though as well. My exclusion from it is extremely suspicious to me, especially when overlayed on the aloneness of my last five years here in California and the situation that forced me to be here.

This text is a result of how difficult it is for me to try to answer the single problem I am asked to look at and keep my self and my problems out of it. And the damn biting ants -- I clean up after myself; those people are not entering this building because of me. -- carol (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, and I mean this in the nicest way possible; but I have nooooo idea what you are talking about :P --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

http://mmmaybe.gimp.org <-- Me and my little team of people had this almost completed in 2003. I put the mechanism that makes the site (which is much more impressive than the site appears) onto a software versioning system run by what should have been a safe linux software host (http://www.gnome.org) and started to play on a wiki trying to get the funds and interest up so that I could meet the people I had worked with. Since that time, I watch web sites like flickr and deep down I know that whether or not the software that we made to make that first web site was used to make it, it could have. Additionally, there is a tool within the web site mechanism which is what was needed to turn sodipodi into inkscape. Software can be a little like children, perhaps. I feel like when I see flickr and inkscape in particular that they are "my children", but I have no way to prove it. I am really proud of them also. Both of those softwares are cool. Flickr has a pain for an interface, but I have a web site already so my opinions are not needed there -- many seem to enjoy it and find use for it and it actually "works" with good ease. Inkscape is a great application. Shortly after they released gimp-1.2.3, Photoshop released Photoshop7. This version of Photoshop included many many things from Adobe Illustrator (2002, I think). I mentioned at that time it was kind of like feeling an earthquake in the software world or a little wave of pressure being felt by a powerful corporation. Inkscape is to GIMP what Illustrator is to Photoshop.

That is all from 2001-2003. The last five years have been filled with fuzzy language about food and crap like the TOL discussions. Biting ants. Money and credit given to the person who is afraid of the dark, very little life experience and not to the people in the project who did the work. -- carol (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Release candidate" phrase being used on that web site. We never ever used that language. The internet should have been beautiful. -- carol (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

An apology for all of this. Almost 6 years of extremely unreal problems; there should be a problem if I did not have a problem. -- carol (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

wow podes hablar en un monton de idiomas, enseñame ingles :-P xD --The Punisher 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Soy un hombre de todos los oficios, maestro de ninguno. :) --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Permission to copy image of "Ogre Fountain" in Bern

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mr. Bossi, I would like to ask your permission to use your photograph of the "Kindlifresserbrunnen" in Bern to illustrate a scholarly book I am publishing with the University of Delaware Press. The book is called THE OGRE'S PROGRESS: IMAGES OF THE OGRE IN MODERN AND CONTEMPORARY FRENCH FICTION. The fountain is important in Jacques Chessex's 1973 novel L'OGRE (A FATHER'S LOVE), which I analyze in my book. The photo would appear in the interior of the book. This is not a money-making venture with a trade press; it will be a hardcover book sold mostly to libraries. It is a beautiful photograph! Sincerely, Jonathan Krell

Certainly, you are welcome to use that image. The majority of my images are licensed under cc-by-sa-2.5. What does that mean? The cc and 2.5 parts refer to the license name & version: Creative Commons 2.5. The by refers to attributing the author of the work, that is: me. The sa notes that the image itself must be relicensed under cc-by-sa-2.5. A user-friendly explanation of the cc-by-sa-2.5 license is provided here, and the full text of legalese is here. So in the end, somewhere in the book you would denote that the image is "Provided by Andrew Bossi, cc-by-sa-2.5", "cc-by-sa-2.5 Andrew Bossi", or something along those lines.

You can make as much money as you wish (indeed, I hope you earn plenty!) -- all media hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation is permitted for commercial use. Of course, if you should ever becoming a millionaire, do keep us in mind :) All I really ask is that people let me know when they use my images, solely because I'm curious -- it's not even required to let me know. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ogre Fountain

Thanks! Jonathan Krell

Quality Image Promotion

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 6274 - Luzern - Verkehrshaus - Lamborghini Miura.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments The best picture of this type of car we currently have. No people standing in the back. Sharpness OK, but the lighting could be better. --Ikiwaner 10:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 4268 - Thun - Obere Schleuse - Lantana.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good picture --Simonizer 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2008 05 17 - Euphorbia pulcherrima 05a.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments a different crop would make it a exciting picture. But quality is ok --Simonizer 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Fastnacht" and "Fastnachtskuchen"

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Thisisbossi! I saw your pictures of Fastnachts, for example Fasnacht 2c.JPG or Fasnacht 1d.JPG, and your German descriptions "Puderzuckerfastnacht" or "Fastnachten". I think in German the word "Fastnacht" only means carnival; and I asked my dictionary, it has the same opinion like me. I'm afraid that there is no German word for Pennsylvanian Fastnachts (if I am wrong, please tell me). I never saw a Fastnacht before. I changed your German discription of the Fastnachts in "Fastnachtskuchen". This word means sweet baked goods served on Fastnacht Day. "Fastnachtskuchen" is written nowhere else, but a German will understand. --Stefan Knauf (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Enea Bossi

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am a photo editor with RiseUp Publications. We are working on an article on Enea Bossi and I've noticed that you have posted several images of him and the plane he invented. It would be wonderful to have the opportunity to publish one or two of your images to illustrate the article. You can contact me offline at jdenesha@usariseup.com

Julie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usariseup (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Certainly, the photos are licensed under cc-by-sa-2.5. The cc means Creative Commons, which is the name of the license. by means that you have to attribute the author -- in this case "Bossi family photos" would work for all but one of the images in this category. The one exception is this, where the author would be me, Andrew Bossi. The sa means share alike, that is the image must be licensed under cc-by-sa-2.5 in your work. So basically you'd caption or footnote each image with something like cc-by-sa-2.5, Bossi family photos. Just let me know if you have any additional questions. I actually have a lot more photos of him & his works; I've just been busy uploading other images such that I haven't quite had time to scan in the photos. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Geolocations on a pizza ?

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A quote from (your favorite ?) discussion on Image talk:2007 04 25 - WWB 39.JPG: "It is a picture taken outside, so that a meaningful location can be given.". This one is not even taken outside... Besides, there is no way to justify putting a pizza or a hamburger on the map. It's just rediculous... - Erik Baas (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine, flowers, events, landscapes... all have places attributed to them. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You repeat your self, I'll do the same: A pizza on the map ? It's just rediculous. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'd just say that maps of repartition for plants of for some typical foods may be useful, while geolocating transient items like most of the plants or food does not make sense to me: geolocation is a tool to retreive a physical instance of an object (geophysical object like a mountain or a lake, or long-term unmovable objects like buildings for instance...) for which its location is useful to understand its organization/existence.

A counter-example could be a specific specimen of plant, and/or extra-ordinary living individual like a very big/old/known tree in the middle of a vast desert.

Actually, the location is useful when it provides useful information to understand why the photographied item is important/has interest, in other words, to explicitely add context to a meaningful individual.

Best regards from France,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Plants that are Cultivars growing in Parks and Gardens are there cultivated. How they look depends how some Person cultivate them. Country where they are planted have nearly no influence how the look like. The knowledge of the person who grow it has much more influence. so build a Category like Grown by Tim Smith or somethong like that, that make more sense ;-). Ornamental plants of the Tropics, Ornamental plants of the Subtropics, or Ornamental plants of the Temperate Areas would make sense, because plants of one of thats Areals normally cant be cultivated outdoor in one of the other Area, more or less. but in what country the picture is taken dont make sense, same like this bread or pizza eaten in Texas or Salzburg. --BotBln (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)