User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2010/4

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Aconitum columbianum (Columbian Monkshood).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best educational image in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met, good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Kersti (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Most valued review "Microscopic 3d surface profile"

Du hast damals das oben genannte Bild als VI unterstützt. Ich habe nun was besseres und habe beide Bilder beim Most Valued Review gegeneinander antreten lassen. Möchtest Du Dir die beiden Kandidaten ansehen? Falls ja dann geht es hier zur MVR Seite. Danke schonmal und viele Grüße, -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Acer glabrum (Douglas Maple).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good reasons. All criteria met, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  
•  Oppose Not sure the reasons are so good. The view is interesting. This image is very useful. But here, I see "seeds and leaves of an Acer Glabrum". I don't see an "Acer glabrum". If I'm looking for the so-named tree in "Commons" through Valued Images, I'll be disappointed I'm afraid. IMO, the chosen scope is not the good one.----Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment In botany the appearance of a tree never allows an identification, it is recognizable to the peculiarities of its fruit and leaves. This photo is the modern version of reference herbarium.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Request If so, the image page must describe 1. that this is a fruit and a leaf of a maple tree and 2. what characteristics distinguish this kind of maple from others. (Sorry for being so insistent - but from the beginning when I watched valued images, I was wondering that lots of pictures of stones, insects and plants were passed, with extreme narrow scopes, where normal viewers can only guess what they are about. Since in other fields explanations for laymen are required, I kindly request the same from the biologists and mineralogists.) --Ikar.us (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I added samara and leaf to the description. Please see en:Acer glabrum, es:Acer glabrum, etc., and their references for the "characteristics distinguish this kind of maple from others." To add this information to Commons descriptions would duplicate the content of the sister projects and is not consistent with my reading of COM:SCOPE.
    • Yes, as Myrabella stated recently, VI is the most encyclopedic project on commons. That it violates the rule not to einclude encyclopedic content her. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I absolutely agrees with Ikar.us. Of course, there is for me no doubt about the interest of this photo, which is very useful.----Jebulon (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I can understand your surprise and it would be useful to the trees and shrubs both scopes 1) general appearance and 2) distinctness. But I can confirm that this simple picture can help you to identify this tree. None of the pictures of the tree in the scope you can have it identified. PS: the naturalists that love them questions. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Image:Acer_glabrum_19854.JPG, File:Acer glabrum var diffusum 1.jpg, and File:Acer glabrum var diffusum 6.jpg show entire individuals. None illustrate articles in our sister projects. This one illustrates articles in four sister projects and that is one reason I nominated it. Do you wish to open a Most Valued Review with one or more of the alternative images? Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nudity guidelines

Hey Walter, just wondering if you could respond to my comments here. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Protaetia fieberi

• There are Wikis that do a single photograph by subject, like that they have both sides.
• I am happy for Acer glabrum, here has not been easy.

Bien amicalement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• • I think it is fine and will support it, but I should like to encourage the use for VI sets especially for pictures like this. Thank you for commenting on Acer glabrum. I hope to get better pictures of this species this spring and summer. It is the rarest of our three Acer species. I enjoy seeing your mineral and insect nominations. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer to question on SchlurcherBot

(I continue here, but you can answer here as well I watch this page) Hi, the edit you mentioned has an effect on the interface. But you can not see it, if you use the en-interface. The standard text was written into the Permission field in english. But if no text is written there, then the standard text will be given in the user defined language. See: en de ja --Schlurcher (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I should not have had to ask. But thank you for taking the time to explain, and thanks for making Commons friendlier to non-English users. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Allium crenulatum (Scalloped Onion).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope, criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Misidentifications: Image:Veronica_officinalis_1167.JPG, Image:Veronica_officinalis_1168.JPG and Image:Veronica_officinalis_1169.JPG

Dear Walter Siegmund:

the above images are misnamed and misplaced. They all show clearly Veronica officinalis with its typical crenate leaves and axillary racemes, not Veronica serpyllifolia, which has much smaller, more or less glabrous and entire leaves and its flowers in the axils of bracts, which are not so much different from the leaves below the inflorescence. I know both of the above Veronica species from my area and I actually even found Veronica officinalis in British Columbia (see http://www.flogaus-faust.de/bc/e/verooffi.htm ). I checked an old copy of the "Flora of the Pacific Northwest" by C. L. Hitchcock and A. Cronquist (and also the "Illustrated Flora of British Columbia"). So I am pretty sure that there aren't any lookalikes in the area. Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections. I remember puzzling over these, but no longer remember why I assigned them to Veronica serpyllifolia. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN

Pleas read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet caucasus1922.png#User:PANONIAN behavior. The discussion closed because it "heavily used". It not havily used, the uploader himself post the map to 53 articles. he admit it. Geagea (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This matter is being discussed elsewhere.[1][2] I see no reason to open another discussion here. I agree with AFBorchert. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala.jpg

It's now Geocoded. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I support it now. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cerastium arvense (Field Chickweed).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support best in scope, all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)