User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2012/1

Where is the deletion discussion of Secular Fascism ?

Doug youvan (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the link in the notice posted on your talk page. Alternatively, it is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Secular Fascism.png. Please do not attempt to move disputes from elsewhere to Commons.[1] Also, you would be well-advised to heed en:WP:SOAP and en:WP:COI. I've removed the list of your self-published works, above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter, This just went on the deletion discussion: "Sorry pals ... OK with me, the author to delete it." Doug youvan (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)" Doug youvan (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter, I went "yes" with the deletion request. Why the new comment on my page? Doug youvan (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug youvan;

It was in response to your post on Rd232's page.[2] Rd232 replied, "it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss it here". I agree. Thank you for your interest is closing this issue.[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Original upload date in information template

Hello, Walter. User:Martin H. and I are having a dispute at File:Strawberry Lake Wilderness.jpg. I wish to retain the {{Original upload date}} template in the date field of {{Information}}, while Martin wishes to remove it. You can see our discussion at File talk:Strawberry Lake Wilderness.jpg. Would you be willing to give us a third opinion? Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

{{File Talk:Strawberry Lake Wilderness.jpg}} — hike395 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Aerial_views_of_Hayward,_California

Aerial_views_of_Hayward,_California 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 gallery, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Offer to help out

Walter, Please read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Graphic_Lab#Happy_to_Help_with_Custom_Code_for_Special_Problems and tell me if that makes any sense. I could rework the wording if it does not, and I am very open to feed back. Those 2 paragraphs would probably be easier to read if I dropped in some examples, but then things will get complicated because I might have to explain the details of these algorithms. If you have a suggestion on where to place discussions on Commons that might actually show computer code for illustration of these processes, please let me know. Thanks, Doug Doug youvan (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As I trust you can see, I've turned over a new leaf. Seriously. Doug youvan (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you found Commons:Graphics_village_pump#Happy_to_Help_Out_on_Custom_Programs_-_especially_for_Pseudocolor. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2012 (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:
Potentilla diversifolia (Varileaf Cinquefoil).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hood Canal

Why? Without this, it is very likely to be miscategorized somewhere under Category:Canals and, despite its name, it isn't one. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The words I removed didn't seem to forestall miscategorization, by the way.[4] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, this, while not entirely incorrect, removes all reference to what state the Swinomish is in. I'll maky an edit to restore that information (putting it in Category:Channels of Washington. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Swinomish Channel is not a river; it is maintained by dredging and connects two bodies of salt water. Removal of Category:Rivers of Washington was a good edit, in my opinion. I wonder how many Channels of Washington there are? Category:Waterways of Washington may be more apt. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, so far we have categories for two. - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the USGS uses "Agate Pass Bridge" and "Agate Passage".[5] Our sister project uses en:Agate Pass. The en:Columbia River Bar channel may be relevant were it not in Oregon.[http://www.mytopo.com/maps/?lat=46.2391&lon=-123.9910&z=14

] "The navigational channel is 2,640 feet (800 m) wide at the west end and narrows to 600 feet (180 m) within the jetties." Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK to write?

Would it be inappropriate for me to comment there about the way things now have been twisted around and my intentions are being misrepresented? Or can I express that to you here or by email? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have any useful insights on this matter. You might ask 99of9. He seems to be a neutral party and may have a better understanding of the various points of view. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ribes divaricatum 5378.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  Comment The flower in the upper left corner should be cloned out. Yann 13:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Ok now. --Yann 13:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems in the VI project

Hi Walter Siegmund,

As you are both admin and interested (you nominate recently a picture) in the VI project, I would like to inform you that I think seriously that User:Wetenschatje is deliberately trying to destroy the VI project. He continues to think that he is the "White Knight" and "Police superintendent".

Now, he has decided, by his own will, that the absence of a "gallery" for a picture is a valid reason for an  Oppose vote, against all the current rules.

He does not nominate more any own pictures in any QI, VI or FP projects, he only votes, mainly "against". These contributions are completely useless.

As he does this especially against User:Taxiarchos228' pictures, which is sometimes involved in behaviour disputes as you maybe knows, we have many sparkling discussions, slowly (not so slowly, in fact) killing the project. Furthermore, some users, disagreeing with WS, use a contrary  Support vote, having nothing to do with the picture itself.

In my opinion, a definitive ban from VI project against ws should be the better way for calm down.

Could you please tell my if you have any idea about the situation in general, and if you think something useful could be done ?

Thank you very much (and sorry for hesitating english).--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit (excusez le mot). Oppositions are my right when argued. You people should start listening and discussing instead of barring, banning and banishing! พ.s. 12:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry no, 1)I do not excuse the word. 2) Oppositions ARE NOT your right when WRONGLY argued. In my opinion, there is nothing useful to listen with or from you in pictures assessments, I'm afraid, and I have furthermore the personal experience that it is simply impossible to discuss with you, so I don't.--Jebulon (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Slaunger's comments on this matter (Commons:Valued image candidates/Langur monkey, Orchha, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg). That was a good discussion. Yann created a gallery and Wetenschatje struck his oppose vote. Slaunger said, "please bring it to the talk page for discussion". That discussion is at Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates#Is_a_gallery_a_requisitive_for_a_VI.3F. I wonder if Wetenschatje would be kind enough to advertise that discussion in his image reviews when it is relevant and to use {{Comment}}, rather than {{Oppose}}, when not referencing one of the six [[Commons:Valued image criteria. I think Wetenschatje is attempting to make reviews more rigorous. But, I think he would be more effective if he were more patient and didn't get too far ahead of the other reviewers. I don't think he is "trying to destroy the VI project" although I understand your frustration. Slaunger will be back Feb. 1. Let's try to have more discussions like the langur monkey one, in the meantime. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems using {{Comment}} instead of {{Oppose}} in aforementioned cases, but then on condition that other users listen and discuss instead of opportunistically quickly closing the nomination. I have previously argued for introducing a {{suspend}} option, but this has till now not been adopted. Wise words from Walter as usual and rigorous is indeed the word not destructive. พ.s. 10:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

no need of ws for rigor in reviews. He thinks he is the master of rigor but he is not. Some other reviewers are rigorous too, and not only for formal reasons like scopes, galleries, presentation issues, other destructive matters and so on.

I personnaly do not have any definitive opinion about galleries ad the need of. For the moment, galleries ARE NOT a mandatory in VI, and the absence of a gallery IS NOT a valid reason for opposing according to the rules. Please don't oppose only for this motive.

I agree about the problem of opportunistically quickly closing, but it is not the same problem at all.--Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)