User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2012/2

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:
Ribes divaricatum (Spreading Gooseberry), inflorescence.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Question Before promoting. In the famous gallery, we have already this picture, by the same author, promoted as VI. Do we really need TWO VI of the (almost) the same subject, even if we have here the subscope "inflorescence", in the same gallery ? I think no, and I think a MVR should be the good way to do. I agree the more we have VI and scopes, the best it is, but in this specific case, I'm not sure, because I feel it confusing.--Jebulon (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Info I wouldn't nominate this image for mainscope because File:Ribes divaricatum 5391.JPG better illustrates the leaves (both surfaces) and thorns (an important distinguishing feature). I mentioned those features in my nomination of that image (Commons:Valued image candidates/Ribes divaricatum 5391.JPG). I nominated this one because it seemed to illustrate an important subscope better than the mainscope image and was chosen by other editors to illustrate three articles in sister projects. Thank you, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for answer. Maybe because i'm not a specialist, I'm not convinced by your explanations. In my poor opinion, it is (more than) a bit confusing. A lot of scopes is a good thing, but too many scopes is not good! I think the two pictures are too similar, but I don't oppose. Maybe other opinions could be helpful.--Jebulon (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems in the VI project (suite)

Hi. Again, and again... Nothing to do, back-to-back, as usual ? --Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Yann.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Not for these reasons. 2) Unblocked now. The problem remains.--Jebulon (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a proposal on the page of Yann --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 5 February 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:
Phoenicaulis cheiranthoides.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump

Walter,

I just added this: From User_talk:Kraaiennest / Crowsnest: "Dear Doug Youvan, I do not intent to make the code available, since it is (in part) the property of others." Doug youvan (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that we are arriving at a consensus. Could you comment on the Pump as to what the quote (given above) implies for our discussion, please? Doug youvan (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please re-nominate this for deletion

Deletion was attempted once and failed. Possibly child porn. Do we need to take that kind of risk? File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg

You carry more weight that me. Doug youvan (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you. My interest is primarily in biota. I changed your image to a link. If you think the image is offensive, is it kind to put it on someone's talk page? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. No it isn't. I should have used "no wiki". Doug youvan (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Water Waves

Walter, where did you get the info to expand this description: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Deep_water_wave.gif&diff=prev&oldid=66662708 ? Doug youvan (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the diff that I added. You may find it in the diff you cited. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Also, I think I will go ahead with the deletion of the image, above. Doug youvan (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCU

Thank you for your support and kind words.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. But, I hope we are not establishing a tradition of thanking supporters on every RFA. I don't think that has much meaning nor is it a productive use of time and it clutters talk pages. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Descriptions

 Info You say, «The revision history of the file shows that PereslavlFoto has reverted a number of other editors over the filedescription». Please compare the descriptions. You will see the reason to revert: I try to keep the full description with the relevant sources explaining the situation about the park. (As here.) This is why I raised the question at COM:AN/U — I cannot understand why Commons tolerates the situation when the full description is cut to the biased one. Comparing my edits of the full descriptions you will see how it developed, showing different points of view. The main problem is, some editors don't think there may be different points of view...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally, references that are relevant and reliable sources should be retained. But reverting is an ineffective means of persuading others. I see that you are making your case on COM:AN/U. I don't know if you will succeed in forging an acceptable compromise, but good luck. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some other user continues edit-warring removing my description. How do you think, does he need to be blocked then? Why do you mean «edit-warring» about me and skip this meaning speaking of some other user or users pushing their idea of not full, but heavily cut description? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring is ineffective and disruptive. You may find the advice of en:WP:EW helpful. I'm sorry you feel under close scrutiny, but that is an outcome of posting on AN/U. If you find several other editors disagreeing with you, you may wish to consider modifying your opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:23, 12 February 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:
Agoseris glauca (Pale Agoseris).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Why is this image better than File:Agoseris glauca WPC.jpg (depicting multiple flowers on a single plant), File:Agoseris glauca 8518.JPG (also depicting multiple flowers on a single plant), and File:Agoserisglauca.jpg (depicting both a flower and a seed head on a single plant)? Lacking any further rationale, I think I would take either the first or third of those as the most valuable image in scope. cmadler (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment The appearance of the involucral bracts and leaves are among the most useful and notable features of species of Asteraceae. Regarding the fruit, the achenes (seeds) are often important features, but File:Agoserisglauca.jpg shows only the pappus which is less helpful. In identifying the depicted individual, I found the involucral bracts, leaves and location most helpful in distinguishing it from other Agoseris. This image depicts the bracts and leaves well. Some of the other photographs show multiple individuals; I think it may be clearer to show a single individual when that is a common occurrence in nature.[2] That said, I think File:Agoseris glauca 8518.JPG and File:Agoserisglauca.jpg merit consideration. However, File:Agoseris glauca WPC.jpg fails criterion 3, in my opinion (Must illustrate its subject well). Its resolution is low and the color balance is poor. Also, its location isn't described (criterion 4). Some may find the background of File:Agoseris glauca 8518.JPG somewhat distracting. The inflorescence and fruit of File:Agoserisglauca.jpg are out of focus and it isn't geocoded (criterion 5). Thank you for your comments. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Fair enough, that's a good explanation that addresses my concerns, and I've changed my earlier oppose to a support. cmadler (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

re File renaming

Hi Wsiegmund,

OK, I will use them. But before, my renameings wasn't correct? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find your earlier renamings. You may request the the filemover right, if you choose. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Look at this picture's history File:Hypholoma fasciculare - Kew 1.jpg. I generally do like this. DenesFeri (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine to me.[3] If your reason corresponds to one of the seven rename reasons, rename requests are usually approved. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wsiegmund,

Thank you for encouraging me to take the next step, and be a „file rename-er“. But I'm not very familiar with the commons. I occasionaly upload some pictures, and that is all I do here. And telling the truth, I can't either how to request that step/status. Maybe if you make the arangements, I could upgrade. :) Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri; There is no rush. Take your time and become more familiar with Commons. In the meantime, continue to use{{Rename}}. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will. DenesFeri (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)