User talk:Ikar.us

/Archiv

Baischstraße in Stadtwiki.net

Hello Michael,
Happy to see you aroud there! Thanks for the set you've nominated, I learnt on Hermann Billing with your pictures. About Baischstraße in Stadtwiki.net, we could propose some emendations for the article in French, couldn't we? Kind regards, --Myrabella (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour!

Unfortunately, the French Stadtwiki doesn't get much attention.

Of course, we/you can propose emendations

(or just register and conduct them, native speakers are very welcome!).

Thanks for yor review and support,

--Ikar.us (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

2013!

		* * * 2013 !!! * * *
		Hallo Michael! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Georgij -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks to you, VICbot is running again! "Oh, those quotation marks!" Myrabella (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Aerial view of Television Tower St. Chrischona

Hello Ikar.us, There is a mess with that MVR, with a new page created for the renomination - and some other redirect pages (e.g. [1]) and maybe this is not the right way to deal with the former VI page -> Commons:Valued image candidates/Aerial view at Television Tower St. Chrischona. --Myrabella (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Now he has processed it. More or less.

But other MVRs where former VIs were traeted differently aren't completed either.

--Ikar.us (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the fine tuning of that MVR. For the other MVRs, yes, it's weird. Furthermore, the VI label must be manually replaced with the {{VI-former}} template in the former VI file page; it would be helpful to have this step in VICbot process.

By the way, maybe I would have closed this one with an undecided status for both candidates ("status=undecided, for all VICs in an MVR which ended up without a VIC with a positive score larger than all others"). However I edited neither the closure nor the former VI—which is still VI then.

Best, --Myrabella (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fine tuning the archive calendar.

I agree about status=undecided. Used it now in this one, which has the technical challenge that the challenged candidate had been promoted by MVR in its first run. And the jurisdicial challenge that it didn't get any attention at all in the challenge. Hope that VICbot's shortfall lets it stay VI silently…

--Ikar.us (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Polarlicht 2 kmeans

Could you revert your close of this VIC? I don't think it is appropriate for a participant in the discussion to be closing it, even if the time is up. Otherwise, I would have closed it myself a long time ago as successful, 7 days after DimiTalen's vote. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing is a routine task that anyone can perform.

I did not close it when it was due, but waited for 11 days, during which you could have fixed the nomination and explained it.

Unclosing isn't provided and not necessary.

You can simply renominate it, if you're ready for discussion now.

--Ikar.us (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/The fossil cliffs of Steigerberg

Hallo,

ich bin neu in WikiCommons und kenne die Gepflogenheiten noch nicht so gut deshalb schreibe ich auf diesem Weg. Zu dem Kontra zu o.g. VIC habe ich einen Kommentar auf der Kandidatenseite geschrieben. Es ist wirklich ein ausgesuchter Set von Bildern aus einer größeren Sammlung von Bildern dieses inzwischen wieder zugeschütteten Geotops. Vielleicht können Sie ihre Bewertung ja nochmal überdenken.

Viele Grüße Arcalino (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

VIS Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Nesvizh Castle, Belarus.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Nesvizh Castle, Belarus.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Church of Saint Virgin Mary, Belarus.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Church of Saint Virgin Mary, Belarus.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Thank You

For the VI Barnstar. A great addition to my day! -- Godot13 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my VISC. I've changed the scope for Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Sea-Air_Rescue_Training_(Norwegian_Coast_Guard) to more accurately reflect the set. Please let me know if you approve with the new scope. Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

VIS Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Great Synagogue in Grodno, Belarus .

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Great Synagogue in Grodno, Belarus .
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Question

The VIS Great Synagogue is promoted and closed. This does not effect the outcome, but I just noticed that someone added a support vote and changed the vote numbers after I had closed it. I have only been on Commons for 2 months so I do not know whether I should say something or just forget it. Do you have an opinion? - Godot13 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

All other contributions by this user look useful.

Maybe he has confused it with QI consensual review, where the template looks similar, but the running total has to be updated by each voter.

I think you can forget it.

--Ikar.us (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!-Godot13 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2013 (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:
Lubča Castle, Belarus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Любча2.jpg: 0 
2. Lubcza.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Любча2.jpg: Declined. 
File:Lubcza.jpg: Promoted. <--

--Myrabella (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

VIC talk page

Hi Ikar!

I have started two discussion topics at Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list. But it seems that this page is visited less frequently. Hence thought of notifying you as you are a regular editor at VIC. Please put your views, if any, on these topics. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ==VI Change of Scope==¢ Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Jefferson,_Thomas_(signature_on_check).jpg has has a slight change of scope. I hope you will support again. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Prison destroyed, restored by me

In some way, this is not absolutely wrong !

After the destruction, a new building was erected in 1902. Believe me or not, my own family flat, from where I'm writing you right now, is in this new building, second floor. And yes, I've restored this flat (paintings, electricity and so....).

Ah Ah !

Funny, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Karlsruhe Knights.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Karlsruhe Knights.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Cathy Richards (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)