User talk:Pbroks13

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | 한국어 | Nederlands | Македонски | +/-

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TUSC token 380f1456c520707549f5bb47f9ee7849

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

[edit] Thank you....

... for your SVG upgrade to my bodyshapes.jpg graphic. 67.190.164.113 06:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flag of the CPLP.svg

The original (the flag) is copyrighted. I'll upload the image to en.wiki under the same name and with a fair use rationale. /Lokal_Profil 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image Image:Mouse mechanism diagram.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mouse mechanism diagram.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Benh (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you must demote and retouch images, please have the courtesy to notify the creator. Jeremykemp (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No need to withdraw

You don't need to withdraw your VI candidate. It's OK like this. --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Grand Prix of Cleveland.svg

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 10:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
Punnett square.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support Nice. --Foroa (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  OpposeVote changed due to improved categorization. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Should be categorized to at least one category relating to the scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Added the image to the category Category:Punnett squares. Pbroks13 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  CommentYou took my idea! --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support A good and clear illustration of the scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• {{oppose}} missing geocodeing  Support Great job. :)... J.smith (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Punnett Square.svg: +3 <--
2. Punnett square 2.svg: -1
=>
Image:Punnett Square.svg: Promoted. <--
Image:Punnett square 2.svg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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:
Mechanical mouse movement.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support This the beauty of "anatomy" of mouse. Albertus teolog (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Scope is too general. This image is about a particular mechanism. Lycaon (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Computer mouse to Computer mouse movement --Pbroks13 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Oppose image only illustrate one particular mechanism of one particular kind of computer mouse. I would perhaps support the picture for "Computer ball mouse" (or mechanical mouse), although this picture is rather illustrative too. --Eusebius (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Only one particular kind, but the most typical. Albertus teolog (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Computer mouse movement to Mechanical mouse movement --Pbroks13 (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support I'm ok with the new scope and I think this schema is slightly better than the other pic. --Eusebius (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very good at illustrating the basic concept of mechanical mouse movement. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Schematic is very simple and understandable. It is encyclopaedic in particular is so valuable. Bidding for the scope to do not good and are not elegant. Albertus teolog (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great image! J.smith (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Scope change acknowledged. Lycaon (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Pretty good. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
Doppler effect.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support Although it is not the best illustration for the Doppler theory, it is very good for showing the interference, the result of the Doppler effect. This proves how difficult category and scope selection can be. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One source, no interference. Only crests and troughs of the same single wave. --Eusebius (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, Doppler= relative speeds (2) - but I will not discuss that here. (speed on the left side = medium speed + object speed, on the right side = medium speed - object speed) --Foroa (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

* Oppose Comment Beautiful image and nice work, but I think this one is more self-explanatory. Setting up a MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done MVR available here. --Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose None of them is good enough to honour the saying: "a picture is worth 1000 thousand word". In bothncases, we must know what Doppler effect is to understand the picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Comment the description on the image page is part of the value of a VI candidate. --Eusebius (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Comment It shows that with a moving object, the frequency of whatever the waves (sound, light, ect) are higher in front of the object and lower behind the object. Is the problem that it doesn't show clearly enough that it is a moving object? Pbroks13 (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support This one seems better. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Doppler effect.svg: +1 <--
2. Doppler effect diagrammatic.svg: 0
=>
Image:Doppler effect.svg: Promoted. <--
Image:Doppler effect diagrammatic.svg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pi Kappa Phi CoA.svg

Se my coments on en.wiki Graphics Lab. Pretty sure Image:Pi Kappa Phi CoA.svg can only be used under fair-use though. (Unless we find the blazon and recreated it based on that). /Lokal_Profil 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
Scythe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support Back to the basics --Foroa (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
•  temporary oppose There are more parts identified in this png, maybe the legend of this one could be improved accordingly? --Eusebius (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Info: Okay, I updated the key. Pbroks13 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image Image:Dynamite-5.svg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] 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:
Dynamite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose (for now) Doesn't show well on a black background. Lycaon (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Do you think the image would be better if all of the stroke that would be touching the black background be a dark shade of grey? Pbroks13 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment VIs are aimed to be used "in an online context, within other Wikimedia projects". I don't see the context in which the picture would be displayed over a dark background (although I don't know every single WM project or sub-project), so I'll maintain my support. However, if the image can be improved to show equally well on any kind of background, it's of course a good thing. --Eusebius (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've realised that to make the image fit for all BG colours (including black), you'd have to forego the transparency, which is a nice gimmick here, so I  Support. Lycaon (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image Image:Air conditioning unit.svg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] FP promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image Image:Air conditioning unit.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Air conditioning unit.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Congratulations ! Benh (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
Window air conditioner.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. Maybe you could make the scope "Window air conditioner", or simply "air conditioner" (or is it too broad?). --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I would have made the "outdoor air" arrow change from blue to red to illustrate change in temperature (which is not obvious on current version). --Eusebius (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment The outside is already hot air. Pbroks13 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • But it is even hotter when it gets out of the air con unit, otherwise there would be no energy transfer. This should be shown in some way. --Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support It's very clear, all elements are correctly listed. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Temperature change in the air taken from outside is not represented, although it is vital to the process. --Eusebius (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Info: I did my best to show the somewhat hot air change to hotter air. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect for me. Good work, thanks for the corrections. --Eusebius (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer mouse with a ball

the problem of the oicture is that mouse have two light sensor at each weel to understand the direction.212.5.66.98 09:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cartesian_Theater.svg

With respect, have you looked at the pan on the stove in th SVG? The perspective is all wongky, and I really don't think it's quite ready to be replaced. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
Cartesian Theater.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support an excellent image and better, imo, then the image it was based on. J.smith (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
Glowstick.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Drum set.svg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Cartesian Theater.svg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

125.162.46.15 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] [Skeleton]

hey, I made a skeleton of a Spinosuarus with Inkscape and something happened where you can't see it. I was hopping you can help me and fix it. Tell me if you can or have done it on my user page. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I didn't even notice that that it wasn't in that rectangle box, but the picture gets cut off when I put it there, see this image . And i was hoping i could make it look like this [1]

[edit] 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:
Standard drum set.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Comment Hi-hat should have a pedal. --Eusebius (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh wow, good call. I'll get on that. Pbroks13 (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Pbroks13 (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Valued Image Set Promotion

-- Eusebius (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cool logo!

I see that it is catching on. Very neat! -BlueCaper (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, File:User Pbroks13.svg! But before that, I created user logos for myself and the family members of mine that are Wikipedians. I am guessing by your confusion that you thought of the idea independently. -BlueCaper (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] POTY 2008

Well, I went ahead and set up the emergency voting system I had briefly discussed with JalalV. Something where, even if every other person flaked out, I'd still be able to run POTY myself.

Not quite completely set-up, but all that's left is pasting in some startup-code into the remaining pages linked in each gallery for voting.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] POTY 2008

No, that doesn't need done. This method replaces that, because I never actually heard another word about or from anyone able to run the automatic server thing. =/

What I do need is people willing to occasionally check the vote pages, remove any opposes or nasty comments (FPs are automatically included in this contest and the goal is not to rehash the FP debate, but to celebrate the great content of the last year), and just generally check for any problems. I'll e-mail you about a couple other issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] re: AccountEligibility script for POTY 2008

Congratulations, you're eligible. :) —Pathoschild 02:13:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah, thanks a bunch! Pbroks13 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Pathoschild 02:17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tchoř is eligible for voting. Could you please remove your oppositions? BTW, nice shadowing on your phone ;-). Lycaon (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You can find extra info here. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Phone.svg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] VI review

Hi there, if you have some time, I think we could use your opinion on this VI review. Cheers, --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, but would you mind one small change?

Hello, I'd like to thank you for making File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg into an SVG. Voters at the Wikipedia Featured Pictures had a consensus that the title should be removed and cropped to the subject. The background can be changed to simple blue without gradient effects. Is this too much for you? Thanks and please reply here

[edit] Checking POTY votes

Hi, Assuming that we can't get a bot to verify voters eligibility, you might find the code at User:Pruneau/monobook.js useful. if you add the part after "Add a link to check eligibility for POTY 2008" to User:Pbroks13/monobook.js, a link will appear in the left column on all user 9and user talk) pages, leading to Pathoschild's utility. For example, I can see a link in the left column of this page leading to [2]. I've found that it makes checking the votes much less cumbersome. Cheers, Pruneau^talk 12:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SVG validation

Hi.

Well, I'm not a SVG-pro, but I reduce the number of errors by:

• cleaning the defs
• saving as simple SVG
• adding manually the DOCTYPE declaration

For File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg only one error remains, and it has to do with Gaussian blur.

I'm working on it. --Coyau (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got it !
You just have to remove every occurrence of «inkscape:collect="always"» in the file. You'll have to do that in a text editor
The DOCTYPE declaration is simple: just add «<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/DTD/svg10.dtd">» at the beginning of the file, just between «» and «<svg». Always in a text editor.
I hope it will help. --Coyau (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Then try to validate "by file upload" to be sure, upload it here and add the template:ValidSVG. --Coyau (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I've got a valid version (the one I made trying to explain how to do it). If you want I can upload it. --Coyau (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with both the W3 validator and with inkscape. Inkscape leaves all of those inkscape namespaces and also sodipodi which is the app that was available to Linux before Inkscape a very long while ago by internet/computer time standards. Those inkscape and sodipodi namespaces might make the image easier to edit with inkscape (I have not seen any problem with editing images that had these namespaces removed though) but for browser display it is just a lot of text that needs to be ignored. The validator only likes namespaces that it approves of and that is my problem with that. The inkscape namespace is valid xml and therefore should be approved. I am kind of glad that it doesn't approve of that though because the validator makes it easy to find the "mostly useless for viewing" xml and removing it. However, the validator also doesn't like perfectly formed license xml and that is where my problem is with it. One of the nice things about svg is that it can contain the license, literally.

That Inkscape doesn't clean up after itself is to me a problem. It is very difficult to compare Inkscape to GIMP since they make completely different images, but Inkscape makes SVG that are mostly the equivalent of GIMPs xcf (the application leaves guides in its finished images, for instance) and it seems like an abuse of the rules that it manages to do that. When it is a mature application, it seems like a user should just be able to touch a button or select a menu option and have all of that inkscape and sodipodi namespace cruft disappear and make an image which is much easier to view and nicer to share.

The WC3 is large enough and mature enough to acknowledge and validate Creative Commons licenses -- at the very least. This statement is very much political, btw.

So, there is everything I remember about validating SVG and problems with the way the developers play in the free world with their authoring of applications and their claims of validation. I would like to think that the people are better behaved than their applications and online approval systems are.

Not that my opinion has ever been asked about these things.... ;) -- carol (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc2%2FPharyngeal_jaws_of_moray_eels.svg&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

Done. --Coyau (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From 439 KB to 422 KB and the image remains unchanged. When I did this it was much more dramatic as the file size went from 983 KB to 288 KB (File:Camara_de_fotos.svg#filehistory). SVG presented a lot of new concepts for me also -- it is an interesting way to make pictures via computer display. -- carol (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the only thing I ever did to reduce file size was vacuum the defs. I'm still not very good at reading XML, I'll have to work on that. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Cigarette diagram.svg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] 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:
Pharyngeal jaws.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

• Info: added used in. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Very informative and excellent work. Never knew an moray eel played the monster role in alien;-) Fascinating biomechanics of the pharyngeal jaws, and well illustrated. Great that it is in svg format in easy localizable form. Just what we need here. Concerning categorization, could a category be added which relates to jaws in some manner? --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I have thought a little about the scope. I think the scope should be widened up to just pharyngeal jaws. As I understand it moray eels are not the only animal, which have pharyngeal jaws, but it is probably the most notable and well-developed example. For me, the existing scope is a tad too narrow. --Slaunger (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: the scope has been changed to Pharyngeal jaws. Pbroks13 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Clearly, this image is a derivative work of an image found in this article from the National Science Foundation, high res version. I note that the derivative work here is dual licensed under GFDL 1.2 or later and CC-BY 3.0. On the NSF web site the following is stated about reuse of graphics from their site: ...photos and illustrations found on the NSF web site should not be reused without permission.... I cannot find any information on the image page indicating that such a permission to reuse has been granted and I would like the nominator (which is also the creator of the derivative work) to comment on that. As I understand licensing, the original image should also be dual licensed or be in the public domain to dual license the derivative work?--Slaunger (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I believe the original work would be under the public domain {{PD-USGov-NSF}}, or am I mistaken? Pbroks13 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Not automatically as I understand. Please read the full link I provided above. IOt seems like permission for reuse are granted on a case by case basis, and that some are in the public domain. The is an email address where enquiries can be send to. I think you should get confirmation from there about the PD license you are assuming, and I do not know if you should do some OTRS stuff after that such that it explicitly is seen from the image page. I hope you are right that it is PD as it would be a mess if it isn't - being an FP on en and all that, and considering its value. --Slaunger (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Conditional oppose until licensing issues is settled. --Slaunger (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Based on the reply at Template talk:PD-USGov-NSF I realize the original is indeed PD. Thus, it is OK to dual license this derivative work af GFDL/CC-BY. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Sorry for the endless comments;-) First of all, you are indeed acting it good faith as the jpg version uploaded here is indeed marked with {{PD-USGov-NSF}} and it is stated in the original article that the creator of the jpg version is indeed an NSF employee. It then just puzzles me how one can say in the {{PD-USGov-NSF}} template that the works of NSF employees done at work are PD as it seems to be in contradiction to what NSF writes on their page about Copyright and Reuse of Text and Graphics. I must admit that this is not something I am terribly knowledgeable about, but I'll ask around, hold on and sorry for the confusion. --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Licensing issue resolved, there was no issue, I was just not aware of the special conditions in the American Code. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
Compact disc.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Support I like it more that all other files in scopeNillerdk (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Meets all criteria. Excellent high quality work of great educational value. Contains the right detail level for grasping the concept of a CD. --Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  I don't fully agree. I think a little "zoom" zone somewhere, showing what the pressed surface (the tracks) looks like, would add value to the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  That is actually a good point. So it can be made even better, although it is still best in class. --Slaunger (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Field hockey ball

Hey, Pbroks, i saw your creation about field hockey ball, i am the one who request for improve the existing images. Your image is not bad. All i need is the view under in 13px, but you just make FG ball only, can you make the rest of two? Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. --Aleenf1 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Phone.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phone.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Karel (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Edmonton-flag.svg

--Svgalbertian (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Karel (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FP promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Drum set.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drum set.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

[edit] Maurin Quina vectorization

I was astounded when I saw Phone.svg, at first I thought it was a photograph, as I initially only saw a thumbnail of it. I've been wanting a good vectorization of the poster Maurin Quina by Leonetto Cappiello, as I'm completely mesmerized by it. I've tried myself, and a friend has as well, but we both failed to even come close to something worthy of a big print. So, as it happens, I'm hoping you will also fall in love with it and commence the vectorization right away. Here are the highest resolution images I could find: 1, 2. Thank you for listening (well, reading.) 83.254.195.21 18:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm working on it. In order for it to look really good, this may take me a while. Do you need it by a certain time? Pbroks13 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! No, take all the time you want, I'm so happy you're doing it! And if I may ask, what tools do you use and how long experience do you have? 83.254.195.21 08:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for vector images (which is basically only what I do) I use Inkscape. And my first thing I ever vectorized was this, so I suppose I've been doing it for a little less than a year. Pbroks13 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thank you again. I'll look into it. :-) 83.254.195.21

I just thought you should know, I'm still working on it, and its really coming along. Should be done pretty soon! Pbroks13 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done! File:Maurin Quina.svg Pbroks13 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WOW. I am most amazed, and most grateful. I expected you to do it well, but this is PERFECT. As soon as this comes up on my wall, I'll photograph it and put here! I adore you, man. Thank you. 83.254.195.125 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! I'll be looking forward to the photo. Pbroks13 (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You sir are a saint!

for doing this: File:Coat of Arms of Niger.svg. I can't tell you the number of hours I've wasted yelling at Illustrator trying to produce something a third as nicely done as that. Every time I work on Niger related article, I saw that poorly edited mess I produced: now we have a lovely and accurate image. As a note, the government websites have used the Commons image in the past (even with the wrong background color), and so you've done them a favor a well.

Thanks again! T L Miles (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spherical wedge

Hey there Pbroks,
I found this image to be well-made and well-suited to Wikipedia's article on the Spherical cap. I recently wrote Spherical wedge, and was wondering if you'd have the time to create an image in the likeness of http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalWedge.html – with an alpha instead of a theta. A similar color scheme to the spherical cap image would be great. If you're unable to do it, that's fine and I completely understand. If that's the case, though, I'd be very grateful if you could forward me to an application I can use to construct a sphere of my own, as I'm quite inexperienced in the world of vector images and such. Cheers, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Raindrops sizes.svg

I see that this will now be promoted to QI, congratulations :-). One thing that I now realise, that still bothers me, is the size of the raindrop in (d) compared with (c) and (e). I know it is only diagrammatic and not to scale, but there should be a reasonable progression in size. If (c) is at least 2mm, then (d) should be no more than 2.5 times bigger in diameter/radius, it appears to be about 4 times larger. And to graphically show the progression of size (e) should look to be bigger than (d). The easiest thing is to make (d) smaller, perhaps 3/4 its current size? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that it should be to scale, and I'm pretty sure I correctly made them that way. If you look at File:Raindrop sizes proportion.png, you'll see that (d) is almost exactly 2.5x larger than (c). So we can say (b) is 1mm, (c) is 2mm, (d) is 5mm, and (e) is about 6mm, granted its not perfect, but it's pretty close. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. I didn't actually measure them, It was just my perception (some people claim perception is reality ;-). I was looking at how many would fit vertically if the 5mm one was a sphere, but then of course they are flattened. If you ever get around to editing for some other reason, perhaps make it nearer 4mm so that skewed eyeballs think there is a size graduation too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PS There's a twist, I had an edit conflict with the bot giving you a medal :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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:
Shape of Raindrops.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

 Support Excellent - Clear without any word. Now it is used in de:Regen too. -- HBR (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:Saugeais flag.svg

Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lietuvių | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Tiếng Việt | +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Saugeais flag.svg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:DBWF Flag.svg

Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lietuvių | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Tiếng Việt | +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:DBWF Flag.svg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FP promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg, which was nominated by Svgalbertian at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

[edit] File talk:Doppler effect.svg

File talk:Doppler effect.svg might need your attention while being undersnowed by the many bot moves. --Foroa (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain license of File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg

Hi, File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.JPG is rightly in the public domain because of age, but File:College of Arms-Lant's Roll.svg is your derivative work and you can't license it with age because your work is not old. You should give it a Creative Commons license or self-release it in the public domain without the Art/old note. Awesome work, btw Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Pbroks13 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File Tagging File:Coat_of_arms_of_Bosniaks_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro.SVG

Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lietuvių | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Tiếng Việt | +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coat_of_arms_of_Bosniaks_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro.SVG. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Multichill (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Baseball current event.svg

Can you improve the realism of File:Baseball current event.svg, I recently uploaded some images you might find helpful File:Baseball.svg, File:Baseball2.svg --Svgalbertian (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File: North America.svg

Hello! In your edition of the file Iceland is part of the northern american continent. Thats FALSE! As you can read in the article Iceland, Iceland isnot part of North America. Please correct the file, thanks!84.112.187.22 03:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)