User talk:Slaunger

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:SlaungerBot)
Jump to: navigation, search
I will reply to your comments here (unless you prefer otherwise).


one of the best pictures I have ever seen. Sehr schön! (Orientalist in der de:WP)

"Le retour"[edit]

You came back: welcome home! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Merci, mon ami sage et aimable ! Always a pleasure to be welcomed back by you! -- Slaunger (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


I don't know if you know what has happened. It is very difficult for me to express. You has nomined the picture at 20:12. My mistake was promove the first picture of QI, your picture (I thought it was another), at 20:16 without seeing. Face-tongue.svg--Lmbuga (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your pictures. Congratulations--Lmbuga (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Hehe, Lmbuga, no I did not understand exactly what had happened, but I thought it was due to some edit conflict or so, as I had an edit conflict about the same time. Anyway, nice to also have a little bit of fun at QIC. Shade.png. If I may pad your shoulder as well: Thanks for your pictures as well! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks--Lmbuga (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


Yes, you've got it !

No matter the shape of the shield, what is around the shield, and the exact shade of blue, you are right. I'll try to categorize properly !--Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

See the CoA here !--Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Detailed better here--Jebulon (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, classification was not so easy... but doneIt is a mix of french and english, ans "1 seven rays Or" means: one star in the shield, with seven rays, painted in gold. I know (french) heraldry pretty good, but the danish is complicated. I've found other CoA with the same pattern, but very small among other patterns in the shield ("Juel-Something", or "Something-Juel"). Maybe I'll classify, one day... Actually, the "blue" ("azure" in english heraldry, "azur" in french) would be darker in France...--Jebulon (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Jebulon! Thanks for your very elaborate work on this! I now have some (for me) completely new terms to learn: affronty, 'fesse wavy argent', 'rays Or', lambrequin. Since you found a few more pics on Commons, where this Juel family CoA is found, I am wondering whether I should create Category:Coats of arms of Juel family, and add many of the very specific CoA specific categories to that category?
Jebulon I decided to be bold and create that category and move the CoA specific categories to that Juel CoA category. Hope you think that is OK? -- Slaunger (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Jebulon It appears that sometimes it is also a six ray or in the family CoA. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Kongratz ! I've added some. Yes, seven rays is unusual in heraldry (I created the category). It seems to me to be a mistake of the heraldist.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Jebulon: I just read da:Juel in Danish about the Juel family where their CoA is described. Here it says six rays and occasional seven rays Or. So it appears it is not an accident, or, if it is, such a prominent accident, that it is now 'accepted' as another form of their CoA. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, do you realize that we are talking about CoA together ? Do you believe this ? 😳--Jebulon (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Jebulon: Hahaha, yes, I guess I am getting more nuanced in my interests Face-smile.svg; or I am just getting old. But I agree; some years ago that would have been unthinkable! -- Slaunger (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
And actually, you would probably be surprised if you knew what I am reading about right now; gothic church arches and their entry in Denmark and the transition from the use of travertine to red brick stone as construction material in the early middle age! -- Slaunger (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
euh...mmmh...You think you are getting old because you are now interested in the same things than me ? I'm interested in heraldry since I was teenager... Looooool !--Jebulon (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
And nice teamwork, Villy Fink Isaksen! You already added the picture to da:Niels Juel! -- Slaunger (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fra et romersk osteria[edit]

Maleriet er nu FP, og jeg tænkte hvornår skal det være dagens billede, en mulighed er den 23. maj (i et ledigt år) det er da:Carl Blochs fødselsdag. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Det var da en god idé Villy! Jeg finder et ledigt år og smider den ind der. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Villy Fink Isaksen:. Det blev næste år. Er beskrivelsen, som den skal være, synes du? -- Slaunger (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Først fandt jeg det for kort, men det er jo ikke en artikel. Men det kunne godt fortælles at det var en testamentarisk gave i 1935, i stedet for bare "acquired". Se evt. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Fra et romersk osteria.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

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


/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

About File:PMG-1 fire engine.jpg[edit]

Hello, Kim!

Many thanks for the reviewing of File:PMG-1 fire engine.jpg.

If you are interested in EXIF-data of this photo, I wrote basic data on the file talk page. As of the shallow DoF, I completely agree with you: it is rather shallow. I had doubts about the QI nomination of the photo. As well the shadows are rather noisy, in whole I masked the noise (not without faults, as I see today), but the radiator and intake hoses aren't quite problem-free about the noise.

Have a nice day, Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

@Dmitry Ivanov:: I have transferred the EXIF data to the file page using the {{Photo Information}} template. Please double-check that the data are correct. I am surprised of the shallow DoF considering it is f/11. Maybe a bit of camera shake as well as the 1/100 s shutter? Have a nice day too! Smile -- Slaunger (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
And for me the good light and colours mitigates the minor DoF/softness issue. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The EXIF data are quite correct.
As of the shallow rear end of the truck: yes, may be the shaking of the camera plaid its negative role. Idontknow Also, I have to note, that a distance between the camera and the truck was rather short: it was impossible to take this photo from a long distance. In such conditions, and with the focus on the cab, the rear of a rather long truck quite could get out of the DoF even with F11 and rather short focal length.
Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC).
@Dmitry Ivanov: You are quite right. I just checked with DOFmaster using your camera settings. Assuming the distance was 2 m(?), the DOF is approximately 1.65 m and extends from 1.5-3.15 m from the camera. You have to choose an extremely small aperture, like f/19 to get sufficient DOF, but then diffraction effects comes in leading to an overall washed-out effect. Another option would be to go to, e.g., 25 mm focal length. Assuming a distance of 2 m, you would get a DOF of almost 6 m @ f/11, but then you would probably have to crop afterwards. Compromises, compromises... You probably did nearly as well as was possible given the boundary conditions.Smile -- Slaunger (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ugh! Thank you very much for the “tip-off” about so useful DoF calculator! (P.S. According the EXIF data of the initial photo the focus distance was 2.24 m). Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC).
Dmitry a near limit of 1.5 m and a far limit of 3.1 m. What we see makes sense then Smile. At a 25 mm focal length it would have been 1.2-7.0 m. I wish my camera displayed those near and far limits in the view finder when I changed the focal length and the aperture. The relations are complicated and hard to get a good feeling of in the field, especially when you have to make a fast decision about the optimal aperture and focal length for a given scenario! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


  • J’essai de relancer le module MVR. Il y a 3 packs qui sont correctement fermés. Deux date de novembre mais il semble que le boot ne les voit pas. J’ai fermé le dernier Pack mais je ne sais pas où le mettre car il n’y a pas de le place désignée pour lui. Peux-tu m’aider ?
  • I try to revive the MVR module. There are 3 packs, which are properly closed. Two of November but it seems that the boot does not see them. I closed the last Pack but I do not know where to put it because there are no designated places for him. Can you help me?  --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Bonsoir Archaeodontosaurus !
    I would like to help, but first I need to get a better understanding of the problem you are experiencing?
    I have not been involved in the MVR process for years, and I feel I am not entirely up-to-date with the current status.
    I assume you have tried to follow the already described process for MVR closure?
    Are there one or more particular steps in this process, which does or do not work as intended?
    Are you looking for further automation? (I agree the process described there is tedious, and we really ought to get it further automated).
    -- Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
For example: the pack "Doris Day" is, I believe, properly closed. At the fourth step I have to place it in the monthly archive page, but this page does not seem to exist. (The most important thing is to restart, after we will see if that could be made better.) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find any links to an MVR concerning "Doris Day"? If I use Fast CCI, I cannot even find a VI of "Doris Day" using Doris Day as root category for searching? However, I think one of your problems may have been that Commons:Closed most valued reviews has not been maintained in 2015 with links ot new archive subpages for closed MVRs. I have added those now, meaning that it should be possible to actually follow the process again.
I'm in England the next few days, and will not have time for Commons while there, but maybe by the end of next week, we can continue the discussion? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Margrethespiret Roskilde Domkirke 2015-03-30-4799.jpg
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:
Roskilde Cathedral Margrethe spire.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.