User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2011/4

Discussion in VIC

Hello Walter Siegmund.

regarding the question of scopes of drawings in VIC, I understand that you think my oppositions are "unfair". I'm sorry for that, it was not my intention to be unfair. I oppose, because I think the scope is not good in these cases. Many reviewers do oppose because of a disagreement about the scope, that is only what I do here. I like these drawings very much, then I think they deserve a "drawing" subscope. Furthermore I agree with Archaeo's arguments, and I think that we do not need a change of the rules, but debates and kind discussions, nomination after nominations, because a definition of the idea of "scope" is impossible. I've read the discussion page, and I've nothing to add for now.

Kind regards from Paris --Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Jebulon; I apologize. I thought you were opposing because you didn't like the current rules. It is fine to oppose because you think the scope is too narrow or too broad. But, "there will be conflict between the drawings and photographs" (Archaeodontosaurus' words) is not listed as a criterion. I'm missing something because I don't see that it is important. If a photograph comes along later, it can be nominated either in mainscope or subscope "photograph". If a drawing in mainscope is demoted, that drawing can be nominated in subscope "drawings/artwork". Myrabella seems to think the same.[1] Meilleurs vœux, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wsiegmund. All is fine, it is only a polite debate. I'll read this evening (in France) the next part of the VI discussion and I'm very interested by the evolution. Btw : the words "Meilleurs vœux" are (almost) never used in this case in french. Only for the new year (and sometimes birthday) wishes !!

Amicalement, depuis Paris sous le soleil, --Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Je suis heureux que vous m'avez écrit en français. Je sais que mon français est exécrable. Mais, si je pratique, peut-être je vais améliorer. Il pleut à Seattle. Amicalement, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rubus spectabilis 1564.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  Support QI of course --Archaeodontosaurus 08:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons protected edit requests

Hello,
I created a request on Template talk:Taxonavigation/taxon.
If you have time to look at it.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check my work. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Çhipmunkdavis

Thanks for the apology, but nothing at all to worry about! To be honest, it made me do a double take when I saw the upload, as the squiggle under the C was hidden by an underline. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. You have a nice userpage. Thank you for the picture of the Geneva Consulate building. May I invite you to join our geocoding group? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You may indeed, but do forgive me if I don't jump into it immediately. It looks like a very fun project, but I'd need time to work out the software etc., and time is lacking in life these days. I'll see if I can geotag my consulate one for a start! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2011 (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:
Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry), fruit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope for me. Thank you to Walter for fair play. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support That's the game. Anyway, Walter is the author of the two competing photos :-); I fond this one more illustrative, me too. Side  Question : would you have a sound reference of the use of that fruit into pemmican? The en:WP article about salmonberry tells about it, but not the article about pemmican, and that source (page 1 page 2) seems to say that salmonberries were used fresh rather than dried. --Myrabella (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the article content based on Pojar and Mackinnon. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support best in scope. --Quartl (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Rubus spectabilis 1565.JPG: +0
2. Rubus spectabilis 1564.JPG: +3 
=>
File:Rubus spectabilis 1565.JPG: Declined.
File:Rubus spectabilis 1564.JPG: Promoted.

--MrPanyGoff 13:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Map of Europe (political).png

Hello Wsiegmund/Archive/2011/4,

You protect justifiably this file but did not revert to the version before the start of the edit waring. I believe that the version from 21:16, 13 November 2009, the last version of User:Kwamikagami, is the right one. The last version is really uncorrect. Geagea (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to unprotect the file and/or revert to another version. Please discuss this matter calmly with the other editors at File_talk:Map_of_Europe_(political).png and gain a consensus for that version. I will make the change. Thank you, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As an admin i wanted to tell you that protecting a file is only half of the job. The secount step is to revert to the uploaders last version or to the version before the edit war began. Geagea (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I assumed you were one of the partisans. That was sloppy of me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. Geagea (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2011 (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:
Erigeron peregrinus (Subalpine Fleabane).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)