User talk:Dschwen/Archive2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Unknown Gull[edit]

The "Unknown gull" at User:Dschwen/Pending pictures is almost certainly a en:Western Gull. The faded pink legs, clean white (unstreaked) neck, and broad white tips of the tertial feathers are pretty clear to me. I'm an amateur and not too familiar with west coast birds, though, so you might want to run it by someone else to be sure. It's a terrific picture, by the way, as is all of your work. Chick Bowen 04:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! The gull was really patient with me, there should be a head shot as well somewhere among my pics at home. I'll put it on the Western Gull talk page and ask for confirmation. --Dschwen 10:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be here [1]. --Dschwen 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Panoramas[edit]

Thanks, Dschwen. If I find somebody with Linux, I'll give it a shot, as I've got a Mac. I used Photoshop Elements 2 to create panoramas but it doesn't adjust the lighting levels automatically, so the pictures turned out like this (small size so that it will load faster). It is made up of three pictures. Photoshop blended them at an angle for some reason. Do you think that program can help with this? Thanks again, Kjkolb 10:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly for these kinds of problems. Enblend will create seamless skies in panoramas. You might be able to get the tools for OSX as well. --Dschwen 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Coordinate conversion helper[edit]

Ok, now it worked for me. Pretty nice tool, Longbow4u 15:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dschwen, because of the above heading, I added your user page to the new category:Commons:Geocoding. Perhaps this section should move to a page Commons:Geocoding or something. So far I have only created the category. --LA2 20:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Seitenverhältnis[edit]

hey dschwen,

kannst du vielleicht noch eine alternative zu http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Berlin_Hauptbahnhof_pano_06.jpg uploaden. das seitenverhältnis ist recht ungeeignet. wenn du es auf annähernd 4:3 bringst (bisschen an rändern wegschneiden), könnte man es für das "foto der oberen ebene" unter architektur ersetzen. --Brightster 08:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mh, also da habe ich mir extra Mühe gegeben ein Panoramafoto zusammenzusetzen, welches eine gute Übersicht über die obere Gleisebene bietet. Ein kleinerer Ausschnitt vermittelt das einfach nicht richtig. Insbesondere wenn man vorher selber noch nicht dort war. Solche Fotos sind doch auch nicht unüblich, warum soll es 4:3 sein? Mach das Bild etwas breiter im Artikel, oder setze es halt mit thumb|center rein. Wie auch immer, die Lizenz erlaubt natürlich derivatives, d.h. wenn Du willst verstümmele verkleinere es halt selber ;-). Sorry, aber mir würde das weh tun mein Baby kaputt zumachen. --Dschwen 09:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Jetzt hab ich mich hier so in Rage geschrieben, dass mir gar nicht in den Sinn gekommen ist, dass Du die alternative vielleicht nur für die commons-Galerie haben willst. Auch da gibts andere (verbreitete) Lösungen, einen Extra Abschnitt für Panoramabilder (sh. New York, New York. --Dschwen 09:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
hey, keine agnst. ohne erlaubnis verstümmle ich hier gar nix. das foto ist echt klasse - zeigt sehr gut die ausgeprägte dachstruktur. jedoch durch dieses panorama-foto wird die durchgängige struktur des artikels stark beeinträchtigt. aber es ganz auf normal-thumb runtersetzen ist auch mist. ich überlege schon wie man es anders einbinden könnte - aber in voller breite wäre es wieder zu groß. mhhhh (aber du musst zugeben, dass es da am anfang etwas unpassend wirkt oder?) --Brightster 11:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
(Edit-conflict:) Na ja, auch nicht unpassender als der Schnappschuss von der Eingangshalle. Also neben der TOC ist Platz und das Bild vermittelt einen guten Eindruck vom Innenraum (ergänzt das erste Bild). Ich probiers mal mit thumb|center|500px in die architektur section zu schieben. --Dschwen 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
weist du, wie man thumbs nebeneinander auf der rechten seite anordnen kann? dann könnte man zwei nebeneinander machen und deins daruntersetzen --Brightster 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Mit <div style="float: right"></div> einschliessen und none oder frame statt right glaube ich. --Dschwen 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Habs hinbekommen. Aber ich muss ja mal sagen, dass die Bebilderung des Artikels mängelbehaftet ist. Die zwei Bilder der Eingangshalle ist ehrlich gesagt Scheisse. Und ich fände es irgendwie schade, wenn das Panorama der oberen Gleisebene unten im Artikel verschwindet. --Dschwen 12:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
ach, von den bildern kann man noch nicht so viel erwarten. man kann erst seit ner woche knipsen und das wetter war bisher immer bescheiden. warte mal den sommer ab. da haste dann schnieke fotos, egal wo du im artikel liest (hauptsache, es kommt nicht wieder jemand auf die idee n zweites commons im artikel zu etablieren, wie schon mal geschehen). du hast ja schon mal ordentlich vorgelegt. ich fände es cool, wenn wir auch mal so ein vogelperspektive-foto hätten wie im hamburger-hauptbahnhof-artikel. --Brightster 12:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fotos vom Hauptstadtbahnhof[edit]

Hat sich in dieser Sache was getan? Hast du den Arch--Fb78 10:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)itekten kontaktiert? --Fb78 10:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ja, ich sollte da vielleicht nochmal nachhaken. Von denen habe ich noch keinerlei Antwort. --Dschwen 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Gull Picture[edit]

Hello Dschwen,

I hope that you do not mind that I just nominated your Gull portrait as a featured picture. In my opinion, it shows a very good exposure of a subject difficult to expose well (something, that non photographers may not appreciate, I know). In addition, the detail is excellent. IMHo, it should not be just a QI, it should be FP. I know that some people may well deem the subject to be too commonplace, but anyhow, I really like the image. --Thermos 19:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, of course I don't mind :-) --Dschwen 03:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I fumbled something. Let's see if it is fixed. If not, I try again. --Thermos 05:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Very well, somebody fixed the nomination and apparently it is getting support. Good. Let's just hope it gets through. --Thermos 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe better?[edit]

Hello, I uploaded another flowers, I hope it'll be better ;). K!roman 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit of Image:Pomegranate02 edit.jpg[edit]

Hello, I do not think you understand why I have removed (and will do so again) the category from that picture. Reasons:

  1. this picture is referenced from the species article Punica granatum; this can be seen in the section Links on the image page;
  2. if we leave every picture that's in a species article in a higher category, load times for users would be too long, even for DSL users, and it all contributes to Wiki traffic which is always at the edge; also, why anyway? read on:
  3. if you miss something like a pictorial overview, then please write such an article and put it in the family category - be aware however that that must be maintained forever;
  4. there is no end in sight with submitted fine images, so the problems in 2+3 will get worse.

So, please do not revert again my valid changes, okay? -- Ayacop 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not ok, I know your motivation for the category removal and I strongly disapprove. The category/gallery discussion is pure madness. Removing category tags lessens the value of commons and makes images harder to find. --Dschwen 16:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You haven't thought about it a bit, and you fully ignored my arguments. So I will take yours: 1. "madness" if this were used more than once I'd call it ad hominem, so be careful. 2. "lessens the value of commons": the value of commons is is usage, i.e., most of it is referenced by WPs; this value is not lessened in any way by my action. 3. "harder to find": please use a search engine for finding, this way you'll get at the picture at once, and it works even with 'pomegranate'. -- Ayacop 16:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh god, stop, please stop! Crying ad hominem is like crying wolves!. Categories are useful, you are basically denying this. Removing them serves no purpose, except your modem-user argument. Which is flawed, thats what the next 200 images links are for (that number should be configurable by the way, let's create a whishlist item for that...)! Anyway, your fraction of the category/galley - let's call it a war since that's basically what it has come down to - undermines the category system entirely. Why bother having categories at all? Please show me the policy which justifies this behaviour! Please show me the discussion in which a consensus was reached to kill categories! --Dschwen 17:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is that war? I only know about plants, and that animals are handled differently. So what? In plants, you use the plants system as it is or you write a tool for conversion. You're polarizing our discussion, I said "most" of the usage is to be referenced by WP's, that's not 'all', and I never denied the usefulness of categories, this is an extreme oversimplification. You may revert my change, it will have no effect, and I will not answer from now on on this subject. -- Ayacop 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Have a look on village pump, browse the archives. It's popping up in regular intervalls. You don't have to answer, just let me point out that a) you started this discussion and b) I had no intention of reverting you a second time. Anyway, if there is an understanding for the realm of plants on commons I'll have to suck it down. But such a policy should be handled globally not on a per-subject basis. So long, Dschwen 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, there is only the fact that nearly all pictures of plants are either in a species article or in a genus/familia category. Also, changing this with new pics will clearly confuse people even more, so you can have only one system or another, not a mixed one. -- Ayacop 08:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see the point, but isn't that either in a species article or in a genus/familia category solution a mixed solution? --Dschwen 10:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's consistent over all familias. The alternative would be (and I'm even favoring that) to get rid of articles at all and use categories for everything, i.e., make galleries as if it were an article, and at the bottom, say something like Unsorted:. Problems with this are that one must input Category: for everything in the search engine (and links); also moving will not work, so if a cat has to be "moved" by delete/create new, then the version history is lost. That's MediaWiki for you. Anyway, one would better write a conversion between both extremes first, to be able to quickly switch. -- Ayacop 14:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Coordinate conversion helper[edit]

Hello !

Your script is wonderful ! However nowadays, google provides mapping services on several countries. In France, the service lives on www.google.fr. You script expect a .com only. I'll be happy if you can manage to fix that in a less or more near future. Mathieu 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, it accepts http://maps.google.*/ and http://www.google.*/maps from any toplevel domain now. --Dschwen 07:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again ! It seems there are some problems with your script. The following google map url should lead to Montreuil sur mer. But When using your scripts I land near Never (in France too, it is not so bad :-) )... I really do not know what has happened !

Here is the produced location :

Camera location 47° 09′ 35.42″ N, 2° 59′ 17.81″ E View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap - Google Earth info

Any tip ? Mathieu 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see! My script looks for the ll= part of the url. Your url contains a sll= part which I haven't seen before and which confuses my script. There is an easy fix, I'll modify tghe script to look fot &ll= instead. Thanks for the bug report! --Dschwen 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Now it creates this. I'll have to check my math for rounding issues, but it's much closer. --Dschwen 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Camera location 50° 27′ 51.11″ N, 1° 45′ 44.96″ E View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap - Google Earth info
Ok, that's much better :-).. There's indeed a small error left, but I don't know if it is easily avoidable given javascript abilities... Keep the good work on ! Mathieu 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Question / help please[edit]

Thankyou for the your FP review of image:Diuris_03_gnangarra.jpg A question out of curiosity to learn more and improve what I'm providing. You said "some channels, R and G are blown out I believe" how did you come to this conclusion? After reading your comment I tried altering the levels of these two channels in GIMP but I only get false colouring. Gnangarra 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Your image Tree example IR.jpg recently achieved Featured Picture Status on the English Wikipedia. Congratulations! Hetar 05:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, how did that happen?! I thought recently they shoot down about every nomination ;-) --Dschwen 06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

About your vote[edit]

Hello Dschwen, Would you move your vote (if you want) to the edited version in this picture. TIA. Francisco M. Marzoa 15:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The increased w:acutance alone is not much of a quality improvement. I'd suggest also downscaling by a factor of 2x (after the sharpening). Otherwise we might as well keep the original. --Dschwen 21:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose template[edit]

Please see my comments on this at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. -- Alvesgaspar 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Schärfe am Beispiel von Image:Luzern_Kapellbruecke.jpg[edit]

Hallo Daniel, nach deinem Kommentar zum Thema Schärfe bei diesem FPC habe ich mich nochmals intensiv mit dem Thema verfasst. Dabei habe ich eine Schwäche in sämtlichen meiner Bilder entdeckt, nämlich ein schlechtes oder meist gänzlich ausgebliebenes Schärfen. Jetzt benutze ich ein Plugin zum Schärfen, welches zu überzeugenden Resultaten führt, wie du am Beispiel des von dir bemängelten Kapellbrückendachs sehen kannst. Insofern verdanke ich diese Verbesserung dir.

Gegen das von dir vorgeschlagene Verkleinern der Bilder wehre ich mich allerdings in diesem Fall. Bei einem gut aufgenommenen Bild (Stativ, Objektiv, Sensor) verlierst du Informationen, z.B. könntest du den Schriftzug «Montana» im Hintergrund der Kapellbrücke nicht mehr lesen. Grosse Abzüge würden verunmöglicht.

Ein kleiner Tipp: Was bei meinen Bildern an Nachschärfung fehlte, ist bei deinen übertrieben. Schau dir den körnigen Himmel in Image:Goettingen_Marktplatz_Oct06.jpg oder Image:Goettingen StMichael Oct06.jpg an. Mit dem richtigen Vorgehen beim Resampling und Schärfen könnten sie noch deutlich besser aussehen. --Ikiwaner 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Das mit dem verkleinern sehe ich persoenlich auch so, aber das fuehr immer wierder zu langwierigen Diskussionen. Dir beiden Goettingen Bilder sind grenzwertig. Meine Kamera hat leider bei blauem Himmel ein leichtes Rauschproblem. Bei einigen Bildern hab ich selektive den Himmel maskiert und einen Entrauschfilter (leichter Blur) angewandt. Hier war ich dazu allerdings schlicht zu faul ;-). Na ja, Fotoemulsion produziert ja nicht immer ein voellig glattes bild. Die Bilder sind uebrigens schon resampled. Insbesondere das Marktplatzbild, das war ein Panorama aus ca. 20 Teilbildern. --Dschwen 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Jetzt hab ich mir grad das Kapellbrueckenbild nochmal angeschaut, und irgendwas scheint da schief gelaufen zu sein bei der Rawkonvertierung. Die Farben sehen etwas blass aus und einige Teile erscheinen jetzt ueberbelichtet und strukturlos (das Mauerwerk im Turm). Die Blumen sehen sehr hart aus, geradez pixelig, und and den Personen am rechten Bildrand ist eine Treppchenbildung zu erkennen. Das Schaerfen hat bei den Brueckenpfeilern auch zu einer Kantenuebersteuerung gefuehrt (eine helle Halo, sh.: en:Acutance). Mein workflow besteht aus einem Schaerfen (Gimp etwa Faktor 30) dann runtersamplen (bei Panoramaaufnahmen auf ca. 75%) und dann einer nachschaerfung (Gimp faktor 20) um die Weichheit vom resampling zu kompensieren. Bei nichtpanoramaaufnahmen verzichte ich allerdings meistens komplett auf die Nachbearbeitung weil einfach nicht so viel Reserve drin ist. --Dschwen 20:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Ich habe meinen Edit rückgängig gemacht, er scheint niemandem recht zu sein. Zuerst findest du das Bild so weich, dass du es dreimal runtersampeln willst, dann ist es bei gleicher Auflösung zu hart. Die leichten Halos werden bei einem Ausdruck mit 200-300 dpi nicht explizit sichtbar sein, aber etwas zum subjektiven Schärfeeindruck beitragen. Überhaupt diskutieren wir beim Thema Schärfe nur über Bildgrössen, die über ein bildschirmfüllendes Format hinausgehen. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit ist doch gross, dass ich der einzige mit einem solchen Abzug bin. --Ikiwaner 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Na, mal langsam :-). Du stellst das so als Widerspruch dar, aber das ist es doch nicht. Ja, ich fand das Bild zu soft. Im Grunde bin ich kein großer Freund vom runtersamplen, aber duech Schärfen zaubert man halt keine zusätzliche Information hervor. Man produziert Artefakte, und davon hat die neue Version nen ganzen Sack voll. Aslo wenn mann schon Schärft, dann muss man m.E. auch den ganzen weg gehen und runtersamplen. Wenns das Bild nicht hergibt (Schriftzuh im HG nicht mehr lesbar), dann muss man halt Panorama Mosaike fotographieren, oder sich ne neue Kamera kaufen. Schau Dir mal an, wie eine Digitalkamera aus ihren R G und B subpixeln die Auflösung zusammenfaked. Dann wirst Du sehen warum manchmal runtersamplen sinnvoll ist. --Dschwen 19:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Bei den Zusammenhängen Schärfe-Information (Auflösung) und Artefakten stimme ich überein. Aber der Zusammenhang Artefakte=schlecht=runtersamplen ist imo falsch. Die ganzen Schärfealgorithmen dienen doch dazu, künstlich eine Kantenschärfe vorzugaukeln, die real hinter der Linse gar nicht vorhanden war. Ziel ist ein besserer subjektiver Schärfeeindruck. Dieser subjektive Eindruck ist letztlich das einzige, was zählt. Er ist stark von der Vergrösserung und Auflösung des Abzugs abhängig. Schau dir die geschärfte Version 1:1 bei Druckauflösung aus einer normalen Sehdistanz an und du wirst keine Halos erkennen. Runtersampeln hingegen produziert bei gleichbleibender Bildgrösse eine schlechtere Qualität. Es hilft nur, Bewegungsunschärfe, Rauschen und fehlende Fokussierung hinter grösseren Pixeln zu verstecken. --Ikiwaner 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wer redet denn hier von gleichbleibender Bildgröße? Ich nicht, nur Du. Die Essenz meines letzten Kommentars war: Das Foto taugt nicht für diese Bildgröße, deshalb neu machen (als Panomosaik oder mit ner besseren Kamera).
Ok, das hört sich jetzt ziemlich übel an, und gilt nicht unbedingt für jedes hochgeladene Bild gleichermaßen, aber Dein Foto soll ja nach Kriterien für gefeaturete Bilder beurteilt werden! Also, ich hab irgendwo die Bilder von User:Diliff als Beispiel verlinkt, schau Dir die mal an und Du verstehst was ich meine. Das ist allerdings viel mehr Arbeit als draufhalten und abdrücken... --Dschwen 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nur noch Bilder in Mittel- und Grossformatqualität zu "featurn" halte ich hier überhaupt nicht für sinnvoll, da 99% der Betrachtungen an einem Bildschirm stattfinden, wo alles über 1.5 Megapixel Perlen vor die Säue geworfen ist. Ich frage mich nicht, welche Kamera ich für eine bestimmte Bildgrösse nehmen muss, sondern in welcher Auflösung ich ein Bild hochlade, und da ist die Antwort simpel: Jedes Downsampling verringert die maximale Grösse des Abzugs, wo ich die Grenze des Sinnvollen bei etwa 75x50 cm setze. Jeder kann selbst heruntersampeln, umgekehrt nicht.
Wenn ich mir ein zufälliges Special:Newimages anschaue wäre dieser Datenbank weit mehr geholfen, wenn man Anreize schafft, die breite Masse der Bilder in besserer Qualität zu erhalten als nach vereinzelten Grossformataufnahmen zu schielen. Den Unterton in deinem letzen Satz ignoriere ich einfach. Willst du ein wirklich unscharfes FPC sehen, zieh dir Image:Parthenos_sylvia_philippensis.jpg rein. --Ikiwaner 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh jeh. Der letzte Satz sollte gar keinen Unterton haben. --Dschwen 17:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Richtig, der Schmetterling ist von der Qualität nicht so prall. Na ja, wie auch immer ich bin vielleicht etwas pingelig, aber Special:Newimages sollteste gleich vergessen. Die ganze Scheisse die da so auftaucht will ich auch gar nicht sehen. Das sehe ich überhaupt nicht als Grund an die Messlatte für FPs tiefer zu legen. Es gibt ja immernoch Commons:Quality images. Ein FP muss für mich einfach super sein. --Dschwen 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: So, und nun fotografieren wir mal lieber ein bisschen anstatt so viel zu plaudern ;-) --Dschwen 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Quality Image[edit]

USA balancing rock UT.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! USA balancing rock UT.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.


SF Transamerica top CA.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! SF Transamerica top CA.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

JeremyA 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The point[edit]

...of this edit is unclear to me. I thought it made it more clear that certain nominations are still under discussion, and if I retract I should be allowed to put a decline there. --Dschwen 10:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi,

I've done it automatically just to keep the normal procedure in the page, preserving the original review. But I don't make a strong point of it. Please go ahead and put it the way you like, not forgetting to adapt the (provisional) rules. - Alvesgaspar 13:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wer einmal hilft - wieder der Spammer![edit]

Hallo Dschwenn,

Ich habe in Commons talk:Transition to SVG eine Frage gestellt, fürchte aber, das das der falsche Ort ist und deshalb keiner das lesen wird. Hast Du einen Tipp, wo ich die Frage stellen sollte? --KleinKlio 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) PS: Kann man das überhaupt so kontextfrei verstehen?

Och zur Not einfach in Commons:Forum. Ich versteh allerdings nicht ganz warum sich die Browser so verhalten wie von Dir beschrieben. Hast Du irgendwo ein Beispielbild? --Dschwen 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bei eingebundenen Bildern (wohl gerendert) tun sie's nicht, aber beim blanken svg-file (standalone="yes") schon. --KleinKlio 15:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mit standalone hat's nichts zu tun, dot erzeugt (beim obigen Beispiel) auch standalone="no". --KleinKlio 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Browserseitig: In der Wikipedia verhalten sich bei mir Text und (serverseitig gerenderte) Formeln analog. STRG-PLUS vergößert den Text, die math-Formeln bleiben gleich. (Z. B. in de: Quadratwurzel. --KleinKlio 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nachdem Du mir den Tipp mit den Beispielen gegeben hast, habe ich die erste Frage Commons:Forum#Zoom-Funktion im Browser vergrößert manchmal nur Text ins Forum gestellt. --KleinKlio 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Die Mathe Formeln und die SVG Vorschaubilder sind als bitmap gerendert und werden nicht vergroessert. Die SVG bilder selbst schon. --Dschwen 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality Image[edit]

NYCSub 7 Vernon Jackson.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NYCSub 7 Vernon Jackson.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

JeremyA 21:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing of other peoples comments ????[edit]

You are quite right, I didn't realize that was a command, I tought it was just a typo. No intentions of changing people's comments. Alvesgaspar 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC) PS - But instead of patronizing me, it would have been more correct to fix the mistake yourself ! Alvesgaspar 14:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found it appropriate to give you the chance of fixing that mistake instead of meddling with your edit and changing that comment myself. --Dschwen 23:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
And since this was the second time I noticed an edit of yours in a comment section gone wrong I'd figured to point it out and sensitize you about the subject... --Dschwen 23:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Picture of the Year and Picture of the Month contests[edit]

I have posted a new proposal on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates regarding the creation of FP-related contests and would like your feedback on the idea. This message is being sent to some of the regular contributors to Commons:Featured picture candidates. Alvesgaspar 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY election implementation[edit]

Some help in needed to organize the POTY election. Please check the conclusions of the discussion in Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. What do you think of doing the election in the period 15-31 January? - Alvesgaspar 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the Year - still on?[edit]

There has been little traffic on Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 recently. Are we still going to do this? If so, we need to decide the dates of the first and second rounds of voting, and make sure everything is ready to go (by 1st Feb?) I'm happy to help, but wouldn't want to do this on my own if no-one else has much interest. --MichaelMaggs 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I've been busy with en:User:Dschwen/WikiMiniAtlas. I'll look into it. --Dschwen 12:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

QI promotion[edit]

Macro Biro writing2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Macro Biro writing2.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Jnpet 13:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:2002-issue Euro cent obverse.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:2002-issue Euro cent obverse.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

Alvesgaspar 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

QI Promotion[edit]

USA Cape Cod 1 MA.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! USA Cape Cod 1 MA.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Jnpet 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006 competition[edit]

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are almost complete, and voting will take place between 1st and 28th Feb. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 22:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

QI promotion[edit]

1990-issue US Penny obverse 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 1990-issue US Penny obverse 2.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 15:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

HH Alter Elbtunnel Okt06.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! HH Alter Elbtunnel Okt06.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

USA State House 1 MA.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! USA State House 1 MA.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 06:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

USA Old State House 1 MA.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! USA Old State House 1 MA.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 06:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2002-issue Euro cent obverse.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY translations[edit]

Thanks for doing part of Commons:Bild des Jahres/2006. Would you mind doing the rest of the page as well?

Also, we're needing German text for the rest of Commons:Bild des Jahres/2006/final

regards --MichaelMaggs 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it, I was just interrupted by a ringing phone :-) --Dschwen 19:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

QI promotion[edit]

Kreuzspinne front Sep06.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kreuzspinne front Sep06.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 13:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Emden Feuerschiff 06.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Emden Feuerschiff 06.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

USA Cape Cod 6 MA.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! USA Cape Cod 6 MA.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 11:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Oktava319.jpg Thanks.[edit]

Thanks for pointing out my missing exif data. Turns out I'm missing it on a number of my older uploads before I'd setup wrapper scripts around dcraw to copy the exif data over. I've fixed it on that one, but I've still got a bunch left to do.. Oh well, better late than never. --Gmaxwell 04:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY voting table[edit]

It won't look good if we can't keep the table up to date, and that will be hard to do. Is there any chnace you could whip up a script to update the table automatically? Or at the very least to count up thr votes so that the numbers can be typed in to the table from the script output? If not, I think we should just removed the table for now, as it's not working too well. --MichaelMaggs 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can do that, but the earliest time would be monday. I agree for the time being the table should be removed. --Dschwen 12:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Abandoning the POTY 2006 project[edit]

I’m abandoning the project. I don’t deserve, and can’t tolerate, to be treated like an intruder or a vandal. Have fun and thank you for your help Alvesgaspar 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Goettingen StMichael Oct06.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Goettingen StMichael Oct06.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Goe UniNordbereich Physik.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Goe UniNordbereich Physik.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A question about use of an image[edit]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask; I'm very much a newbie. I'd like to use this image in my master's thesis on chaos and complexity theory in counseling (probably 4 copies will be printed). How shall I properly attribute it to you? Thanks very much. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lorenz_attractor.svg

Credit to (Dipl. Phys. ) Daniel Schwen ( ,Georg-August-Universität Göttingen if you wish). Good luck with your thesis! --Dschwen 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

License template[edit]

Hi Dschwen, the license templates of your recent two images were lost at uploading, could you please add them. Great photo of the chemistry buildings! Longbow4u 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jo, danke fuer den Hinweis! --Dschwen 16:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Goe Chemie 2007.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Goe Chemie 2007.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

--Jnpet 04:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006 - vote in bad position[edit]

There is a vote locked at the end of the voting list. I have no idea in which file it was written (I looked at all the language pages) and can´t delete it from there. Can you please help? Alvesgaspar 10:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I found it using user contributions of the voter [2]. Fixed. --Dschwen 12:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)