User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2009/3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ind i fristelse

Noen fristelser er av det gode, la Rocket "lede deg ind i fristelse" ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm! --Kanonkas(talk) 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hej Finn og Kanonkas. Tak for jeres smigrende fristelser Face-smile.svg. Jeg vender tilbage - når tiden er den rette og jeg føler jeg har væsentligt nyt at bidrage med. Den tid er endnu ikke helt det er rigtigt rart at mærke at I er der! --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Kim,
Welcome back!
I thought that my fish at London Bridge and your image in Greenland museum were the funniest things that could
have happen to the images uploaded to Commons, but few days ago I got e-mail:

We are interested in purchasing your image of the "Sea Storm in Pacifica, California" (attached) wave for an
upcoming print ad. Can you please let me know if you'd be interested in selling it for the following usage:
Unlimited Use,Unlimited Time, Worldwide, Non-Excluisve.
If purchased, we'd be using it on a Royal Caribbean ad.
Please let me know if you have a phone number that I can contact you at. Or feel free to call me, but we're trying
to nail this down today if possible - my apologies for the rush."

Most of the times I respond like this: "Thank you for your e-mail. My images are free for any kind of use. Best
wishes.":But this particular time I was blocked and bored. So I asked them to give me an offer. What followed gave me
one of the best laugh I've ever had, and what I needed much, much more than money at the time.They responded to me:

"We are willing to offer $200 for the image because we are really only interested in using a portion of the wave
combined with some other waves to make the "perfect" wave. So in all honesty we are not using the image as a whole.
If you are interested, please let me know and I'll send some paperwork over your way. "

After I read they were going to use only "portion of the wave" :) I agreed for $200. They sent me another e-mail:

"Attached please find the paperwork we'd like to have you fill out. This information will be given to our accounting
team who will put your information into our payment system. Once in the system (and the client signs off on the
estimate) I will cut you a purchase order outlining the agreement we've already discussed via email. $200, Unlimited
Use, Unlimited Time, Worldwide, Non-Exclusive (portions of the wave only, not the full shot).
The independent contractor form is a little weird - it reads more like a freelance hire agreement (our legal team is
working to creative a more pertinent one) but in the meantime we have to ask you to sign it. If you'd like to
discuss please don't hesitate to call."

To make a long story short after I read their "freelance hire agreement" (and it was much more than just little
weird) I decided to let them to use my image for free. After all they are going to use not a whole image, but
only "portion of the wave" :) I wish I asked what portion. Maybe then I would have been able to sell the other
portion to somebody else :)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mila. Thank you for sharing that funny little story. I think you ended up doing the right thing. Genuinely wanting to do things right, and make the proper attributions should be rewarded such that the commercial users sees that there is a point in asking first instead of just assuming, oh, well, they will never find out. --Slaunger (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

DVD recommendation

This recommendation is for the DVD of the movie. The movie is called "Rushmore", it is a good movie, Bill Murray and other fine actors. The movie is best viewed as entertainment, I discouraged watching it as a howto on my website. I can provide the link for that if you would like it. The story is about a young man who is attending a private high school called "Rushmore". On the DVD, and in the extras, is an interview from Public television here where the interviewer hasn't watched the movie. He doesn't admit that he has not watched the movie; instead he provides a made up plot as an intro for a question. The question implied that the movie was about the mountain, Mt. Rushmore.

Hi carol, tahnk you for introducing me to that DVD title. Regrettably I am not much of "see film in my living room" person. I get bored quite quickly and find myself wondering if there were better things to do. Occasionnaly, I doo see movies in the cinema, most lately "men who hates women" based on the a novel by Stieg Larsson. It was a brilliant movie, but I regretted to have read the book before I watched it as it took much of the excitement in the plot away.

People make mistakes. A nice way to approach a long life is perhaps one lived in an attempt to not make mistakes; this could be argued but it is a nice approach for some. What is on that DVD is not a mistake, it is a blatant lie provided for an audience which doesn't deserve that; Public Broadcast listeners are known for being educated and intelligent. It is an audience which would probably be gracious with an interviewer who started the interview with "I am sorry to admit that I have not yet seen this movie. Could you give a plot outline to start this interview with?" Simple, honest and the beginning of a decent interview.

Do you think that an interviewer who lies like that has respect for the people who listen to his television show?

No, I do not think that an interviewer who lies like that has respect for the people who listen to his television show?

How much respect should he demand from his audience when he does things like this? -- carol (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can also speak on behalf of myself, and such an interviewer would not have any respect from me.
What triggered you into wanting to inform me about an interview in bonus material of a particular DVD and ask me the questions regarding an interviewer who pretends to know what he is talking about?
--Slaunger (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The situation was extremely similar.
I'm surprised that you think the situation on those two pages are similar to the interviewer pretending to know what he is talking about. I must admit, that I do not quite get the analogy; would you please enlighten me of who - according to your perception - plays the role of the lying interviewer and who plays the role of the audience in that particular example? --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no attempt to research. There is a lot of guessing. There is no effort made to guess what is contained in the Plants of categories. The time allowed to make the documentation for the Flora of categories compared to the time allowed to make the documentation for the Plants of categories is eh, 2 months for the Flora of categories compared to 4 years for the Plants of categories? It is a situation of abuse and you are correct, the uninformed and lying interviewer is hardly comparable to a group of people who purposely and seemingly gleefully abuse their power position. Plants of categories existed for all of those years -- they should still exist until it can be determined what they contained. That would have been an example of being thoughtful.
That the demand for documentation fell onto me is a kind of sad (the kind of sad which is also perhaps these people should have their intentions checked) for those demanding it. Several people making demands from one person; one person who gladly admits to not reading documentation very often. One person who kind of enjoys redundant tasks that are not totally redundant. Do you think that the really good documentation writers should be good for doing redundant tasks that are not reliably redundant as well? What kind of little group of people in a community does nothing other than demand one person to do everything and delivering a non-goal punishment when the demands are not met? Can you help me with a word that describes people like this?
I did choose a not so vile example to illustrate what I saw happen then. Thanks for catching that. -- carol (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I enjoy movies, but not as a lifestyle; truthfully my income for my efforts at real work was never enough to justify such 2 to 3 hours of indulgences in eye-candied fiction. I opted to not have a television where I lived when I was living a life that responded to what I wanted. I liked my life and 90% of the stuff that is on the television most of the time takes time from a life I was enjoying and spends this time watching others enjoy a fictional life?
I honestly and really have this same wrong and offensive intellectually situation almost everywhere that I look for too many years now. It shouldn't be here also. Stories and images are a way that our species has learned to communicate that seems to be different from all of the other species. Natives to an area are always portrayed as communicating mostly this way <-- that I have only seen in movies, on television and read in books. What I like about the "story" I provided here for this purpose is that it is not a fiction.
Could you explain me a little more detailed what you mean by that? Do you mean that you the communication you experience from others here is wrong and offending intellectually, is it the users you communicate with which gets exposed to this type of communication or is it a mutual unconstructive type of communication?
The isolation and the lifestyle which is mostly watching television and seeing movies that I mentioned in the paragraph before the last one should have nothing to do with the commons with the exception that I found myself in a location on the other side of my country in 2004 and that is when commons was also made. Here, I am isolated and without people I know. Before 2003, I had access to friends and people who I had known, some for decades and dozens to hundreds of others from my employment. It has been very difficult to keep those problems that caused this isolation separate from the problems I have here -- do you remember the nested measuring spoons? I got here (where I am physically) by earning the respect of some who were online and also when others made decisions in real life which were not really good for the stated goals which were the reason we were employed -- at two different employments. When decisions are made here which seem to go against the stated goals, I get an anger that is somewhat nested like those spoons are where this is the little spoon but it is shaped exactly like the large one at the beginning of the experience.
My sanity should be questioned -- I check it often myself, but perhaps checking mine only after the sanity of the decisions that were made that put me here. Perhaps my stuggle to keep my sanity is impressively successful when compared to the loss of sanity that put me here.
That the decision to merge those Plants of categories into the Flora of categories seems as not sane and as wrongly inspired as all of the other problems that I have encountered mostly since 2003 should not be my problem. It should be the problem of the people who operate that way. I would be curious if you disagree with this statement and the reasons for disagreeing.
About disliking one gender or another -- I don't understand that for a developing mind/brain which has developed and grown after the age of 25 years old. Different yet equal seems to be beyond the grasp of possibly those who built systems that depend upon totally equal or one gender dominating the other. Different yet equal to me seems to be one of the last unexplored systems here. I honestly think that as a woman I am not a warrior -- I don't think that I could kill. I can also honestly say that with the stuff that can make a baby and think about its care and safety throughout the first 18 years of its life -- my nurturing instinct tells me so strongly not to bring a child into a world which works like the one I have been living in does. Such an idea seems to be beyond the intellectual abilities of the governing and income assigning people; indeed beyond the grasp of those who have the upper-hand in this situation where equal but different is not an option.
The film, I was referring to is fiction though and based on a crime novel - although it also targeting violence against women underneath the fiction facade. With amusement I see it has been renamed to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in the English translation - lame translation IMO, "Men, who hate women" is more spot on. If you like crime novels, I recommend to read it, it is very well written. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read much fiction since 1989 -- it starts to kind of look the same, although I have never read many crime dramas. That is another thing which has been missing for me since 2003 -- my personal library. I was collecting things to read (and do) when my life slowed down. What actually happened is that my life stopped and that stuff, the books and sewing and such was not available to me. Both genders and perhaps all of those more recently named shades of gender between the two that most people are members of one or the other of. -- carol (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just cause to dislike both genders. -- carol (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am a little saddened to hear that; I kindda like both genders for what they are. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Different but equal is something that I think would be mostly good -- it might both require and generate self-esteem. I don't think that either of my parents lack of self-esteem had much to do with what is good about me now, heh. -- carol (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I can honestly say, that currently I am no longer interested in the plants of bussiness. I did what I could to drive forth a consensus last summer, my attempt(s) failed, I felt deeply demotivated by the failures, I do not want to be involved in that again, and I do not see how reiterating over the past again and again brings the project further, unless it is some kind of therapy for you to go over it again and again to sort of absorb it. I do not agree with the categorizationism that was forced through as a global measure, but I don't want to fight with windmills like Don Quijote. Rather, now that I feel motivated again, I would like to focus my energy on other areas, where I feel I can help in collaboration with other users, which I get along with well.
You're welcome to write again about this here, but I cannot promise you an answer, as I feel my limited time is better used elsewhere. --Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps consider something like "when an idea is not understood, don't mess with it". Plants of categories were the way they were for more than 4 years. Respectfully, I did not mess much with that which I did not understand. When you have the time, perhaps you could explain what was wrong with my approach and the reason that those categories now are apparently not going to be restored.
There is a very destructive template here, one that inverts the colors of the image. You would be willing to spend the time to revert a change like that if a group of people were to decide to do this to your all or most of your images? Or would it be better that the group of disrespectful people spent some time undoing a needless and wrong treatment of your contribution?
Do you believe in a big picture where the abusers of power just get away with it and have no problems if the damage is not repaired?
Are you familiar with co-dependent relationships where one of the participants messes things up and the other cleans up? Was it your intention to become involved here at that level of interaction? -- carol (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


OK Kim, I have to read all of that first. I haven't been following the discussion lately. I haven't been that keen on the assessment template so far. But never say never ;-). Thanks for letting me know. Lycaon (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never been keen on it either, that's why I think we need a better and more maintainable permanent solution. --Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

care to comment?

User_talk:Rocket000#Tribe_template -- carol (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the history, I do not have anything else to add than the detailed account of the sequence of events I provided in October 2008. That thread contains diff of the exact story. Concerning the template and organization work, I think it is awesome and a most impressive piece of work, and I am glad to see Rocket000 back such that he can assist you with actually implementing the templates needed. As I have mentioned previously I have no current interest in working in that area of Commons right now, and I have no clear feeling of the massive extent of the impressive work you have done so far. --Slaunger (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A first

Slaunger, I am doing as you suggest regarding regularizing the nomination. It cannot pass without comment, though, that of the four WMF projects where I have been sysopped this is the first time when anyone attempted to order me to stop posting at an administrative noticeboard--at the noticeboard itself. Please direct your frustration toward the people who are actually being uncooperative, rather than undermine my credibility in that public fashion. A refactor on your part would really help there. Durova (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova, Thank you for your comment. I will gladly refactor my comment there. It was not my intention to bluntly indicate that you should "shut up" (as I perceive is how you have interpreted what I wrote), rather it was an honest proposal of how to move ahead constructively, since it seemed to me that you were honestly asking for a suggestion. I may have written that with nuances (since I am not native speaking), which were unintentional, and which can be misinterpreted. --Slaunger (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
After an initial gasp, it seemed something like that. Have followed your suggestions. Thanks very much. Cheers. :) Durova (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. And, again, I appreciate your feedback. Best to get such things cleared out immediately. --Slaunger (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes of Scope

Hi Kim. I changed the scope for Valued image candidates/Genista corsica (flowers).jpg. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about PZM image

I just found out about Commons:Valued image candidates/Pzm london lg.jpg - no one notified me at the time.

You stated you were "not happy" with the information given. What information would you like to see on the image? Thanks - KillerChihuahua (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi KillerChuhuahua,
Thank you for you message. Some things which can be improved on the image page:
  • If permission has been granted via email, there should be an OTRS template there, see Commons:OTRS
  • The location of the photo should be geocoded if possible
  • You could link to en:PZ Meyers in the description
  • Since he is a biologist, he should be categorized to a suitable subcategory of Category:Biologists
  • When I reviewed the image, it was only categorized to Category:Bloggers. Meeanwhile this category has been made more specific by another editor.
I hope this answers your question. If you are in doubt or need guidance about any of this, do ask again.
Once it is improved it can be renominated again, if you wish. I am sure it would have a good chance of passing if this is sorted out.
--Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

VIC template

I'm not sure if you have it watched, but I proposed a few changes to the VIC template here. BTW, I noticed we're not using Category:Withdrawn valued image candidates, they have been going in the declined category, so should be get rid of this status? Rocket000 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi Rocket, I have noticed it in on my watchlist, but I have been rather busy the last few days. I will get back to you when i get alittle more time. --Slaunger (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. No rush. Rocket000 (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

links in scope

Maybe you've noticed this addition to the guidelines. Back then, I had no feedback and avoided including a guideline about links to Commons categories, as I was unsure about it (VIs being more gallery-based than category-based). Many nominators do that, though, and I wonder whether it would be useful to discuss the relevance of category-based links in the scopes. For the moment, I remove or replace such links. I'd like to have your opinion on the issue before I get lapidated by a bunch of angry nominators. --Eusebius (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

VI closure

[1] last message was from this morning?? --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, but it did not really change anything, and a comment (unlike a vote) does not reset the 48 h clock for closure. You think I went a little too fast? I can revert it, no problem.--Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should if the nominator say something, otherwise don't bother. I usually leave 48h after the last comment, because in the non-trivial cases there might be a first vote (possibly unrelated to the criteria, but it hasn't happened for a long time now) and then a fruitful discussion leading to something new. We've rarely had comments aimed at artificially keeping a nomination alive (and it was for unassessed candidate, calls for votes). --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep an eye on the nominators talk page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope changed

Hey Kim.

Scope changed from Boscia foetida (Smelly shepherd's tree) to Boscia foetida (Smelly shepherd's tree) leaves.

Lycaon (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Did you save the scope change? I do not see any scope change in the nomination page? --Slaunger (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Oops. Indeed! It got stuck in preview ;-). Lycaon (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Indian wedding


I changed the scope following your comments: see Commons:Valued image candidates/Indian wedding.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the scope following your comments: see Commons:Valued image candidates/Indian wedding.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Declined Valued Image: Cornell_AD_White_house_2.jpg

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Slaunger/Archives/2009. You have new messages at Notyourbroom's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Notyourbroom (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)