User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2011/7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

No personal attack, indeed

Bonjour Walter Siegmund.
There absolutely no personal attack in the french comment I wrote, sorry.
Please show me more precisely where you find a personal attack ?
I just explained that I gave up from VIC page to avoid writing personal attacks, because I'm tired with some behaviours, and in such situations I'm afraid my caldron may boil a bit too much.
As you know, I'm not alone in this case.
I wrote it in french, because I just wanted to be the more precise and clear as possible for my two french-speaking collègues involved in the review, and to avoid the use of too strong words.
Maybe you probably misunderstood, as me sometimes in english, which is not my native language.
The words "You are a very agressive person" are a personal attack.
Furthermore, one can endure "personal attacks" not only by words, as you surely may know.
But only the use of some "words", even if misunderstood, deserve obviously the kind of message you send to me.
May I say, (nothing personal !), that I'm not really surprised, only a bit disappointed...
I don't understand the cartoon, which is not linked to my talk in any matter.
Thanks for supporting the picture in VIC, anyway.
Best regards --Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"Commentez les propos et non le participant. Les attaques personnelles font du tort à la communauté et découragent les wikipédiens : personne n'aime subir un mauvais traitement." (fr:Wikipédia:Pas d'attaque personnelle) Perhaps, I misunderstand your words, "Je ne vois par exemple aucun intérêt à distinguer des sujets, quels qu'ils soient, y compris des animalcules, qui sont seuls dans leur catégorie, quand on ne peut visiblement pas distinguer entre trois images d'un même sujet au moins aussi parlant et instructif, au motif que WS n'a jamais entendu parler de François Gérard, et qu'il était visiblement aux aguets sur ce coup-là. C'est donc que le truc n'est pas au point, et comme je ne peux pas lui mettre physiquement mon poing dans la gueule, j'en reste là. Je prédis qu'à court terme, WS-Lycaon-Biopics, ou quel que soit son pseudo, actuel ou prochain, va mettre la main définitivement sur les VI, pour ne conserver que ce qui l'agrée, et rejeter le reste." But, it seems to me that you are criticizing Wetenschatje. It appears from his response that he understood it as an attack. It may promote harmony to make your points by referring to the VI criteria and references that show that your nomination meets those criteria.
I removed the cartoon. I'm sorry it was unhelpful.
Your picture meets the criteria, in my opinion, and is useful. Many of our reviewers (including me) are not knowledgeable about art; please help educate us. I hope you will continue to participate, but will understand if you feel that you cannot. I think you bring a unique perspective to your reviews and nominations. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This: C'est donc que le truc n'est pas au point, et comme je ne peux pas lui mettre physiquement mon poing dans la gueule, j'en reste là. was perceived as PA and threat. If I misunderstood, so be it. I can manage to forget (and forgive) once again... W.S. 18:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Walter, I respect your opinion and anyone elses. I only wish my own was also accepted without strive every time. W.S. 18:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It may be helpful to use words and phrases like "I think", "in my opinion", "perhaps", and "may" more frequently. Such words tend to soften criticisms and remind the reader that you are giving your opinion, and not stating a fact. For what it is worth, I find your reviews of my work, positive or negative, helpful. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I've uploaded the original file size of file:Hoa súng trắng Ai Cập.jpg, would you please re-review it at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list#July 19, 2011? Thank you. PRENN (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Oenanthe sarmentosa 2946.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Oenanthe sarmentosa 2946.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.

Valued Image Promotion

Oenanthe sarmentosa 2946.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:
Oenanthe sarmentosa (Water-parsley).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.