User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2012/2

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.

Valued Image Promotion

Ribes divaricatum 5378.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:
Ribes divaricatum (Spreading Gooseberry), inflorescence.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Problems in the VI project (suite)

Hi. Again, and again... Nothing to do, back-to-back, as usual ? --Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Yann.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
1) Not for these reasons. 2) Unblocked now. The problem remains.--Jebulon (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


I made a proposal on the page of Yann --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

Phoenicaulis cheiranthoides 1733.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:
Phoenicaulis cheiranthoides.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Village Pump

Walter,

I just added this: From User_talk:Kraaiennest / Crowsnest: "Dear Doug Youvan, I do not intent to make the code available, since it is (in part) the property of others." Doug youvan (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that we are arriving at a consensus. Could you comment on the Pump as to what the quote (given above) implies for our discussion, please? Doug youvan (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please re-nominate this for deletion

Deletion was attempted once and failed. Possibly child porn. Do we need to take that kind of risk? File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg

You carry more weight that me. Doug youvan (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you. My interest is primarily in biota. I changed your image to a link. If you think the image is offensive, is it kind to put it on someone's talk page? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. No it isn't. I should have used "no wiki". Doug youvan (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Water Waves

Walter, where did you get the info to expand this description: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Deep_water_wave.gif&diff=prev&oldid=66662708 ? Doug youvan (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the diff that I added. You may find it in the diff you cited. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Also, I think I will go ahead with the deletion of the image, above. Doug youvan (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCU

Thank you for your support and kind words.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. But, I hope we are not establishing a tradition of thanking supporters on every RFA. I don't think that has much meaning nor is it a productive use of time and it clutters talk pages. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Descriptions

Pictogram voting info.svg Info

You say, «The revision history of the file shows that PereslavlFoto has reverted a number of other editors over the filedescription». Please compare the descriptions. You will see the reason to revert: I try to keep the full description with the relevant sources explaining the situation about the park. (As here.) This is why I raised the question at COM:AN/U — I cannot understand why Commons tolerates the situation when the full description is cut to the biased one. Comparing my edits of the full descriptions you will see how it developed, showing different points of view. The main problem is, some editors don't think there may be different points of view...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally, references that are relevant and reliable sources should be retained. But reverting is an ineffective means of persuading others. I see that you are making your case on COM:AN/U. I don't know if you will succeed in forging an acceptable compromise, but good luck. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some other user continues edit-warring removing my description. How do you think, does he need to be blocked then? Why do you mean «edit-warring» about me and skip this meaning speaking of some other user or users pushing their idea of not full, but heavily cut description? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring is ineffective and disruptive. You may find the advice of en:WP:EW helpful. I'm sorry you feel under close scrutiny, but that is an outcome of posting on AN/U. If you find several other editors disagreeing with you, you may wish to consider modifying your opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

Agoseris glauca 8503.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:
Agoseris glauca (Pale Agoseris).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

re File renaming

Hi Wsiegmund,

OK, I will use them. But before, my renameings wasn't correct? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find your earlier renamings. You may request the the filemover right, if you choose. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Look at this picture's history File:Hypholoma fasciculare - Kew 1.jpg. I generally do like this. DenesFeri (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine to me.[3] If your reason corresponds to one of the seven rename reasons, rename requests are usually approved. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wsiegmund,

Thank you for encouraging me to take the next step, and be a „file rename-er“. But I'm not very familiar with the commons. I occasionaly upload some pictures, and that is all I do here. And telling the truth, I can't either how to request that step/status. Maybe if you make the arangements, I could upgrade. :) Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri; There is no rush. Take your time and become more familiar with Commons. In the meantime, continue to use{{rename}}. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will. DenesFeri (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)