User talk:AzaToth/Archives/2012/July

QI

Hej, Du kan inte ändra från promotion till decline som här utan istället får du ändra till "discuss" så kommer en bot flytta bilden till Consensual review. Vänligen --ArildV (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, blev fel där, menade sätta den som Discuss (dock så anser jag att hela QI systemet är helt trasigt). _→AzaToth 00:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

File:AutoantiguoColoniadelSacramento3.jpg

Hi, AzaToth. Where do you see chromatic noise in the photo, I am trying to learn to take good photos. Best Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 14:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Second review

Hello AzaToth, I made some improvements in two pictures that you declined: File:Glaciar Perito Moreno23 - Argentina.JPG and File:Caballos ante los Cuernos del Paine, Parque Nacional Torres del Paine, Chile1.jpg with the hope to fix the problems you mentioned. What do you think? All the best, Poco a poco (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

They are much better! _→AzaToth 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, can you give me feedback on these pictures?:

• File:Monasterio de Santa Cruz, Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 01.JPG (tilt)
• File:Universidad de Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 34.JPG (better description)
• File:Universidad de Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 22.JPG (crop)

The handicap of marking them directly in red is that they vanish after 2 days. If a topic could have a solution I usually leave it blue to give to the author some time. All the best, Poco a poco (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You just discovered 3 CAs in my pictures, they are fixed now. That is a 20 seconds exercise with the RAW file. The reason why the CAs were there is because I didn't detect them. Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Sadly I've not figured out what to actually do when pointing out such errors, as QIVoter script stops working properly if a "Nomination" has a "Review"; But I'll take a look trying to fix it. _→AzaToth 23:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that your comments are right -although your threshold is higher that the others-, but if you go immediately for decline for pictures with problems that can be easily fixed, then you should be at least as quick to go back to review or to promotion if the problems are fixed. It should be an exception that a picture is reviewed with decline and later on with promotion, because a decline implies that the problems cannot be fixed or were not fixed after some time in review. By the way, I also fixed the problems that you rightfully commented for these 2 but haven't got feedback from you yet:

• File:Arco de Almedina, Coimbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 01.JPG (CA)
• File:Universidad de Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 20.JPG (CA)
• File:Universidad de Coímbra, Portugal, 2012-05-10, DD 45.JPG (CA)

Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking into them now b(damn difficult to find them again in the current layout :() _→AzaToth 10:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do both nominate and review pictures and to keep up-to-date I search for my user name (Ctrl + F) and so review quickly all pictures I am involved in. In this way I see whether somebody improved his/her work and I should re-review or whether somebody made a comment on one of my pictures, all the best, Poco a poco (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Allamanda_cathartica_MHNT.jpg

For File:Allamanda_cathartica_MHNT.jpg in QI; Thank you, you have a good view. Correction made. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

FP

Hi AzaToth!
Have a look to:

• Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anolis marmoratus.jpg
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aepyceros melampus petersi 2.jpg

... and some examples for some users can be found easy. And also all OK by rules.
With best regards, -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Although, I opposed the particular nomination myself, it is quite uncontroversial that it was promoted by the creator, as it is pure vote counting, unlike on EN:FPC, where it is based on more vague consensus. Moreover, George has an excellent track record regarding trustworthyness from years of image closures. --Slaunger (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

QI

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that I corrected the CA on this photo (QI candidate). Can you see if it's OK now or not? Thanks. --Coyau (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing feedback

Hi, you declined or made comments on some pictures due to problems that I fixed right away but I haven't got any feedback anymore:

• File:Edificio en Avenida dos Aliados, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 03.JPG
• File:Estación de tren São Bento, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 03.JPG
• File:Olympiastadion, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 07.JPG
• File:Iglesia de los Congregados, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG
• File:Torre de los Clérigos, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG

Could you have a look? Otherwise some of them will vanish today. Thanks and best regards, --Poco a poco (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at them now. I didn't know images marked as "Nomination" instead of "Decline" would be delisted. _→AzaToth 10:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You can read here that declines/promotions vanish after 2 days and here that those not assessed stay for 8 days.

Regarding the pictures:

• File:Edificio en Avenida dos Aliados, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 03.JPG. Yes, the building is twisted in the picture, but also in the reality!. Yes, I know, it is hard to believe but you can check other similar pictures from others (like this one or others in the category)
  • Oh I see; According to that image, I see that you image is straight. _→AzaToth 15:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• File:Estación de tren São Bento, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 03.JPG. I added information, what else can I do?
• File:Olympiastadion, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 07.JPG. Same here, I adjusted the crop because couldn't get rid of the CA, what do you think?
• File:Edificio en Avenida dos Aliados, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 03.JPG. I don't know how to further improve this picture. With the grid it looked fine, could you add a note?
• File:Torre de los Clérigos, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG. In this case I don't agree and I marked it for CR. I cannot see the stripes at 100% and hardly at 200%, and the overall quality is IMHO good enough for QI.

Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Complaint of reviews of QI images

Hi AzaToth. Were you aware of the fact that people are complaining about you on Commons talk:Quality images candidates#user: AzaToth? Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 13:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not ever review my uploads again. You are clearly both blind and incompetent. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reasons you need to use personal attacks? _→AzaToth 15:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

An image please

I am very clumsy because despite my research I can not find some images that you make. Your critical thinking is so sure what should be perfect. I am less enthusiastic about your communication skills. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are not clumsy; It's correct I've not uploaded any major images made by myself, due to the fact I don't own a camera that can take decent pictures (I'm still saving for one though). I wouldn't dare to upload sub-standard images. _→AzaToth 15:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, this story makes you more human and more sympahtique.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Shopping in the spotlight (Cairo).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shopping in the spotlight (Cairo).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)