User talk:Grand-Duc/Archiv/2011/July

Vertikales Stitching

Hi Grand-Duc,

wenn Du mal Zeit und Lust hast kannst Du dich gerne an einem Stitching von drei Einzelbildern versuchen, die zu einem vertikalen Pano zusammengefügt werden sollen. Ich erhalte am Schaft leider immer wieder (wenn auch nur leichte) Verwerfungen. Vielleicht kriegst Du das mit Hugin sauber hin [1]. Danke vorab und Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Georg Büchner, IMO 5068863.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

best in scope --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Neutral I suggest a scope change to the class of ships as originally there were several of this 'Kongoboot' (or 'Alberville') type ships. W.S. 08:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  Feel free to make a new VI nomination with the class as scope, but I won't change the scope here because I can't assess possible differences between the Georg Büchner (ex-Charlesville) and other Albertville class ships. Regrads, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorte de sécurité par obscurité

En fait je suis heureux du résultat (le Wiktionnaire est vraiment plus important pour moi que Commons). De là à dire que j'ai fait exprès de torpiller cette candidature... en fait c'est probable, même si ce n'est pas volontaire .

--Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Verwendung Bild Teichfrosch

Guten Tag Gran-Duc Ich arbeite für das Naturzentrum Thurauen in der Schweiz. Gerne würden wir das Foto „Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG“ für unsern Erlebnispfad verwenden. Ziel des Erlebnispfads ist es, den Besuchern einen lebendigen Eindruck eines Auenwalds zu geben. An einer Station kann man verschiedenen Arten in einem kleinen Weiher beobachten. Als Input werden kleine Tafeln mit Bildern der zu erwartenden Arten aufgestellt. Dafür würden wir gerne das genannte Foto verwenden. Wären Sie einverstanden? Hätten Sie das Foto auch in grösserer Auflösung? Wen sollen wir als Fotografen angeben? Wir sind Ihnen sehr dankbar für die Unterstützung unserer Arbeit. Gerne erwarte ich Ihre Antwort (hier im Forum).

Freundliche Grüsse A. Brütsch

Sehr geehrter Herr Brütsch, ich freue mich, dass Sie einen Nutzen für das Bild haben, denn selbstverständlich dürfen Sie es benutzen. Leider gibt es keine größere Auflösung als 2.592 × 1.944 Pixel, das entspricht der nativen Auflösung meiner Kamera. Als Urhebernennung wünsche ich mir die Angabe meines Namens und der Lizenz, also "Helge Busch-Paulick, Lizenz CC-By 3.0". Falls Sie es vom Platz her einrichten können, wäre ein Verweis auf Wikipedia und meinen hiesigen Benutzernamen "Grand-Duc" schön (also in etwa so: "Helge Busch-Paulick (bei Wikipedia: Grand-Duc), Lizenz CC-By 3.0"). Die erstgenannte Kurzform ist für mich aber völlig ausreichend. Danke für die Anfrage! Freundliche Grüsse, Helge Busch-Paulick alias Grand-Duc (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you re-name the Timema image from T. cristinae to T. californicum?

If you look at the images of both species posted by C. Sandoval here, that photograph (File:Timema californicum (Santa Lucia Range, California).jpg) looks more like T. cristinae than T. californicum. Sharktopus^talk 10:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not in any way an entomologist specialised in North American entomological fauna and I processed a rename request made by the uploader. Per COM:FR 1, that's always a valid reason, additionally, the rationale given was good, so I assumed good faith. My apologies if that was a mistake. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I am sure the uploader is the best authority for the location where that photo was taken. I am just concerned that the uploader may not be an entomologist any more than you are or I am. Here is a large image of male and female T. californicum: http://phasmida.speciesfile.org/Common/basic/ShowImage.aspx?TaxonNameID=1004463&ImageID=2115. They do not look like the image we are now claiming is T. californicum. Here is the research webpage of somebody who has written many papers about T. cristinae, with a bunch of photos at the bottom of the page: http://ebio.colorado.edu/labs/nosil/timema/ . Those pictures look more like our photo, although I'd really like an entomologist to identify the species in our image before we do. Until then, could you please rename the photo "Timema stick insect (Santa Lucia Range, California).jpg Sharktopus^talk 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are some quite knowledgeable folks on DE-WP at the biology desk, so I asked for identification there. I guess that we'll have some definite answers in a few days. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Any response yet to your enquiry? Sharktopus^talk 03:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

Could you please be more careful?

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rana Nakul Sinh Doad.jpg you characterized the use of that image as vandalism. Your nomination offered the wrong diff. When the correct diff is examined I think it is crystal clear that the inclusion of the image was part of a very large and substantive edit that was definitely not vandalism.

I will not urge you to apologize to the uploader for unfairly characterizing their efforts as vandalism, as, in my experience, apologies that are not spontaneous generally don't seem sincere, and the person who makes apologies under pressure resents doing so for a long time, and can even be waiting for an opportunity to get even.

I will strongly encourage you to be more careful, not to bite newbies, and to be make sure you don't characterize good faith efforts as vandalism. Geo Swan (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I agree, the wording was not the best, the next time and in a comparable situation, I'll use a phrasing like "not so useful/sensible contribution". As far as I recall it, when I was filling in the deletion form, I did not include the EN-WP link in the first place, only then when I saw the media inclusion in said article. BTW, it's not a truly wrong diff-link. Admittedly, it does not show the inclusion of the file, but it is the last one where it stood on the EN page. The next contribution is the revert of Nakulrana87's edits - I guess that I wanted to take a link to an old version but took the sub-optimal diff instead... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

question

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birth of alpaca.jpg you told participants User:Toilet was coming off of a 3 month block. Why did you do that? After a block aren't contributors supposed have a clean slate? In general, in deletion discussions shouldn't the discussion focus solely on concerns over the image(s) in question? Aren't concerns over other images uploaded by the same uploader generally off-topic?

I remembered, after your reminder, that User:Toilet had uploaded many crudely drawn out of scope images of people sitting on toilets. If he or she was prepared to return after such a long block, and make a good faith attempt to upload brand new images that didn't have the problems that triggered the block, that should be welcomed.

You are free to subject the images that marked his or her return to extra scrutiny. But, I think you should know, the comment you put in the deletion nomination looked like you were picking on them. While you are free to subject the images that marked his or her return to extra scrutiny I think it was a mistake for you to say so, unless he or she had returned to uploading very problematic images. Geo Swan (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, most of my DR have a rationale that is worded putting some effort for using a neutral language. But Toilet has somewhat exhausted my supply of AGF (this is a pictorial representation common on DE-WP). This man (there is a MySpace profile that could be linked to the Commons contributor: some identical toilet drawings, save their deletion, could be found here and there; additionally, he has provided what seems to be his real name in some EXIF data and file descriptions) has apparently a habit or feels the vocation of teaching the world some things. Among others, there is a video on his MySpace profile where he talks about the properly fashion of wiping the butt clean for women, another clip seems to be intended as teaching on how to cast a flyfishing rod. He also has photo albums where he writes about his POV on third world sanitaries. On other pictures found on this MySpace account, it is discernible that several walls of rooms serving as photo background are plastered with said "crude drawings", so, I hope that you may understand that I am not convinced at all that this user wants to contribute here in a good faith - I am more inclined to think that people like him are better of in psychological care than entangled in internet sites providing hosting place for user created content, for their and our sake. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have ideas about appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. I find your health-care advice for <Toilet> highly inappropriate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not use his given name, I prefer to refer to this user by his screen name, that's why I modified your comment above. And I did not give him the advice to actually go for health care, but I am thinking that it could be helpful to do it. I am surely a bit oversensitive, but a lot of aspects in T.'s behaviour remind me other people where the story ended sadly with murderers, sexual assaults, shout-outs or other bodily injuries (I do not know what e.g. Armin Meiwes would have shown in these times of the Social Networking Internet 2.0). He seems (or at least seemed) to tend something that I want to call "fetish" (backside views of women, defecation and fighting woman), he never depicts women with a front view, taking always side or backside views (I know one exception on Commons: a depiction of a local female politician), he is concerned in some kind with likely physically handicapped people, he has some obsession in teaching. This combination is weird - so I hope that my huge scepticism about his person is somewhat understandable. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons, and the various wikipedias, are not intended to serve as occupational therapy. If the needs of contributors who cannot claim 100 percent mental health interfere with the project, the needs of the project should come first. We would need to use mentoring, topic blocks, participation blocks, etc to eliminate those negative effects. But, I suggest, discussing other contributors possible mental health issues is a mistake, when it is not actively degrading the project.

Now, if a contributor, who has previously been blocked, because they persistently uploaded out of scope images, possibly due to less than perfect mental health, returns to the project, and starts uploading compliant images, that genuinely contribute to the project, that is a good thing. That is how blocks are supposed to work.Now, the uploading of those compliant images may be serving as occupational therapy, may be helping our theoretical contributor. That help is not the goal of the project. But the compliant images now being uploaded are worth encouraging.

I had very limited contact with the toilet images. I am strongly inclined to continue to give a second chance to this contributor, given that he served his 3 month block, and the images uploaded so far have all been compliant.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you do not remove the association with criminals, I will report this to the admin board. This is really beyond the pale. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Pieter, I took the liberty of placing your comment above so I can respond to the "crime" portion of it, in sequence, and readers can understand who is responding to which comments.
• Grand-Duc, I think Pieter intended the comment preceding this one to be a response to your comment about mental health and murders. I am not sure about that, and I would appreciate clarification as to what comment(s) concerned them. If I got that wrong I don't think policy authorizes me to remove comments I left on your talk page. If Pieter clarifies his concern applies to my comments, would you please excise my comment?
• WRT mental health and serious crimes, Grand-Duc, I believe that very few individuals with mental health issues "go postal" or otherwise commit serious crimes. Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no link between "anal" and "postal". My comment was about Grand-Duc's utterances. He must retract. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)