User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2008/10

Ever thought of reviewing at COM:VIC

Hello, yes I did and have just done my second review of a car picture ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

VIC

Hey Slaunger, A few concerns I have which I hope you can fix.

• Mikumi Panorama. Alvesgaspar kindly performed an edit of the image which darkens the colours. Previously, I thought it was an improvement of the colours, but after Dschwen's comments about the colours, I compared the two images well and belive the original to have true colours. I have mentioned this at VIC but I am afraid nobody has noticed. If we are after the EV then I believe the orignal should be supported.

  OK, I am trying to unravel this, but it is extremely confusing with all those edits around. Do us all a favour and use the other versions field in the image page to link to the other edits summarizing the differences. See this for a similarly confusing plethora of edits wher the other version field help out. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  And please use the {{Retouched}} template on the edits. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

   Done I see your point and I have stated my opinion in the review. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Uluguru Panorama I have nominated the image as I had said I would. Can you please review it?
  •  Done This time I managed to do it before it was closed. You should reuse the old nomination when renominating as explained in the guidelines. I have done the necessary adjustments. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Regards Muhammad 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, something else has com eup and once again I request your assistance. Another user Mfield, has worked on and produced an edited version of the picture of Ammar Nakhsawani on a mimbar. The edit IMO and in his opinion, is better than the current valuable image. Is there any way to replace the valuable image title? Muhammad 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I know Mfield. He vastly improved an FPC for me one ;-) Very talented photographer and image editor. Anyway, I suppo the edit has another file name. To do this by the book you nominate the new, edited image alongside with the existing VI in an most valued review. If the review end up in the edit having a larger positive MVR score than the original, the original is VI demoted to "Former-VI" and the edit gets the VI designation. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take care of it. Muhammad 11:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the two images at VIC. Should the promotion tag be removed? Muhammad

Yeah, it is just like a renomination. See the edit history for details. It is fixed now. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued Images

I will continue translating other pages related to VI. I think this is a great idea. Bye! ;) Jorge Barrios (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll start nominating more pictures, just give us some time :D Greetings! Jorge Barrios (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I just translated Commons:Valued image criteria and I made a mistake here and here. I tried to add Spanish, but something went wrong. Please help me :/ Jorge Barrios (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pheww, looks a bit complicated. I think I almost have got it. I think I can fix it tomorrow-- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Slaunger (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Could you help with a translation of this, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to the best of my knowledge and aksed the user to post again in English to you for a more thorough (and possibly formally correct) answer. Basically i have told the user that exterior shots of buildings in Denmark is OK, but arts of work, like sculptures are not OK, if the artist is still alive or dies less than 70 years ago. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising the bar

Hi Kim,

You might want take a look at this discussion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Insult added to injury

Foroa has suggested that I need to determine what the "Plants of" categories were about. This is so rude as it is the reason that I made a tree of categories which had a fairly intuitive system which could also be cross-checked with offsite sources -- and I could rarely find verification for any of the categorization within the "Plants of" categories. Restated, it has been suggested that I find the definition of the "Plants of" categories which is the reason I started to make a different tree -- and worked very hard on that also.

I have asked Lycaon what the "Plants of" categories were. I got some of my own words back. That is all I know from the ToL people who were maintaining them, that and the inconsistency as you know of such as between Plants of Greenland and for instance, what used to be Plants of the Canary Islands. The inconsistencies were greater than that, as when I looked online at the native status of the plants that were in Plants of the Canary Islands, often, they were native to other locations also but were not subcatted into those other locations.

I never assumed to understand what they were; I respectfully left them intact as some of them were very enthusiastically maintained. Where was my mistake? -- carol (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sick and tired" is an interesting way to express that. I am busy with the taxonomy stuff so as my efforts to make the "Flora of" categories consistent again, I am complaining to the user instance which undoes my attempts. Perhaps it is best to tell Foroa that you are sick and tired of seeing me complain when my attempts to make the tree consistent again are undone.

I am personally "sick and tired" although I am not sick and I am not tired, I am more like frustrated with an unthought out, undecided merge being maintained by anyone claiming to not have wanted the merge. In this case, it is Foroa. I complain whenever my changes are reverted. It is not a edit war it is instead a "Please stop maintaining that merge you claim you did not want" discussion.

They are using a bot which doesn't respect the {{Nobots}} tag now, which is not the bot that Rocket000 wrote. For not wanting the merge please be sick and tired of Foroa maintaining the undoing of this merge so aggressively. Put your ills where they belong and not with me, thank you. -- carol (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Sacramento Skyline (cropped).jpg

I've switched the scope on this VI candidate based on feedback received. Can you take another look and reconfirm your vote? J.smith (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For this and that ;-). And have a nice cruise. Lycaon (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hans! Seems like a log-scale version could be handy for your massive contributions - or a very, very wide screen. Greeting from a ship in gale somewhere between Nuuk and Paamiut. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)