User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2010/7

File:BeachLaunch 7844.jpg

File:BeachLaunch 7844.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Sorry, but no FOP for that in the US. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2010 (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:
Hemigrapsus nudus (Purple Shore Crab).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2010 (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:
Arbutus menziesii (Pacific Madrone).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met, well illustrative -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

VIC scope changed

Hi Walter!
Look, please, Commons:Valued image candidates/Juglans regia 2009 G2.jpg
With best regards, George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hornet

I am very pleased with your response reassured me. I realize that much of the problem rests on lack of communication that is my fault because I do not speak English. I'll include them directly in the legend next photographs, technical parameters and the link to the article that explains the focus stracking. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I admire your work, both photography and in Otology (I use hearing aids). I have traveled in France and struggled with trying to communicate in French. I appreciate the difficulty of communicating in a second language. It is good to describe the changes made to an image since it can help the reader understand it better, I think. Do you use Photoshop for focus stacking? I haven't used that program for that purpose. I've used Helicon Focus with good results, e.g., File:Trientalis latifolia 4976f.JPG. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I use "Combine ZM" as software and Photoshop. Yesterday I bought a "plateau micrometer" [1] which should allow even more important definitions. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2010 (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:
Buteo lagopus (Rough-legged Hawk).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support The crop is a bit unfortunate (too little space in front of the bird), but as a VI candidate, it fulfils all criteria. Lycaon (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I uploaded a new crop of the image with more space in front of the bird. Thank you for the comment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment It was a good VI already, but now it's even better. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Question Just to learn: do you deem it more illustrative than File:Buteo lagopus rock.jpg, where one can see the talons of the bird, and why if it is so (except geotag)? --Myrabella (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess so as more characteristic/identifying pars are visible. The talons are nice but are not use to differentiate from sibling species. Lycaon (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment While acknowledging possible bias, I would add that I think File:Buteo lagopus rock.jpg fails criteria 3 (Must illustrate its subject well). It is over-exposed with >10% of pixels around the eye and bill with a value of 255 in all three channels. That causes detail to be lost in that area and other over-exposed areas including the feet. The color balance needs to be corrected. The white feathers, e.g., those shadowed at the base of the right leg, are reddish. The colors seem oversaturated to me, also. The small feet are a distinguishing feature of the species, but are difficult to observe in the field. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Russia edcp location map.svg

"No new arguments"? See Talk page. Andrey Isakov (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded on the file talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)