User talk:Eusebius/Archives/2008

Image Tagging Image:Rosace_et_galerie_des_rois.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosace_et_galerie_des_rois.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Mønobi 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Saint-Honorat

Merci de m'avoir signalé l'erreur de localisation. M-le-mot-dit 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

De rien, merci pour la correction ! Eusebius 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amiens-pavement-swastika.jpg

File:Amiens-pavement-swastika.jpg

Hello!

You right! This isn't symbol of NSDAP. But is very very resemblance. In many coutries who use swastika otherwise than education perpetrate a crime! France, Poland, Germany... Crime! We must add {{nazi symbol}} in every site with swastika. A thousand GENERATIONS will pass and still this guilt of swastika will not have been erased. --Starscream (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, (I had written a very long argumentation, and then I understood, so I conclude briefly) I had not seen it was a kind of disclaimer, I took it for a simple categorization "nazi symbol", which would have been false, of course. I acknowledge your revert and copy that in the talk page of the image. Thanks. Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for intimater. Maybe {{nazi symbol}} isn't correctly appellation. But who use swastika, maybe involuntarily criminal! We must add template. Greetings from Poland! --Starscream (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Graylag geese (Anser anser) in flight 1700.jpg

Don't know where that geo info went, but it's now fixed. Would you mind re-visiting, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I expected to. --Eusebius (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Change of scope

Hello, I changed the scope for my VIC from Hallsberg to Hallsberg railstation and I also corrected the tilt in the image so maybe you want to reconsider your vote. /Thanks, Ainali (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't vote. But I'll think about it. --Eusebius (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Another change of scope!

Hi there, after a bit of a long discussion, I changed the scope here to "Bacterial microcompartments". Hopefully this won't cause you to change your mind! All the best TimVickers (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

VIC closures

Hi Eusebius,

Just wanted to pass by and say that I appreciate you helping in closing VICs. You are doing it well and correctly. It is nice for me that I do not necessarily have to be avaiable each and every day to do the closures.

I will not be available every single day either (some people around me say that I have a real job/life somewhere), but I'll be happy to help from time to time. --Eusebius (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. It is not healthy to be available every day as real life ought to be more important. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that ?#%&@ Commons:Valued image candidates/Chinon CP 9 AF BW 1.JPG I noticed your tweaks to try an make it go through. The VICbot should really be very robust to the contents of the review parameter, how the vote is summarized and all that. All it does (or should do) is look at the status parameter, and if that is any of the three values: promoted, declined, or undecided it should deal with it. It does not try to interprete the value of the review field. It merely passes it over, in for instance the VIC promoted notifications on users talk pages.

I have placed a note on the bot implementors page asking to address this single nom. Let us hope that works.

I didn't know anything about the VICbot parser, but it accepted the picture this time. Maybe because of my moving of the arrow from the second line to the first, maybe for some other reason. --Eusebius (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was unrelated to the editing, but was due to a change in the bot implementation. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers,

-- Slaunger (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See you soon, thanks for your message. --Eusebius (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

VI tag galleries

Hi again Eusebius,

I see you did some VI maintenance work here. I am a little bit puzzled by you update comment. For all these images were there no matching galleries, which could be tagged with {{VI-tiny}}? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have not understood what is to be done here. I thought the bot was to identify the galleries, so I was a bit surprised to see only image pages (not gallery pages) in the list. I was mistaken by the explanation here, which could be rephrased, maybe. I revert my update. --Eusebius (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

VIC Uluguru Panorama

Hi, I was wondering why closed my VIC nomination of the mountain ranges, since Slaunger had committed himself to voting when he got time. Don't you think it would be be better to let it run for a couple of days more? Regards Muhammad 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was uncomfortable with that. I chose to apply the deadline rules strictly. Maybe you should contact Slaunger about that, he's more or less in charge of the VIs, I will follow him on that one. The bot will run tomorrow at about noon UT, if the status is still "undecided" then, your nomination will be removed. If you change the status before and add a remark at the end of the review I will not revert you. --Eusebius (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been a little slow about that review. Sorry. Anyway; two comments: Although the review period has passed such that a review can be closed, it does not have to be closed. Especially, the unassessed or neutral ones I usually give a few more days. Having said that you have not done anything wrong in closing it. It also usually helps when unassessed nominations get to the top of the list in getting more attention. Secondly, when a nomination is closed as undecided it can be renominated at any time, so it not really a big deal. Since I like to not mess too much around with closed nominations, I think you should do the latter, Muhammad, and this time I promise to review it;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then, sorry about that! --Eusebius (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about. You have not done anything wrong. I have just been spoiled/priviledged by choosing my own review time, when I was doing closures myself. Time I get used to that I have some assistance now, which is an even better priviledge! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will re-nominate it. Sorry for any inconvenience caused Eusebius. Muhammad 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice improvement

[1] -- Slaunger (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! A nominator suggested that the section was not clear enough. --Eusebius (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Towboat

Having seen your comment: Is this image better fitting the scope? Image:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG. I liked the other because I feel it more visualising the "pushing force" of the towboat. Greetings, Havang(nl) (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I like your picture and composition. The second picture would meet the third criterion better, but is still less illustrative than some other pictures showing boat from the side rather than from behind.

I think than this kind of conversation should happen on the review page (a review is not, or should not be, personal at all). --Eusebius (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

OKE, thanks, Havang(nl) (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Ionic order.svg

Hi, I remember that I've used many images as a source to create the diagram, but I can't tell now which one. So, for now, we can write "own work" in source field. --F l a n k e r (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that. --Eusebius (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Plectorhinchus vittatus.JPG

Hi Eusebius, Just wanted to let you know that the image called Plectorhincus vittatus was misnamed. My fault. The image is actually of a Plectorhinchus polytaenia, but the image name remains in error. However, for the Valued Image nomination, I put it under the correct name. I'm not sure if that's what you moved it from. Cheers. Jnpet (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually I did not care about the name being correct or not, I was just correcting bugs and inconsistencies in the VI system, which is very sensitive to image names, nomination names... I suggest you wait the end of the review procedure before asking for a renaming of the page, otherwise it will be a mess in the review page :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side notice, there is actually never a reason to rename nomination subpages. Even if a nomination has been made with the Image: prefix in the subpage name it is easy to fix. After saving the initial nomination. the subpage parameter should simply be corrected to include the "Image:" prefix, and the "Image:" prefix should also be included in the {{VICs}} template in the candidates list. just think of the image subpage as a unique key, and if it is identical to the image name (excluding "Image:") life is just made easy for you. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I started renaming the subpage, before noticing that the subpage parameter had been modified. I'll check that first next time! I was also worried by the fact that changes in the subpage are not instantly reflected in the VIC page. --Eusebius (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the perioduc lack of immediate updates on the candidates list, that is caused by the job queue, which re-renders templates with changed parameters (and everything in VI is templated, which has its advantages). I recommend enabling the Live UTC clock under gadgets in your user preferences. that gives you a live UTC clock (handy for determining if a nom is due for closure) and if you click the link the page purges forcing an instant re-rendering of all templates on the candidates list. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! --Eusebius (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And see what I am working on: {{VI-closure-notice}}. This will come in handy for us, when the "old review periods" nominations are out of the list. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for that one :-) --Eusebius (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And now we have MediaWiki:VICValidate.js, which will help safeguard against Image: prefixes, and other odd actions done by nominators. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it going to prevent nominations from being inserted at the top of the list? :-P --Eusebius (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid not :-P -- Slaunger (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lakefolsom-pan.png

Thanks for creating a category for this image! I plan on doing another panorama of Folsom Lake once it's had a chance to fill up from the winter/spring rains so it should make for an interesting comparison. J.smith (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Preparation

We are starting the discussion on POTY 2008. Would you like to join? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't thank you for the invitation (sorry about that), but it seems obvious to me that I don't have the required expertise. Regards, Eusebius (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

VIC

Hi. Thanks for supporting my banana flowers image at VIC. I have slightly changed the scope. Could you please confirm your vote?

 Done --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MVR scores

Hi Eusebius,

I have noticed that when you close MVRs you do not sum up the MVR scores and compare them among the candidates, see Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules and Closing most valued reviews. For a recent example of how to do this see Commons:Valued image candidates/Norðragøta, Faroe Islands (2).JPG. I do not think your (formally) incorrect closures of MVRs has led to any different outcomes so far, but please use the MVR closure procedure in the future. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I hadn't that section in mind. I applied the correct MVR promotion rules, though, so there weren't any unduly promoted or declined VIC, I believe. --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no harm has been done. I just like that it can be seen explicitly in the closure summary that it was an MVR closure and which other candidates it was competing with including links. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On your side, you haven't always populated the archive pages for closed MVRs. Closing MVRs is quite a user-unfriendly process... --Eusebius (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, VICbot haven't. I will contact Dschwen. But I agree it is somewhat more tedious to do the closures for the MVRs. I may get so annoyed at it at some stage that I make a convenience MVR closure template, which can be subst'ed in when summarizing the results. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the closure page, the bot does not take care of that, but if it could, it would be nice. --Eusebius (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I thougt VICbot did that already. Hm... I think I will go back and add missing logs of MVRs. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Domaine des images de valeur

Bonjour,

Merci pour ta traduction de cette page (et des autres en rapport avec les VI) ! J'ai mis à jour hier la page Commons:Centre de coordination des traductions pour indiquer le travail restant à faire, si jamais quelque chose te tente... :-)

A+, le Korrigan →bla 09:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merci à toi pour les modifs sur les templates. Pour répondre à ta proposition, je suis plus investi sur le projet des VI que sur la traduction en général. Je ne pense pas participer à des traductions à l'extérieur du projet pour l'instant. Désolé ! --Eusebius (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pas de souci, c'est déjà très chouette ! le Korrigan →bla 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:The National Conference Center

Thanks, I didn't think it was notable enough for its own category, but I am going back there over the winter and will get more images to flesh out the category. MBisanz ^talk 15:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I just think that if it is worth a gallery, then it is worth a category. Debatable... --Eusebius (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened here?

You replaced two comments from other users with your own comment. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Happened twice this morning. Sorry about that, and thanks for noticing! --Eusebius (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Take another cup-o-coffea. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

VI closures in the next week+

Hi Eusebius,

I do not expect to be available until October 30 as i will be at sea. Will you be able to handle closures in the meantime?

Cheers,

-- Slaunger (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh, that will mean more Greenlandic stuff in the VI candidates :-P Well, I'll take three days of vacations too (and expect to come back with VICs as well), so I won't be able to do it every single day, but I'll do my best. Have a nice trip! --Eusebius (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not many flowers this time though as its heading towards -15 C (brr..) and snowing, and I am actually there for work, not leisure, so do not fear my friend;-) I may be able to be online form time to time, so probably we can help each other out. Can't wait for that replication lag to be fixed - hopefully this weekend. Have a nice vacation. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, see you. --Eusebius (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued image candidate

I changed the scope for this VI candidate. Would you reconsider your vote? Pbroks13 (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just having a look at it! --Eusebius (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Doppler

The diagrams showing the doppler effect are in fact interference diagrams. For your convenience, I added interwiki's to the inteference category. I am not going to waste my time trying to explain that the Doppler effect results in interference. I am professionally working in that domain since 20 years, but believe what you want to believe. --Foroa (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am ready to accept an explanation, if there is one. I'm not fighting over the idea, I accept that I may be wrong. I'm looking for explanation from colleagues at uni, but if you can explain in a few words... I will not revert you anymore. --Eusebius (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the use of interference between an initial wave and its reflection (modified by the Doppler effect) in Doppler radars or other devices measuring speed? --Eusebius (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some attempt for clarification in a hurry:

Image description states: "Waves emitted by a source moving from the right to the left. The frequency is higher on the left (ahead of the source) than on the right" and is correct. If the object is a race car, the person at the left will hear a higher frequency than a person at the right.

If the race car is not moving (speed = 0), the wave picture will contain symmetric concentric circles (basic frequency)

The differences in wavelengths on both sides of the picture = Doppler shift = differences between two speeds/frequencies

Definition en:Interference: "As most commonly used, the term interference usually refers to the interaction of waves which are correlated or coherent with each other, either because they come from the same source or because they have the same or nearly the same frequency".

Up to here, no pb. --Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, they have the same source and frequency but different propagation speeds.

I'd say same (moving) source, same frequency and same propagation speed. One may consider thathey may have different propagation speeds in the frame of the source, but it may get ugly when special relativity applies, which is the case for electromagnetic waves. --Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To call this a summing, differential, heterodyning, modulation or interference is a matter of interpretation indeed.

Again, I fail to see how the wave interfers with itself. (To me, ) The value (air pressure, electric field) in one point and one moment is not a sum, it is fully determined by the characteristics of the emission at one point and one moment, and the speed of the source has nothing to do with that. In the case of an interference, this value is the sum of several values determined by several of these sets of characteristics (for instance, the original emission and the image emission in the case of a simple reflection). --Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A radar measures the car distance by the time it takes the waves to cross the medium; it measures the car speed by measuring the phase shift (Doppler shift or interference) in respect of the reference frequency (--> two frequencies) --Foroa (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK with that of course, in that case we have an interference because there are two waves, two sources (the original and the reflected). But (to me) this interference is not intrinsic to the Doppler effect: one can have the interference and not the doppler effect (static vehicle detected by a radar) or the doppler effect and not the interference (no radar, moving source).

According to your remarks, I obviously fail to understand something here, but I'll not bother you more with that. I'll take some time with colleagues in physics to clarify that. --Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Buste de Cambronne

Bonsoir,
désolé je n'ai jamais émis d'avis sur cette image bien que ma signature apparaisse.
j'ai fait une recherche dans l'historique : c'est User:Fukutaro qui est intervenu mais sa signature n'a pas pris, simplement 4 tilde qui ont été validés un peu plus tard en prenant automatiquement mon nom quand j'ai rechargé la page entière. Je te laisse donc le contacter.
Cordialement. --B.navez (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Arf, problème de Javascript. Désolé et merci ! --Eusebius (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

VIC

I sent retouch. You can verify their vote? Thanks! Albertus teolog (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that, but my preference here is based on the point of view (the position) of the photographer. Sorry! But it is a close call, involving subjective evaluations (as often with VIs) and other reviewers may have other opinions. --Eusebius (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Armadillo

Thank you for reviewing my valued image proposal. I agree that the photo is not representative of the set of amateur rocketry images. I will re-submit it with a more appropriate scope. However, I disagree that Armadillo is a professional team. The members are all volunteers. They do sell trinkets, but this is to support their rocketry work and not the other way around. I think the image should be re-added to the amateur rocketry category. Wronkiew (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is ambiguous, since Armadillo is presented as an "aerospace startup company". Can a rocket built by an aerospace company be considered as a piece of amateur rocketry? I leave the choice to you for the categorization of the image, you probably know better. You may want to include your remarks in the VI review subpage. --Eusebius (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Lantana montevidensis.JPG

Thanks for your comments on this image. I have changed the scope of the nomination, and geocoded the image. Further comment would be appreciated. As for the image you gave as the closest competitor, I would say that the current nomination is superior in that it not only shows more of the flowers in question, but is sharper and does not have a distracting background. Thanks, Elucidate (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I will come back to the review subpage later, I don't have time right now. Please include your remarks and replies in the review subpage, this is where they will be useful! --Eusebius (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds

There is nowhere on commons that handles sounds - don't mention MOTD, because that project is completely broken, and is just on a permanent one-year repeat now. So why can't VI? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is, why do you want a sound to become a "valued image"? It would probably be much more valuable to build a project about sounds which would be similar to the VI or QI projects. I don't know anything about mounting a project, though. If you're motivated, you should ask Slaunger, who has proposed and created the VI project. --Eusebius (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

QI mishap

I think an alas would be appropriate here. I forgot to follow the procedure for a promoted nomination. My apologies. I'll fix it up straight away. Elucidate (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have undone my revision on the archive page and replace the candidates in their correct places on the candidate list page. Sorry.

Just a question: is the QI Bot working? Some of the older promoted nominations don't seem to have been listed as QIs. Elucidate (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see it is solved. To the best of my knowledge, the bot is working. Do you have an example of problem? --Eusebius (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The bot seemed to have not put through any of the older nominations: from the 28th October. Surely these should have been tagged and archived by the bot? Elucidate (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They were not 48h old at the last visit of the bot. If I'm right, they should be removed in less than two hours. The bot does more than simply removing the pictures, so it's better to let it do the job. --Eusebius (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. Elucidate (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

VI Opposition

Hi. Well, you've written the opposition for some images nominated by me in VI. I always take it in adequately; please be sure =) Our Wikimedia project is open project for interested people, so, we all aspire to make it perfect for common users. Each image that I've nominated is truly good for me, but it is not a reason to stop in quality improvement process. We must achieve maximum quality of the materials through wide discussion. Each work can be surpassed, and there are no limits for perfection. So, each promotion and each opposition in consensual review of my nominations just stimulates me to look more sharp!

OK, good to see everything's fine then. --Eusebius (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

More, I nave a favour to ask you, how the digital noise can be removed from photo while finishing? My camera produces high noise amount even if minimum ISO gradation set up. If you can, point me to a program that can make it possible to reduce the noise amount with enough easy setup process. --Twdragon (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have the same problem. Several solutions:

• Downsample the final picture: simple, but not always efficient (depends on the kind and amount of noise). Not appreciated for QIs.
• Limit the number of sampled pixels while taking your picture: my camera can take 7.1Mpix pictures, but appears to produce less noise if I set it up to take 5Mpix pictures! To be confirmed.
• Use a software like Noiseware (free for non-commercial use): very simple of use (you can just rely on the "default" button), quite efficient doesn't solve everything though. May leave compression artefacts on your pictures. Not the only noise removal software, but it's the one I use.
• Buy a new camera: expensive, and you have to be sure of the new model!

Hope this helps. --Eusebius (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: QI/recently promoted

Hi, I am surprised by your message, I thought we should move them manually, Just now I checked the diffs and I get it. Thanks for your notice.   ■ MMXX^talk  12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No pb. Just answered on your own talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Athens Roman forum

En el resumen de edición dije que no eran lo mismo, pero quería referirme a que no debe llamarse foro romano, sino ágora, ya que en la propia Atenas recibe este nombre. Estoy de acuerdo en que el ágora griega y la romana son diferentes. Parte de la romane está en el mismo recinto, aunque separada, de la griega. En la Wikipedia francesa han hecho dos artículos, fr:Agora romaine y fr:Agora d'Athènes, no sé si con mejor criterio que en la inglesa, en la que han aunado ambas en en:Ancient Agora of Athens y dedican una sección a la romana con el nombre de en:Ancient Agora of Athens#The Roman Forum of Athens. En la española está mal, desde luego. Así que consultaré en el es:Wikiproyecto Discusión:Antigua Grecia, si hacemos un solo artículo o dos. Gracias por tu mensaje, y disculpa que no te escribiera, ya que apenas sé inglés. Siéntete libre de revertir mi edición y dejar tu redirect. Aunque tampoco sé escribir en francés puedes escribirme porque sé leerlo mejor que el inglés. Dorieo (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) P.S.: Si no entiendes algo Guille te lo traducirá.

OK para "Roman agora", tienes razon. Modificaré las categorias. Estas de acuerdo para quedar "Greek agora" y "Roman agora" separadas, sin incluir la segunda en la primera, o todavia tenemos un problema? --Eusebius (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Estoy de acuerdo en separar "Greek agora" y "Roman agora". Me encargaré de que sea así en la Wikipedia española. Gracias por todo, Eusebius. Dorieo (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gracias a ti ! --Eusebius (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

French crown

Hi Eusebius. If I understand you have such reservations:

• king crown is the evil
• lack crown Dolphin
• change the name of the crown heir to the throne
• change the file format.

Weak know English, therefore, confirm whether a well-understood. Write also what I do. You can write in French.

Yes, to summarize:

• king's crown is to be remade;
• dolphin's crown is to be made;
• title "French Prince crown" is to be changed to "Duc crown" (or "duke crown");
• everything has to be made in SVG.

I have one problem: through Saturday, I will not have contact with the Internet.

No pb, I'll make the requests to a graphics lab. It will take time for them to produce the files, I guess. If we agree on that you have nothing more to do.

You are very sympathetic and I like you. I read my daughters Le Petit Nicolas There is also a Eusebius. Albertus teolog (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In Goscinny's Le Petit Nicolas? Really? I didn't know that! --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ech... :-) I checked. Only in the Polish translation :-) The original is Eudes. Albertus teolog (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok :-) --Eusebius (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope updated

I hope that i explained it better now. It is the only image on commons that can be used to illustrate the term ecchi. --Niabot (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess the scope should be Ecchi. I will modify it accordingly. Have you read the page about VI scopes? --Eusebius (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I read it, but after i read it i still didn't know what to do. But i think i understand it now. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading current and past reviews can get you acquainted with the rules and usages at VI! --Eusebius (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Gothic cathedrals

Hello, as a Gothic enthusiastic, I would like to say that I like your pictures of Gothic cathedrals. I wonder when you will travel to Chartres and Reims to photograph the maginificents Gothic cathedrals there. In Chartres there is a need for picture of flying buttresses of the nave, flying buttresses of the choir (they are different), the interior and the rose windows. In Reims there is a need for a good aeral photo of the cathedral. Cheers, MathKnight 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I have no travelling plans about either Chartres or Reims for the moment, but if I go there, I'll try to take your pictures. I have no helicopter though, so I won't be able to make aerial photographs :-) If you need specific pictures, maybe you could ask for them here? PS: I hope you don't support my QI candidates only because they're about gothic architecture ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I did as you suggested. As for QI - I don't support automatically a pic just because it is Gothic, though I'm found of Gothic pictures. Keep the good work. MathKnight 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope change

I've changed the scope per your fine suggestion: Commons:Valued image candidates/Bald Eagle, Kodiak, Alaska Ret.jpg — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. --Eusebius (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Added geoloc, but i know it's a lost cause. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK! --Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since mine is going to fail, can I nominate that one you linked to? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you're free to nominate any picture that you think will pass the criteria. --Eusebius (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that caption of the other one get fixed "unidentified Accipitridae species"? Accipitridae is the family Bald Eagles are in, above species. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. --Eusebius (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've submitted 2 new VICs on bald eagles, one for perched and one for in flight. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that. I'm still not sure about the multiplicity of the scopes, but it is a recurrent and subjective issue, I'm sure other reviewers will have opinions about it. --Eusebius (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Added geotag. Pls adjust your stmt. As for the scopes this issue needs settled. Naturally, I think it's fine, think of them as a set, kind of. If reviewers only want one, I think the one of it landing is the better one. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The scope issue is quite difficult for animal species. There's the same problem in several species (see the currently nominated bees). I think we really need to build a precise policy about that, but personal opinions about multiple scopes are still a bit "fuzzy". --Eusebius (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just a note that I have altered the proposed scope of Commons:Valued image candidates/Open pit mine.jpg. MBisanz ^talk 14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. --Eusebius (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

VI nomination: Statue-Augustus.jpg

Hi Eusebius! I have added a geotag to the image ([2]). Please reconsider / change status. Thx - Till (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Eusebius (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Aliasing - technical vocabulary

Hi, the problem was about aliasing but that's not the word I was looking for... How do you name the process of isolating a subject from its background by cutting the picture along the edges? Thanks in advance, --Eusebius (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I think that the term for movies is rotoscoping, and for still pictures it is stripping, if I am not mistaken. However, I am not an expert on these subjects, so take this with a large grain of salt.--PieCam (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of my technical english! :-) --Eusebius (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Crowns

Hi! You did a great job. I like it. Congratulations. We can still wait. The author images are not sounds. My name is Krzysztof (Christophe) :-) I like image Cambronne. There is a verse of very famous, written by Broniewski in 1939 (Bagnet na broń - Bayonets in the arms(?)). It is in him: said Cambronne what we say, over the Vistula River. Sarkozy when he was in the Polish parliament has noted that Poland is the only country in Europe, with France not going to war. In addition to this, Napoleon is in the Polish national anthem. But all these things on the margin:) Cheers. Albertus teolog (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's wait for the last crowns (I haven't done much...). Thanks for your comments (and for the review)! --Eusebius (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Valued image scope

There seems to be some disagreement on VI scope. Bald Eagle in flight was opposed one due to too narrow of a scope but yet there is the scope "Graphosoma lineatum (mating)" as well as "[[Anthidium florentinum] (mating)". Can you explain this discrepancy? One species can have a scope on a certain activity and yet another can't (my nom). While we're on VI images, since Bald Eagles can seemingly only have one scope, which of these is the best VI candidate: Image:Eagle on roots - crop 3 (430008061).jpg or Image:Haliaeetus leucocephalus2.jpg? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your question is justified, and non-trivial. I move it on the talk page of the VI project, where you'll be able to see that it's closely related to the discussion I've just launched there. --Eusebius (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and about the pictures, I think it would be difficult to choose between them. Have a look at the Most Valued Review procedure, if you haven't already. --Eusebius (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing the merit to my question and helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Request about quality image nomination Image:WikiCladdagh.jpg

Hello. Could you please look once again at Image:WikiCladdagh.jpg, which was nominated at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list#November 26, 2008 and declined by you. Lvova has uploaded a new version, which is a bit cleaned and remastered, so i want you to re-review this picture. Thanks in advance, --Rave (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see it has been softened, but the original picture is very unsharp and pixellated, no post-processing can make it pass the QI requirements, I'm afraid. --Eusebius (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. --Rave (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

VI undecided

I'll be back ;-)). Sad isn't it? But I agree you can't wait forever... Lycaon (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, feel free to renominate, but I guess other nominations have the right to be on top some day as well! :-) --Eusebius (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Challenger II Basra 2008.jpg

New scope is "Firing tank"
--D-Kuru (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK! --Eusebius (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

About Eiffel Tower

I am consterned of the french image policy ! But what you think about that picture ?

(I stick to English, since you seem to like it :-P) Yeah, I know... You can shoot the Eiffel tower by day, but not by night! Unless it's not the main subject of the picture. The same applies for recent buildings and works of art (until 70y after their creator's death, unless of course you get an OTRS authorization). Actually, the illuminations of the Eiffel tower have probably been protected by the hired society under the Dessins et modèles status. I'm not a specialist, but the Eiffel tower has been taken as an example for copyright violations on several Wikimedia projects. About your pictures: they're nice and they look good at screen size, but when you look at full size (and QI reviewers will surely do that), you can see quite a lot of noise (and they wouldn't pass the QI guidelines, I'm afraid). This one shows motion blur, whereas the one you nominated has a lot of post-processing artefacts. --Eusebius (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget to sign your messages :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I suppose that you have understood that I am the author of the "other Effeil Tower by night" you are coming to delete ! Siren-Com (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not delete anything, I'm not an admin. But I've tagged some of the pictures (with copyvio of FoP-France, or both, I cannot remember). They will be deleted if an admin judges that they should be (which is likely to be the case, given the subject). Actually, when they make this kind of decision, it is in order to prevent the wikimedia foundation from being sued, they protect the project. My opinion is, this part of French law is silly and we should get rid of it (or, on the contrary, include a FoP in the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle), and I don't spend my time tagging copyvios. I tag them when I see QI or VI candidates, usually. --Eusebius (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Typos

Merci de t'être tapé la relecture et la correction de toutes ces sous-pages, c'est courageux de ta part. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ne te méprends pas, je ne les ai pas relues attentivement, je les ai lues parce qu'elles m'intéressaient et j'ai relevé quelques typos, mais je ne garantis pas ce qui reste ! :-) Bonne continuation --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

VI closure, vote summary template

Hi Eusebius,

Noticed this on my watchlist. i think it is a good aidea to start using such a convenience vote summary template. One detail: I would recommend that the vote template is subst'ed in. That makes the template less attractive to vandalize, and I sort of like that votes and how they are presented cannot change...

Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked myself about that... But adding characters somewhat nullifies the interest of having a template for a short text like that (I've done it only because I'm lazy. I wish I could finish my PhD dissertation using a big template). Actually, it's a copy-paste from {{QICtotal}} and this one is used as is and hasn't been vandalized so far, in spite of the QI project being probably more popular. Yet, if you think there's a real risk I will change my practice (for now I've only put a subst in the guidelines). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, not a big deal, just a matter of principles from my part, and I do see your point about the verbosity of the subst'ed template. It was mostly in case you had not thought about it yourself.

And good luck with your dessertation! Almost a decade ago when I wrote my dissertation (omg, I appear so old when writing this), I recall that as being a pain as well - so was the delay of three months of me submitting it, and the lack of finances in that period... I vaguely recall that last marathon of writing the last sections, where I after 36 hours of constant writing took the lift to the seventh floor of my university (it was in the middle of the night), stood on the balcony to breathe some fresh air, let my eyes wander over the cityline and had a sudden temptation to just jump out in that fraction of a second! Then I got scared of myself, went down, wrote the last section, and slept for a long time... I have avoided such tour de force actions ever since. I hope you will not be pushed into those extremes . -- Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm way too lazy to spend 36 hours just working! But I'll be glad when it's over, this thesis is not good for my health. Fortunately, spending my time on Commons prevents me from working too much (and submitting on time, maybe). --Eusebius (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah!

I was about to do this myself :-). Lycaon (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested by Foroa, actually... Conference reviewers usually rate my English as "dreadful" :-) --Eusebius (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

QIC

Hi Eusebius, Can you resign after declining/promoting in QIC? Otherwise the date/time looks a bit out of place. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will then. Actually I was afraid that QICbot would take the QICtotal signature into account in the 48h delay, so I was not sure I was to re-sign. --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Félicitations, cher administrateur !

Offert au nouvel administrateur par ses confrères...

Félicitations Eusebius/Archives ! Tu es maintenant pourvu des droits d'administrateur sur le site. Avant de te lancer dans les effacements de page, protections de page, blocages de compte ou modifications de pages protégées, il n'est pas inutile de relire attentivement la page Commons:Administrateurs et de placer dans ta liste de suivi les pages s'y rapportant (notamment Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, Commons:Demandes de suppression). La plupart des actions d'administrateurs sont réversibles par les autres sysops, à l'exception des fusions d'historiques qui doivent donc être traitées avec précaution.

Il est possible de discuter directement avec d'autres admins sur IRC : #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. La lecture de Commons:Guide to adminship peut s'avérer enrichissante.

Merci de vérifier ou d'ajouter ton nom à la liste des administrateurs et les autres listes, par langue et par date, qui y sont mentionnées.

→Diti the penguin — 15:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Félicitations et merci pour ton mot de remerciement sur ma page utilisateur ! →Diti the penguin — 15:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merci / De rien / Joyeux Noël ! --Eusebius (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

re:Thanks for the Christmas review!

Hi, Eusebius. I think that you will be a very good administrator:) Merry Christmas. Pudelek (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your successful adminship. Merry Christmas to you to and happy holidays. Muhammad 17:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all! Phew, I think I'm not gonna thank anybody anymore until next Christmas... :-) --Eusebius (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, what a lovely gift for you to have at this time! :) Cirt (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although it sounds a little bit ironical... :-) --Eusebius (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Scott McCloud.Making Comics Tour.RISD.gk.JPG's valued-image candidacy.

File:Scott McCloud.Making Comics Tour.RISD.gk.JPG was geotagged on 2008-12-16, but I didn't make a note of that on the nomination page at the time. I was away traveling, and didn't notice the nomination being closed in the meantime. Can you reopen it, now that the outstanding issue has been fixed? I'm unsure as to exactly how the process works. grendel|khan 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not watching the picture, so I didn't see it was geotagged. I should have checked, probably. I have renominated the picture. If you need to do so in the future, the corresponding directions are here. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)