User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2009/2

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:
Mount Triumph, North Cascades National Park.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Mount Triumph is a significant peak in North Cascades National Park well-known among regional climbers for its lack of "easy" (non-technical) routes to the summit.[1][2] The lighting in this photograph is better than that in the other photograph of this mountain, File:Mount_Triumph_25945.JPG. Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I would simply make the scope "Mount Triumph, North Cascades National Park". I think it is enough to state here that it is a major peak of the site. I'd support once we agree on a scope. --Eusebius (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I should have caught that. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Looks ok to me, criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

species synonym template?

I liked your synonym list for Category:Packera paupercula‎. I am thinking that a template might be useful for this kind of thing here. Would you be interested in that and a user of it if it were to be created and become available for this? -- carol (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. BTW, I used {{Senecioneae}} when I created Category:Oreostemma recently. Thank you for that template. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Krummholz

Hi Walter - nice idea! I re-catted it to Cat:Trees and Cat:Shrubs, as it can apply to any woody plants affected by alpine exposure, not just conifers. - MPF (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied from the enwiki article so it may have the same problem. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Erik Baas

Unfortunately, due to the consistent evidence of his actions over several months, I have little realistic alternative other than to conclude that User:Erik_Baas does things for the purpose of deliberately creating antagonism, or with the goal of doing things in the one particular way which will stir up the maximum possible amount of controversy. In particular, the fact that I had already previously told him many, many times very specifically NOT to overwrite the originals of other people's images with versions which can be considered lower-quality, means that when his alleged "grand compromise solution" turned out to involve overwriting the originals of other people's images with versions which can be considered lower-quality, I found it rather difficult to not to attribute some form of conscious trolling motivation to his actions. I was reasonably patient for a long time with User:Erik_Baas, but now my patience with extremist anti-border fundamentalism which rides roughshod over all considerations of common sense and simple courtesy in respecting the quality of other people's images is finally completely exhausted. AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't see your message of "04:29, 16 February 2009" on User_talk:Erik_Baas until just now (and it was placed in a position where I would not be likely to see it quickly...). AnonMoos (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I will not tolerate unsubstantiated allegations of misbehavior on my talk page. If another editor has breached Commons policies and/or guidelines, put together a statement with supporting diffs, and post on COM:AN or its appropriate subpage. However, it may be more likely that it is your extreme interpretation of guidelines and policies along with disregard of clear Commons policies and guidance on civility, edit warring, and agf that is the root of this conflict.[3] Settle your differences, avoid Eric Baas, and/or work with others to change the wording of Commons:Media_for_cleanup#Pictures_that_need_to_be_retouched.2C_trimmed_and_scaled to require the use of lossless cropping. As it stands (and it has been stable for months), it does not.

I agree that my comment on Erik Baas page could have been more prominent, but it should not have been necessary.[4] You may use "watch" to avoid missing relevant posts. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not require lossless cropping, and I never said that it did; however, the wording strongly suggests that the desire to preserve image quality is a factor that should be taken into account and weighed against other priorities. Erik Baas's blind refusal to even consider this factor in any way, or to take into into account at all, is the real root of the conflict here, and my alleged incivility violations did not take place until after two months of being provoked by his unconstructive and obstructive behavior. Can you suggest a motive why, after two months of my telling him very specifically not to overwrite the originals, he then deliberately went out of his way to overwrite the originals as part of his alleged "solution"? If there was any motivation other than a desire to create needless drama and stir up maximum controversy, then Erik Baas has certainly not been able to articulate any real reasonable explanation as to what it is. Erik Baas claims to hate "wasting time", but creating drama is incompatible with not wasting time.

Erik Baas's overwriting of the originals — when I repeatedly (over a period of two months) strongly requested that he not overwrite the originals — did not necessarily violate any explicit Wikimedia Commons user policy that I'm aware of, but right now I have little reason to believe that it was anything other than a spiteful gesture of contempt aimed in my direction. If Erik Baas has any other explanation to offer, let's hear it. AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that I would have uploaded my preferred version under a new name and cross-linked using the other-versions field. Why take it personally? If he were trolling, as you allege, you are reinforcing that behavior by responding to it. If he is not, you are wasting your time and making an potential enemy. Please read COM:MELLOW. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

An image you created has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Agelaius phoeniceus (Red-winged Blackbird).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Question Looks ok, but is the Nearctic cat really relevant? --Eusebius (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not really sure. There are very few organisms in this scope, maybe they should go in category:Fauna of the Nearctic or the bird should be in all (or most) of its subcats? To me it looks relevant, but it is not consistent with other categorizations. Lycaon (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support (criteria ok) I removed the category because if the categorization is relevant, it should be put on the species category, not on the individual species. It seems to me that Nearctic is too vast a region for us (us = "not me") to categorize directly in it the millions of species that would fit. I guess Category:Fauna of the Nearctic should be a kind of root category for other "fauna of" cats, mostly empty of files or individual species. If you have a more precise idea about geographical categorization, I leave it to you (well, if you know what to do, you can always ask for help anyway). --Eusebius (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)