User talk:Pbrks/Archives/2008

TUSC token 380f1456c520707549f5bb47f9ee7849

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Thank you....

... for your SVG upgrade to my bodyshapes.jpg graphic. 67.190.164.113 06:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flag of the CPLP.svg

You've uploaded a derivative work

We're sorry, but Image:Flag of the CPLP.svg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Photographs of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this photo must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a derivative work, please explain why on the image description page.

The original (the flag) is copyrighted. I'll upload the image to en.wiki under the same name and with a fair use rationale. /Lokal_Profil 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Mouse mechanism diagram.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mouse mechanism diagram.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Benh (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you must demote and retouch images, please have the courtesy to notify the creator. Jeremykemp (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to withdraw

You don't need to withdraw your VI candidate. It's OK like this. --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Grand Prix of Cleveland.svg

Image deletion warning

Image:Grand Prix of Cleveland.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 10:35, 28 October 2008 (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:
Punnett square.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Nice. --Foroa (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  OpposeVote changed due to improved categorization. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Should be categorized to at least one category relating to the scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Added the image to the category Category:Punnett squares. Pbroks13 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  CommentYou took my idea! --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support A good and clear illustration of the scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• {{oppose}} missing geocodeing  Support Great job. :)... J.smith (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Punnett Square.svg: +3 <--
2. Punnett square 2.svg: -1
=>
Image:Punnett Square.svg: Promoted. <--
Image:Punnett square 2.svg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

★ 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:
Mechanical mouse movement.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support This the beauty of "anatomy" of mouse. Albertus teolog (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Scope is too general. This image is about a particular mechanism. Lycaon (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Computer mouse to Computer mouse movement --Pbroks13 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Oppose image only illustrate one particular mechanism of one particular kind of computer mouse. I would perhaps support the picture for "Computer ball mouse" (or mechanical mouse), although this picture is rather illustrative too. --Eusebius (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Only one particular kind, but the most typical. Albertus teolog (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Computer mouse movement to Mechanical mouse movement --Pbroks13 (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support I'm ok with the new scope and I think this schema is slightly better than the other pic. --Eusebius (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very good at illustrating the basic concept of mechanical mouse movement. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Schematic is very simple and understandable. It is encyclopaedic in particular is so valuable. Bidding for the scope to do not good and are not elegant. Albertus teolog (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great image! J.smith (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Scope change acknowledged. Lycaon (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Pretty good. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2008 (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:
Doppler effect.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Although it is not the best illustration for the Doppler theory, it is very good for showing the interference, the result of the Doppler effect. This proves how difficult category and scope selection can be. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One source, no interference. Only crests and troughs of the same single wave. --Eusebius (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, Doppler= relative speeds (2) - but I will not discuss that here. (speed on the left side = medium speed + object speed, on the right side = medium speed - object speed) --Foroa (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

* Oppose Comment Beautiful image and nice work, but I think this one is more self-explanatory. Setting up a MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done MVR available here. --Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose None of them is good enough to honour the saying: "a picture is worth 1000 thousand word". In bothncases, we must know what Doppler effect is to understand the picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Comment the description on the image page is part of the value of a VI candidate. --Eusebius (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Comment It shows that with a moving object, the frequency of whatever the waves (sound, light, ect) are higher in front of the object and lower behind the object. Is the problem that it doesn't show clearly enough that it is a moving object? Pbroks13 (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support This one seems better. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Doppler effect.svg: +1 <--
2. Doppler effect diagrammatic.svg: 0
=>
Image:Doppler effect.svg: Promoted. <--
Image:Doppler effect diagrammatic.svg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pi Kappa Phi CoA.svg

Se my coments on en.wiki Graphics Lab. Pretty sure Image:Pi Kappa Phi CoA.svg can only be used under fair-use though. (Unless we find the blazon and recreated it based on that). /Lokal_Profil 01:47, 2 November 2008 (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:
Scythe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Back to the basics --Foroa (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
•  temporary oppose There are more parts identified in this png, maybe the legend of this one could be improved accordingly? --Eusebius (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Info Okay, I updated the key. Pbroks13 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dynamite-5.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

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:
Dynamite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose (for now) Doesn't show well on a black background. Lycaon (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Question Do you think the image would be better if all of the stroke that would be touching the black background be a dark shade of grey? Pbroks13 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment VIs are aimed to be used "in an online context, within other Wikimedia projects". I don't see the context in which the picture would be displayed over a dark background (although I don't know every single WM project or sub-project), so I'll maintain my support. However, if the image can be improved to show equally well on any kind of background, it's of course a good thing. --Eusebius (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've realised that to make the image fit for all BG colours (including black), you'd have to forego the transparency, which is a nice gimmick here, so I  Support. Lycaon (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Air conditioning unit.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice work --Manco Capac 09:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Air conditioning unit.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Air conditioning unit.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Congratulations ! Benh (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2008 (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:
Window air conditioner.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. Maybe you could make the scope "Window air conditioner", or simply "air conditioner" (or is it too broad?). --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I would have made the "outdoor air" arrow change from blue to red to illustrate change in temperature (which is not obvious on current version). --Eusebius (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment The outside is already hot air. Pbroks13 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • But it is even hotter when it gets out of the air con unit, otherwise there would be no energy transfer. This should be shown in some way. --Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support It's very clear, all elements are correctly listed. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Temperature change in the air taken from outside is not represented, although it is vital to the process. --Eusebius (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Info I did my best to show the somewhat hot air change to hotter air. Pbroks13 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect for me. Good work, thanks for the corrections. --Eusebius (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Computer mouse with a ball

the problem of the oicture is that mouse have two light sensor at each weel to understand the direction.212.5.66.98 09:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Cartesian_Theater.svg

With respect, have you looked at the pan on the stove in th SVG? The perspective is all wongky, and I really don't think it's quite ready to be replaced. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2008 (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:
Cartesian Theater.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support an excellent image and better, imo, then the image it was based on. J.smith (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)