User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2008/6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:The Slaunger Barnstar.png

This seems to be named after you. To be awarded to those who successfully nominated 10 (or something) valued images. Rocket000 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFL, tears rolling! That was a very nice gesture of appreciation. Thank you so much. I am busy though, not up on ten noms yet... See ya later and thanks for the very large effort you have done recently to help out. -- Slaunger 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Most valued review problem

Hi Slaunger,

Still awake? :)) I'm trying to nominate two images in a most valued review but they don't show. I think I've done everything right. -- Alvesgaspar 01:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Still here, although sleepy. I have finished renominating. I will have a look at your edits and see what I can do to help. -- Slaunger 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. I had hoped to review some your new nomination tonight, but I think I am too tired now to make good reviews. See you later Alves, former fado singer of Coimbra (I've been there and heard the fado some ten years ago, I like it.) -- Slaunger 01:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
(Ps Alvesgaspar's first name is Joaquim.) --MichaelMaggs 12:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

idiotic opinions

This is the time for congrats and looks good and such and here I am with a late and extremely nitpicky comment.

I understand the need for the first 'vote' to be made with the bullet point which I think is easier to paste than it is to insist on a blank line before the vote. I don't particularly like them though. -- this message was handtyped from the wrong time and at the wrong place by carol (tomes) on 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carol, I do not think it is an idiotic opinion. I am annoyed by the non-working bullets as well. Maybe should simply remove any guidelines as to exactly how the review comments should be made? At the end of the day it does not mean a thing if it done with a bullet or by having an extra line - or in any other way for that matter. Recently, I have become more and more annoyed by the bullets too. -- Slaunger 11:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So far, the only really really annoying thing about VIC is the photographer(s). It is extremely interesting at English wikipedia -- no one I talk with is able to or willing to tell me what the Picture of the Day is today. I am interested to know if they are even able to find the image in the archives which is a shame because I really want to upload my screengrab of it for the BenAvling and MichaelMaggs crowd. -- carol (tomes) 13:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your work on VI

The Special Barnstar
On behalf of many of us on Commons for the substantial work you have put into COM:VI - many thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
+1 --Foroa 12:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot;-) However, it has recently been something much more than a one-man show. The list of users and dedicated administrators, who has made this work is far too lengthy to mention here. -- Slaunger 11:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it a compliment to have the logo removed from English wikipedia FPC in less than 12 hours? -- carol (tomes) 12:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was most impressed that you stayed up so late last night to open the project at exactly UTC 0:00 (that was 1am in the UK). --MichaelMaggs 13:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

May I echo the sentiments of those above? Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

template bullet fix?

Hi Kim. Check this one out. Could it be incorporated into the template? Lycaon 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha, adding a zero width joiner works! Would not have thought about that myself. Yes, that can be incorporated in the template I think (will do it later). Have you tried other things? -- Slaunger 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it's empiric ;-). Lycaon 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have put it in for the VICs now and it works, but it introduces an extra blank line as i have to make a line break after the zwj to make it work. Maybe it can be further sub-optimized... -- Slaunger 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

VI

I Post this comment here in reply to your comment: Nevit, I hope you were not discouraged by the decline I did on your set of valued historic images. I am interested in your views on this if you feel there were certain unaddressed aspects in my review. I love your photos by the way. Many of them are very different from what we usually see, and it is refreshing. -- Slaunger 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I really do not care a lot about any of my photos or those I nominated was promoted or rejected. But I care how people around the world see the same photo with different angles of view. So be safe when rejecting or declining any of my nominations, I will not be discouraged, just learn a new thing. My nominations helped me to learn about this project and how it works.

I see some flaws in the whole scope of VI project. Lets start from some different definitions:

Value:

  1. The quality (positive or negative) that renders something desirable or valuable
    The Shakespearean Shylock is of dubious value in the modern world.
  2. The degree of importance you give to something.
    The value of my children's happiness is second only to that of my wife.
  3. The amount (of money or goods or services) that is considered to be a fair equivalent for something else
    He tried to estimate the value of the produce at normal prices.

So, we have some inherently different set of images

  • Desirable images
  • Important images
  • Expensive images

The definition in VI main page says Purpose: The valued images project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality.

So we have additional image sets:

  • Useful images
  • Difficult images

Two other sets which I mentioned in VIC/Talk.

Rarity, or ability to express an idea in a unique way.

  • Rare images
  • Expressive images

Since all wiki images are free licence monetary value might not to be considered, but the original prints or glass negatives of some images with have very high monetary values, while the copies are free.

  • Desirable images
  • Important images
  • Expensive images
  • Useful images
  • Difficult images
  • Rare images
  • Expressive images

Looking for the definition of each of above in Wiktionary does not help either.

While the above are standalone criteria, the first rule of VI rule set is a comparative one. ... the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination.

One has to compare the nominee to ALL images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination to do a nomination or ideal voting. A rule which is dead born by being impractical.

I have no suggestions. Just shared my view with you as the mentor of the project.

--Nevit Dilmen 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nevit,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and i am glad you are not discouraged. As I see it, your post here is very much related to you comment on Commons talk:Valued image criteria. I have replied there. I agree VI does not make sense for too broad scopes, we have tried to adress this already in Commons:Valued image scope. -- Slaunger 08:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Identifying organisms

Hi Kim. Is that what you had in mind? Lycaon 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good start. Some suggestions:
  • There are some language specific sites - for instance I know a good Danish one. Should we have language sections to aid users in their native language.
  • You mention the option of looking up taxonomists on the internet. Would it be useful to add also some Wikimedia users, which we know can be of help. One to put on the list is - you. And I know some others, who have their specialities and who I think would be willing to help, if asked politely. As only a few are generalists, I guess each user should have some hints to areas of knowledge. For instance you can put me on the list as someone who might help with plants and most animals in Greenland.
  • Some suggested additions
    • ITIS To look up official names and synonyms. I often use this resource to check that the latin names I have in my books are still the official ones (in 20% of the cases or so they are not).
    • ZipCodeZoo.com I am really impressed by this site. It has a lot of good images of many species and, e.g., online distributions maps. Esay to use for non-specialists.
-- Slaunger 21:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Had another thought on the user help part of it. Maybe one could have Organism identifier user boxes, which when placed on a user page adds the user to a category delaing with image organism identifiers. Commons:Identifying organisms could then link to that category. It could also be several categories. The user box should take an extra parameter detailing the speciality of the users id skills. -- Slaunger 07:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re : Objection on VI

Kindly reconsider your objection at Commons:Valued image candidates/Hkstarferry.JPG with the updates applied. Let me know if there is anything else that needs fixing. - Best regards, Mailer diablo 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The geocoding is now added. Good. It could be even better though if the heading was specified as it adds a little cool directional arrow on the Wikimedia logo when seen in Google maps and Google earth (it is the camera location (correct) and not the ferry location (wrong) you have specified, right?)? However, the issue about using the {{Information}} template or a suitable derivation thereof (most importantly telling us the date the image was taken) is still lacking (criterion 4). -- Slaunger 06:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 20 Dec 04, included in {{Information}}. Anywhere else I need to add? Yes, camera location. - Mailer diablo 07:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, must be tired. I had completely overlooked the Information template because you copyright notice came first. I think it is more natural that such statements are in conjunction with the licensing templates such that Information goes first. I do not think that is a requirement though. Just a personal preference. -- Slaunger 07:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/FoggDam-NT.jpg

Hi, I've changed the scope to suit what the image displays and just wondering whether you may support it or not. Bidgee 20:03, 7 June 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:
The construction of the Manhattan Bridge.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

-- Rocket000 14:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

VI closure

I have run out of time tonight closing a lot of VICs in the middle of the process. So if you are here to ask why you have not been notified of promotion on your talk page, why your image is not tagged with a nice VI seal yet or why the closed candidates are not removed from the candidates list, it is because I am not finished yet. You can continue doing it yourself if you promise to follow the guidelines in Commons:Valued image closure#Closign valued image candidates (I have completed step 1, 2 and 3 for all VICs which are displayed in dark green and dark red colors as promoted and declined). I hope to be able to finish off tomorrow. Thank you for your understanding. -- Slaunger 20:19, 8 June 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:
Juan Carlos I of Spain.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Second image promoted for valued image! -- Slaunger 08:26, 9 June 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:
Mating among Common Frogs.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

-- Slaunger 10:07, 9 June 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:
Primitive water supply.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

-- Slaunger 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnacles

Hi, Kim,
Your barnacles video is great! I added it to the article. It is the best illustration of barnicles at Wikipedia and maybe at the NET!--Mbz1 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks Mila. Glad you like it. I have not looked for better material on the web, but I would be surprised if there is not better stuff around as it is very easy to capture. I just took a small handheld film with my compact camera whilst playing with my kids at the harbour in Upernavik. Did not even get my feet wet... Glad to see you back as an active VI reviewer and nominator BTW. For a moment I started regretting that we did not call it valued media, as you suggested... -- Slaunger 13:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ungdomshuset VI

Jeg ville gerne gennominere mit billede af Ungdomshuset, men spekulerer lidt på, hvorledes den korrekte metode ville være. Den nuværende sidetitel er jo identisk med den en en ny nominering vil skabe. Skal de gamle stemmer arkiveres og så bare sætte nomineringsskabelonen ind? --|EPO| da: 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hej EPO, se retningslinierne i Commons:Valued image candidates/Nomination procedure#Renomination, hvor der er beskrevet en renomineringprocedure. Held og lykke med renomineringen, jeg håber den bliver lidt mindre forvirrende end sidste gang... -- Slaunger 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing MVRs

Did you see my suggestion at Commons talk:Valued image candidates#Promotion rules for MVRs? --MichaelMaggs 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not notice it until now. I have replied there. It is an elegant and simple proposal. -- Slaunger 05:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

QIC

Hey, Thanks for the renomination of my image. Congratulations to you for putting in so much effort into making the project real. Muhammad 15:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Muhammad. You did mean "VIC" didn't you ;-)
Yeah. I guess I am stressed out due to my exams :( Muhammad 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
O-ohh, the vivisection exam? -- Slaunger (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, thats the easy one. Its the theory which is difficult. Muhammad 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

VIpromotion

Is this template expanding for you now? I really wanted the expand button to be the word review itself, but I can't figure out how to do this. So we're stuck with the arrow for now. I guess it's not that bad. Sorry for the delay with the category header template. I've just been really busy in real life, but hopefully I'll have more Commons time very soon. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Ever consider becoming an admin? You'd pass easily. I know you're busy with VICs, but I'm sure the tools will come in handy. What do you say to me nominating you? Rocket000 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rocket, Erm, right now I am using IE 6 SP2 on XP and here they still do not expand. There is simply nothing you can click on to expand anything ;-( Works fine with Firefox 2 on XP though). Concerning the admin proposal I am flattered that you ask, but my answer is no thanks. It is only on a very few occasions I have felt I could have benefitted from the availability of more tools (this may reflect ignorance regarding how much easier my wiki life could be). I fear two things if I were to become an admin; the exceedingly low WAF and that I would be too distracted from doing the things I like doing here (like VI) running after vandals, being involved in deletion requests and all that. So, I am quite happy being a normal user. I like being here with the role I have already. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about now? (remember to refresh) I reverted everything I did to it so it should work like it did before. I understand about the admin thing. I know my own "content" contributions declined when I became an admin. It's not for everyone, but I thought I'd throw it out there just in case you ever considered it but didn't want to nominate yourself. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It is CTRL+F5 right? I tried it, but still nothing to expand on. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I got IE7 out to test it this time and it works now. (Let's hope it works for you too.) Rocket000 (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm that it works now on both IE 6 on XP SP2, Firefox on XP SP2, and IE 7 on Vista. Thank you for your efforts! -- Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

VIC spamming

I've nominated a lot of pictures to VIC lately. The reasons are noble: to keep the page well alive and to show some of my pictures which I believe can be useful to others. But if you think it is too much for a single user please say so, I don't want to monopolize the space... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alves, kind of you to drop by with your concern. I think it is nice you help keep it active. I'd say an influx of up to approximately five candidates per day per user should be below the "spam" limit. It is not that I want to set a firm limit on this in any of the guidelines, as we have rules enough already. Now that Dschwen is close to having something we can use help closing the VICs, there should be better possibilities for keeping the page more lively. Another influx indicator is this one:
247 1 13 49 389 1 2485 3064 49255
which displays the number of VICs in the different states. If there are too many blue ones, the influx is perhaps too large. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

VI

It's clear that users here have there personal own agenda which is why this project will fail. Trying to use the criteria when the image doesn't fail it is wrong and it's clear that they have set to be anti for all my images. It's a pity as I was going to add images which are not on commons. Really I could careless and move to a project that cares. Bidgee (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Falling ball.jpg

I have changed the scope to "Object in free fall". Would you reconsider your vote, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Chthalamus stellatus.JPG

Scope has been changed. Would you like to re-visit, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Chthamalus stellatus.jpg

I'm getting into a complete mess trying to update page names to follow the corrected name of the image, and the nom is now showing up on the nominations page as a redirect. Help! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Lycaon (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

VICbot

I'm just waiting for your greenlight when to activate automatic execution of the VICbot. I created a new user name for it and requested a bot flag (I'm sure your input is welcome there). The we should agree on a schedule. QICbot runs once daily at 7:12 Central Time. I'd schedule VICbot similarly, unless you think a more frequent schedule makes sense. --Dschwen (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comments on No category required

Thanks for your clear comments in Commons:Village_pump#No_category_required. Multichill has now nominated the category for deletion, see Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:No_category_required. My main point is that the bot of him is changed in such a way that photos only in galleries don't get on the page the message that a category is lacking. I have explained that in more detail on his talk page. The message will stimulate people to make categories that are copies of the galeries. --Wouter (talk) 10:59, 14 June 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:
Theo van Gogh (film director)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

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:
Arctic Bellflower (Campanula uniflora).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
National costumes of Greenland.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Dwarf fireweed (Chamerion latifolium).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Withdrawn valued image nominations

Slaunger, if "Withdrawn images end up in the declined state", then what use is Category:Withdrawn valued image candidates? It was my impression that a nomination that was declined due to too many opposes needs something to change before it can be renominated, whereas a withdrawn nomination can be renominated at any time. Powers (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Powers,
I do understand if you are a little confused about this. I just tried to find the guidelines for withdrawal in the pages in the VI links box, but failed to find it there (what is your source, btw?). It is documented though, but in a rather obscure place, namely Template:VIC#withdrawn. The idea with Category:Withdrawn valued image candidates is mainly that closors have tools like {{VIC-stats}} to monitor if there are withdrawn images, which should be closed. It is not the most crucial state. The reason we have it is to try and seperate the closure from the sometimes emotional causes leading to withdrawal. Sometimes the closer might try and settle the issues leading to withdrawal before declining, because as long as it is in the withdrawn state the withdrawer can regret the withdrawal and reinstantiate the state the nomination came from, including the votes cast so far. If the withdrawer insists on the withdrawal, it should end up in the declined state. Hope that clarifies it. The withdrawal process should probably be documented better than now. I will seek to improve that. -- Slaunger (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize it was a temporary state. Still, I would expect that the resolution would go to Undecided rather than Declined, since there may or may not be any issues with a withdrawn nomination that require addressing before resubmission. An Undecided VIC can be resubmitted at any time, and I would expect a withdrawn VIC to be the same. Powers (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I want to discourage withdrawal of candidates in case current reviews are unfavourable and then reset it and renominate it once you have called your "friends". There is a price/penalty to withdrawal and that price is that it ends up in the declined state. Reasonable as you have also spend reviewes/closers resources for no benefit (clarification) when you withdraw. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving coil instrument principle.png

Hi Slaunger, thank you for your hint on the scope of Commons:Valued image candidates/Moving coil instrument principle.png. I changed it following your suggestion. Feel free to revisit it. Thanks -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally, i got the time to do it. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger, thank you for your review! I have added a comment to it. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: License templates

Hi Slaunger,
Well it's pretty much the point you touched on - ease of adjusting the template. If I ever want to change the layout/text/images it's very easy to do. And by the same token as it would be easy for me to change, it would be easy for someone to revert should I do something unacceptable like change the license :). And hey given that I'm an admin and a long time contributor I think you could probably trust me a little! :) It's also minimization of typing/editing - it's much easier to make a typo when doing a long subst expression then when you're doing something shorter. And since I have firefox and submit to tab I usually type a license out once and upload multiple photos. Should i have made a mistake I'll have to do quite a bit of editing to fix it which is of course an annoying waste of time. I hope that explains it! --Fir0002 www 09:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that pretty well, and I also trust you (not because you are an admin, but based on your actions in general). I think there is a middle way though which will still allow you to make adjustments to the cameraspecific box you have along with the GFDL license. Example, say you have a template called User:Fir0002/gfdl20d which you subst in the image page made along these lines
{{GFDL}}
{{User:Fir0002/20d}}
and you have the infobox with the photos of the 20d in User:Fir0002/20d you could still afterwards make adjustments to your camera template without going into every image page. What I like about that is that the GFDL template is explicitly in the image page. Although I did not quite understand what you explained about the use of tabs in Firefox I see it as a minor problem having to paste in
{{subst:User:Fir0002/gfdl20d}}
instead of just
{{User:Fir0002/gfdl20d}}

-- Slaunger (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

      • Surely whenever you subst you loose template qualities? If I subst my 20D template into the image and then go change the 20D template it won't update will it? And anyway if it ain't broke don't fix it! ;-) --Fir0002 www 10:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No, the point is that you subst a template which just replaces the template with the GFDL template and another FIR-specific 20d template. The 20d template is not substed in this process since substing is not recursive. So if you change the 20d template afterwards (which has no mentioning of the gfld template) this propagates to all image pages where you originally substed the combined licence and camera template. Got it? Concerning, if it ain't broke...well it s just a more clean way to do it - license templates belong on the image page IMO, user specifics does not have to, and IMO my proposal solves both interests and is not more tedious (except for entering six extra characters). -- Slaunger (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I think I see what you're saying. But in that case I wouldn't be able to keep my licensing style which I'm kinda of attached to since it incorporates the GFDL template into it... --Fir0002 www 13:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes you are right that if you want to retain the license box inside a box of yours you cannot change the box on all substed pages. Anyway, do as you please, I just wanted to tell you how it can be done in case you were not aware of the possibility. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:25, 19 June 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:
Port container cranes.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

VIS promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Thespis, opera.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
All known contemporary images of the original performance of Thespis, the lost Gilbert and Sullivan opera.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

1, 2, 3, testing. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 22 August 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:
Cerastium arcticum (Arctic chickweed).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

VI closures

Can the VIS and MVRs be closed? They are rather stale now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the MVRs I am waiting for Dschwens bot to finish the closed ones off. He just needs to add a few lines of code to VICbot to accomplish that, but I think he is busy doing QIC stuff.
Concerning the VISs there is template work to do and the process needs to be described. What to do is outlines on VIC talk in a previous thread, but i have not had time to implement it yet. I am very busy IRL at the moment and I will be completely off-life til mid next week. So I hope someone else will do the VIC closure till then and perhaps work on the VIS closure process. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slaunger/Archives/2008/6&oldid=13857398"