User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/Jun2008

EXIF bot

Hello Walter, I replied to your comment on my talk page. I implemented a comparison of Location and EXIF coordinates and now add the suggestion only if the deviate significantly (currently only works for Location_dec, but that seems to be the one you are using). --Dschwen 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hakea

Such as this Hakea salicifolia? If not you've lost me. Bidgee 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. I added a little. One point you may have missed is the interwiki feature. By adding [[en:Hakea salicifolia]] near the bottom, you should see text like "In Wikipedia: English" appear somewhere on the page when you preview it. "English" links to the article in the English version of Wikipedia. Similarly, [[fr:Hakea salicifolia]] would link to the French version, if an article existed there. See Abies grandis for an example with many interwiki links (but no Taxonavigation or Translation tags).

I'm not sure it is worthwhile doing taxonavigation on species gallery pages, but it is useful on category pages for the higher taxons. Translation is useful on species gallery pages, I think. By the way, the reason gallery pages are preferred for biota is because taxonomy is changing rapidly. Without a bot, it is tedious to recategorize individual photos. Recategorizing a gallery page is less work. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I know what you mean as I didn't know you can do the same thing as what you can in Wikipedia. Sorry I didn't respond just busy looking though my archive of images (Well whats left of them). Bidgee 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Best wishes on your image archive work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

★ An image you uploaded has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you uploaded 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.

review

Previous reviews

 Info Re-nomination of test promoted candidate. -- Slaunger 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support It satisfies all the criteria 1 to 6.--MichaelMaggs 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Where is the proof that the scope is correct, i.o.w. that that source is unsafe?. -- Lycaon 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) better scope. Lycaon 18:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Lycaon. To satisfy VIC4 in context of scope, the description needs to show why the source is unsafe. – flamurai 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment For me, it is pretty evident that the water source is unsafe. It is still water openly accesible for insects and parasites. Evidently the water is taken directly from the open source without any cleaning first. For me that is an unsafe water source. -- Slaunger 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Slaunger though I don't find the picture particularly expressive of the subject -- Alvesgaspar 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Its turbidity and accessibility to birds and mammals are prima facie evidence that it is contaminated. "In Meatu district, Shinyanga region, Tanzania, water most often comes from open holes dug in the sand of dry riverbeds, and it is invariably contaminated."[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

---

•  Support Strong picture that says alot about primitive conditions. Suggestion to rename the scope into "Primitive water supply". --Foroa 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the scope change is a good idea. I have updated the scope accordingly. -- Slaunger 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Confirm support after change of scope. --MichaelMaggs 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support – flamurai 17:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratz with your first VI as uploader. It is VI no. 4 promoted. -- Slaunger 13:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Congratulations on a successful launch. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy of what I posted to User:Kilom691

Thank you both for being very helpful on this. I have been rather neglectful of the pictures I uploaded here; focusing mainly on the enwiki pages instead. I'd very much appreciate Walter's offer for the mass revert of any edits that removed the link to the enwiki from the summary of the images. I've also decided to finally getting around to making pages for the images here on wiki commons and interwikilinking them the best I can. I've already set up a picture database of my images and started at the top (Lucanidae). (Link here). --Kugamazog (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)