User talk:Dschwen/Archive11

New star :) for you

I award you this very special the best stitcher on Commons Barnstar --Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Daniel! I guess we could try it one more time on Commons now :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Thank you Mila :-D. --Dschwen (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dominostein cut.jpg, 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 Tasty you said? Of course it is only ~~eye witness~~ (sorry, taste witness account, but OK... :) Good image.--Mbz1 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Multi-maintainer project requested. -Eusebius (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both bots moved back on the regular TS under this project. They seem to run properly when started manually. Crontab is set up, I'm waiting for the next planned runs to see whether everything is working normally. Please tell me if you don't receive the crontab e-mails! Crontab is commented out on stable now. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VICbot

Hello,
Two reviews closed on November 15th are still are still awaiting automatic removal by VICbot. Is it normal? Perhaps I didn't close those reviews in a proper way? Could you please glance over it? Thanks a lot, --Myrabella (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VICbot is currently having her periodic issues, but normally it will be moved to another server soon. Since it will modify its configuration, I plan to have a look at it only after the move. I just hope it won't take too much time. --Eusebius (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I launched a manual run in the meantime. --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I saw that EuseBot had even extracted the processed nominations of MVR. By the way, must we now update the Closed MVR page as usually? --Myrabella (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EuseBot has done nothing more than what VICbot usually does, it was the exact same code running. Neither bot has ever touched Commons:Closed most valued reviews, so yes, it is still under manual care. But it could be updated botwise in the future. --Eusebius (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by hand. Yes, an automatic process would be fine :-) Another small point: EuseBot has classed a promoted-but-not-removed-yet image in the right VI gallery, but the image still needs to be VI tagged. So, could you launch EuseBot on VIC page, please? Thanks, --Myrabella (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot not running

Hi Daniel,

it seems that QICbot's last run was two days ago. Could you please have a look at it? -- H005 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Not working today too. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the answer above (previous section). VICbot and QICbot have the same issues and will be moved at the same time. I'll launch manual runs in the meantime. --Eusebius (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a different issue actually, should be ok now. --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Löschung Fefe...

Kannst du das bitte ausführlich begründen? --LSG1 (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Dschwen, siehe dazu bitte auch auf meine Benutzerdisk.. Gruß -- Ra'ike T C 12:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dort koennen wir weiterdiskutieren. --Dschwen (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Sean Astin 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sean Astin 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:)

I have looked this Category:Quality images by User:Dschwen... and has sent to You this:

The QI Barnstar

			The Quality Images Barnstar
			I hereby award You this Barnstar! Over 300 Quality Images - Excellent! Thank You for all the cool QI's and your tireless contributions. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! :-) --Dschwen (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geocode robot problem

Hi, you should probably check your geocoding robot. I had already geocoded File:Matteröds kyrka.JPG when your robot repeated it. I had used another template (User:M9anvi0905 is me as well), which your robot probably doesn't see. Maybe you should add it, so you don't enter multiple coordinates in image files in the future :) /grillo (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grillo, there is no need to check the bot. What it did was perfectly right. The image was not already geocoded. You added an object location, fine, but that is not the preferred geocoding on commons, and under no circumstances it is to replace the camera location. So please leave the {{Location}} template on the image description page. You are welcome to supplement it with an {{Object location}} though. --Dschwen (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

:) --Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VICbot removing a renominated image

Hello, VICbot works again (cool! :-D) but it removes a newly renominated image still to be reviewed at each passage. Is it normal? Thanks and regards, --Myrabella (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I remember that we had a problem with re-nominations before. What image are you talking about? --Dschwen (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one. And here is the action of VICBot. --Myrabella (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VICBot is persisting in removing this image before its closure... Perhaps there's something wrong in the code of the VIC subpage? So thanks in advance for your eye and assistance! --Myrabella (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neue Idee

Hoi Daniel, ich weiss, vielleicht bist du meiner neuen Ideen für deine Bots schon überdrüssig, falls nicht, bitte ich dich, darauf einen Blick zu werfen. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hab mal meinen Senf dazugegeben.--Dschwen (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ach ja, sonst bin ich neuer Ideen fuer Bots keineswegs ueberdruessig :-). Ich verabschiede mich jetzt nur schonmal in die Weihnachtsferien. --Dschwen (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OICbot and sub-pages

Hi Dschwen!
This topic Commons:Quality_images/Subject/Animals/Echinoderms has more than 4 images. Sub-page need and possible modification of OICbot source code.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --George Chernilevsky ^talk

Thanks, to you too. Will look at qicbot after the holidays. --Dschwen (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to learn

that one of your images was mentioned as an example of how to take great pictures, and I agree with that! Dear Daniel, I'd like to wish you a Happy New Year, and to thank you one more time for a very important post you made at AN/U. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Happy New Year to you to. Btw. I'll be in SF sometime in April. Maybe you have time for a cup of coffee and a little photo excursion? --Dschwen (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Glaciers

Hi Daniel, danke für die Info. Das Buch habe ich leider noch nicht gesehen. Werde ich da mit meinem "real life"-Namen als Autor des Bildes genannt? Wenn ja, dann sollte ich eigentlich ein Belegexemplar angefordert haben. Evtl bekomme ich mein Belegexemplar etwas später als du. Du bist doch in den USA oder? Nach good old Germany dauert es evtl etwas länger. Gruß Matthias --AngMoKio (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noe, da steht AngMoKio. Deinen "real life"-Namen kenne ich so weit ich weiss auch gar nicht. Das Buch kam aus Frankreich. --Dschwen (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...das ist ja blöd. Dann haben sich die Jungs nicht nach meinem Namen bei mir erkundigt. Schade. Hätte gerne ein Belegexemplar gehabt. Hast du ne eMail-Adresse von denen? Kannst mir gerne auch mailen. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Query...

I'm curious what the longest article names on the english wikipedia are. Obviously I am unable to run SQL queries and downloading a database dump would be rather time consuming. I was hoping that you could run something like:

SELECT page_title
FROM page
ORDER BY length(page_title) desc
LIMIT 50

on the enwiki database and return the results - it could be interesting. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Noodle snacks, updated result:

Happy Holidays! --Dschwen (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy Holidays to you too. Unfortunately most of them are redirects, I'll have to join the page table with the most recent revision and exclude those that contain #REDIRECT perhaps when I have a bit too much time. I did find quite a long one from one of the redirects though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations,_Systematical_and_Geographical,_on_the_Herbarium_collected_by_Professor_Christian_Smith,_in_the_vicinity_of_the_Congo,_during_the_expedition_to_explore_that_river,_under_the_command_of_Captain_Tuckey,_in_the_year_1816 Noodle snacks (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, excluding redirects should be easy for me. I'llgive it a try tomorrow morning. --Dschwen (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'm fairly experienced with sql, but not so with mediawiki. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the results above. The new query is

SELECT concat('* en:',page_title,'') FROM page WHERE page_is_redirect = 0 AND page_namespace = 0 ORDER BY length(page_title) desc LIMIT 50;

--Dschwen (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) One of a kind barnstar for you! :-)

		*** No nonsense editor barnstar ***
		Thank you for never compromising with ..., ah, you know what I mean :) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Das Bild in {{Location}}

Hallo, ich bin im Moment dabei, die Bildlinks der aus Gründen der Benutzerfreundlichkeit „unklickbaren“ Bilder zu sammeln, um eine hier vorgeschlagene Seite mit diesen Bildern zu erstellen. Ich bin nun langsam damit fertig, jedoch ist es mir bis jetzt noch nicht gelungen, den in {{Location}} und verwandten Vorlagen benutzten Globus ausfindig zu machen. Selbst nach Expandieren der Vorlage hab ich nichts gefunden, was auf dieses Bild hindeuten könnte. Da du im Bereich Geocoding aktiv bist, wollte ich dich fragen, ob du weißt, wo ich dieses Bild finde? Danke, --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aber sicher doch :-). Das Bild wird per JavaScript vom meta:WikiMiniAtlas (den ich zufaellig programmiert habe) eingefuegt. Es ist File:Erioll_world.svg. Frohes Neues Jahr! --Dschwen (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, vielen Dank. Ein froher neues Jahr ebenfalls! --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification bot

Hi Dschwen, your bot notified me, but marked the edit as minor. Because it's a bot, I don't get a new messages note. If you don't mark the edit as minor, I will get the note. I took a look at the source:

Just add minorEdit=False to page.put() to make it a normal edit
You shouldn't use wikipedia.setAction(). It's deprecated (threading issues). Best to put the message in comment and do page.put(text, comment).

Keep up the good work! Multichill (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. I'll adapt the bot accordingly. --Dschwen (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, months later I finally got to it. Talk page edits will now be major edits. --Dschwen (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot problem

On 4 January the bot extracted the candidates from the candidates page, then cleared the list on the recently promoted page. It then carried on sorting them into the appropriate area galleries (example), but didn't go on to tag the file's pages or notify the users. I think a couple of my nominations that were "extracted" on the 4th, haven't been delt with. File:Pigeon feeding in Praça do Comércio, Lisbon.jpg and File:Independence of the Seas pool bar at Vigo, Spain.jpg have no file links. Jolly Janner (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed similar problems with the following:

File:Anas_acuta15.jpg,

File:Aranda_Helsinki_2010-01-01.JPG and

File:New_River_Ft_Lauderdale.jpg.

All these were promoted on 2010-01-02 and should have been tagged on 2010-01-04, but obviously something went wrong. Probably this issue is with all QIs that should have been tagged on 2010-01-04. Could you please take a look?

BR,

--MattiPaavola (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm insanely busy right now IRL. But you guys could solve this problem yourselves. Move the candidates form the QI/Archive back on the candidate page (make sure the templates work, you may need to remove the "../"). Make sure nobody edits them anymore. Please also look under what links here for each image and verify that they have mot been added to QI/galleries (otherwise remove them from the qi galleries as they will end up ad duplicates there on the next bot run). The candidates should then be processed during the next bot run. My guess is that a temporary database outage caused the malfunction, so ut will work on the next attempt. --Dschwen (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it. Now waiting for the bot to do its stuff. Jolly Janner (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It now got fixed at least with my image. Thank you very much both of you! --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it worked for all the images. At least one the ones I've watchlisted anyway. Jolly Janner (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Locations of some Pics, but Tags are still in Maps

I've put my comment (and question) to this section.
Could you propose how to proceed according my comments.
Best wishes --Lord Koxinga (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help replace this outdated license

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

BotMultichillT 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Photoworkshop Nyköping 2010

Auch wenn es für dich in Europa zu weit weg ist... könntest du auf einer geeigneten englischsprachigen Seite mal darauf hinweisen? Es soll keine deutsche Veranstaltung werden, Workshop-Sprache ist englisch. Wir planen max. 50 Teilnehmer. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag by VICbot

Hello Dschwen,

Just a minor thing regarding VICbot work : {{VI}} has been renamed to the more understandable {{Valued image}}. Maybe the bot could use the new name from now on ?

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Pessimistic and lazy reply) Several side processes rely on the existence of the {{VI}} template on the image page. Switching to the new name involves refactoring the associated source codes (which is possible, but I think neither Daniel nor I have much time for that these days), and using "VI" or "Valued Image" indifferently would result in a mess (inconsistency of the various aspects of the VI project, lists vs categories for instance). I'm afraid both bot maintainers missed the discussion about the renaming. --Eusebius (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth it, indeed.

When I enabled Autotranslate on the template back then, I asked on IRC if a renaming was a good idea (to match QI and FP naming), and I was told so. It did not cross my mind that the VI process could be harmed by this, as I thought redirects would do the trick just fine. I guess I was wrong, and I apologise for both being short-sighted on this issue and not caring to discuss it with the main protagonists.

Do not hesitate to revert back to the old name and delete the redirection if it may somehow cause troubles.

Jean-Fred (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, don't apologize. The idea of the rename is not stupid and there is no established consultation procedure. Leave it as it is, I may amend the code some day to make it more robust. --Eusebius (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me with the stable back and forth and SVN I have completely lost track where the current code is, how to check it out, and which server it is running on... ...oh my. --Dschwen (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a reminder in your inbox. --Eusebius (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VICbot small trouble

Hi Daniel!
Declined valued image nomination (animated picture) not removed by VICbot several times.
With best regards --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the exotic nominator signature. I'll fix that. --Eusebius (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profile size and activity criterion for Commons:Meet our photographers

Dear member of Commons:Meet our photographers,

Two issues have recently been raised at Commons talk:Meet our photographers:

Profile size creep: The page is becoming increasing cluttered due to a tendency among some members to make personal profiles, which are unreasonably large. You are kindly requested to consider the size used by your profile and consider if it has a reasonable size. Note that the same message is being send to all members, so it is up to you to use your own good judgement in this. We are not interesting in setting up exact quantitatve rules. It should be a matter of common sense.
Activity criterion: It has been suggested to introduce an activity criterion in addition to the minimum 10 FPs criterion to be included on the list. You are kindly requested to voice your opinion on this proposal.

Yeah, you already follow those discussions I know, its just for the record, --Slaunger (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merkwürdig

Hallo, der QICbot hat mir heute auf meiner Diskussionsseite mitgeteilt, dass File:Wadi Rum BW 13.JPG QI ist, hat den Vermerk in der Dateibeschreibung angebracht, es auf recently promoted eingetragen, hat es aber nicht von der Kandidatenliste gelöscht. Irgendwo istz da anscheinend ein Fehler. Vielleicht hast du bald Zeit danach zu sehen, sonst müßte man die betroffenen Bilder von Hand rauslöschen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot oddity

QICbot correctly promoted an image: [1], but didn't remove it from the QIC page: Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#February_10.2C_2010. Cheers, 99of9 (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately I'm currently out of town and do not have time to deal with this until the weekend. --Dschwen (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It fixed itself up the next night, so don't worry about it. Thanks anyway. --99of9 (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle 2.jpg, 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 a very good pano --Alchemist-hp 08:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle 5.jpg, 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 Oh, large panorama for review... All OK, :) QI --George Chernilevsky 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle 4.jpg, 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 Seattle skyline view from Queen Anne Hill. --Dschwen 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Good.--Ankara 16:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle 3.jpg, 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 a very good pano --Alchemist-hp 08:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some dust spots left in the sky. After correction good FP chances. --Iotatau 21:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Overlay

Moin, habe hier versucht, Google Maps einzubinden. So läuft es nicht, obwohl Google Maps kml-Dateien mit Overlays anzeigen kann. Hast du eine Lösung? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 09:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Mein script scheint zu haengen. Ich schau mal was da los ist. --Dschwen (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geht doch: [2] --Dschwen (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habs nochmal in der Vorlage rein. Bei File:Erfurt-1650-Merian.jpg geht es auch, wahrscheinlich weil die Datei vorher schon geladen war. Versuche doch bitte mal, das Overlay in Google Maps von einem anderen Bild aufzurufen (z.B. File:Deutsch Ost-Afrika,1892.jpg). Da bringt Google die Meldung "Der Ort http://toolserver.org/~dschwen/kml.php?page=File:Deutsch Ost-Afrika,1892.jpg/overlay.kml ist unbekannt.". Rufe ich nur die URL auf, wird mir die kml-Datei zum Download angeboten, dauert allerdings ziemlich. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seufz. Da ist der toolserver schuld. Irgendetwas ist da nicht ganz in Ordnung. --Dschwen (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die Bilder werden in GoogleMaps aber meines Wissens nicht rotiert! --Kolossos (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, das ist natürlich schlecht dann. Habe Google Maps mal wieder aus der Vorlage entfernt. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 13:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle 6.jpg, 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 QI to me. --Cayambe 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail?

Ist meine Mail angekommen? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nee, wann hast Du die denn geschickt? --Dschwen (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature is missing

[3] :) Best, --Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, amateur mistake :-). --Dschwen (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Did you see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/a4/WMF_Annual_Report_20082009_online.pdf ? Oh, right, Slaunger already told you.[reply]

Yes, I saw it, and Kim told me about this too. Congrats on your image! BTW have you seen these ones, and please do not tell me I did not surprise you :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He he, I didn't know about the judaism book. In google books I also found [this]. There are a couple more books and magazine which I know of, because the people who used my images sent me copies. My favourite is a new frensch boo on Glaciers which features my Morteratsch pano on a double spread. Anyhow, I'd just like to remark how absolutely delicious I find the selection of pictures for the annual report. On multiple levels... --Dschwen (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I found one book which you did not know about. Your picture on the cover looks great! This book with my image

on the cover got to the library of Congress. I wonder who will buy it for 260$;) Best wishes,--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Elizabethtown, Illinois.jpg, 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 Solid work. --Alchemist-hp 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Seattle 3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seattle 3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geotagged images missed by the bot

Hello! I uploaded four new images and tagged them with "GPS EXIF" mistakenly, when they didn't have the WGS-84 info yet. The DschwenBot skipped them, then I noticed my error and reuploaded the correct versions of images with WGS-84 GPS info added, but the bot doesn't seem to recognize them (at least they don't have the "Location" tag added). Could you, please, look up where is the problem? The images in question are the following ones:

Thanks in advance! --romanm (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot keeps track of broken files, i.e. files which he is told contain GPS data but actually don't (or it is somehow unreadable because of format errors). Your files got on that list when you added the GPS EXIF template prematurely. I'll have to figure out a way to get them off without it being too much work for me :-) --Dschwen (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only four of them, I manually added the GPS info myself. Thanks anyway! --romanm (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle 9.jpg, 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 Perfect Quality and useful Antoinetav 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle 7.jpg, 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 Perfect Quality and useful Antoinetav 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle waterfront.jpg, 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 Good. Could profit from slightly warmer colors. --Pjt56 09:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Illinois River aerial.jpg, 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 Good and informative. --Cayambe 10:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Large image viewer

First, thanks for your nomination, I really appreciated. As for your large image viewer, I really think it's a great tool, but I was wondering if it can deal/could be adapted to view images mosaics. I'll explain : I'm currently working on a 2.2 gigapixels (110 000 X 20 000 px) HDR panorama of the city of Cusco. I can't obviously deal with such a large image at once, so, I'm chopping it into 22 segments of 100 mpx (10 000 X 10 000 px, 2 rows of 11 images each) with no overlapping. Although my first idea was to upload a downsampled version of the panorama and link parts of the image to the full-size segment, I think that using your large image viewer to get a smooth transition between the segments would be the ideal. I would like to hear your opinion about that. Thank you. --S23678 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should upload a downsampled version and send me the original. I can process it manually and make it appear in place of the small version when people use the viewer to look at it. --Dschwen (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 110000 X 20000 px version cannot exist as a JPEG or TIFF file since it's too large. As well, I'm limited to about 100 mpx when working with panoramas on Photoshop. The full resolution image can therefore only exist in multiple files. Which is why I was wondering about the possibility of viewing a mosaic if images through your large image viewer. BTW, due to some factors, I might not be able to upload the images before a couple of months, so this is more an "exploratory question". --S23678 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. Send me the parts and I'll put them together. I can also make a downsampled version for uploading to commons. --Dschwen (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great! I'll inform you when ready. --S23678 (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop isn't limited to 100mpx provided you work with psb files (many stitchers can output them). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pike Place Market Seattle.jpg, 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 very cool --Carschten 18:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Seattle 8.jpg, 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 Great! But there is a dust spot on the right side (please see image note).--Ankara 20:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I uploaded a new version. Thanks for pointing it out. --Dschwen 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Absolute QI now, i really like your photos from Seattle.--Ankara 18:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomviewer

The Zoomviewer is awesome, however, the interface of the Flash version is totally mystifying. Are those icons customizable? If so I would recommend the following:

Replace the plus icon with a magnifying lens with a plus in the middle
Replace the minus icon with a magnifying lens with a minus in the middle
Replace the dot(?!) icon with the standard reload/refresh icon (two arrows in a circle)
Replace the 4 arrows icon with a box/screen with 4 arrows in it.

I actually had to try 3 of the 4 buttons to find out what they did. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that is not trivial, as it involves rebuilding the flash applet. I haven't done that before so it may take a while. --Dschwen (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VIS

According to the closure template, VICbot is supposed to process closed Valued Image Set reviews. But he deosn't? --Ikar.us (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geokoordinaten

Dein Bot hat einige meiner Bilder mit Koordinaten versehen. Das Aufsteck-Ding funktioniert aber nicht wirklich zuverlässig, es sucht immer Satelliten und findet selbst bei klarem Himmel manchmal keine, deshalb habe ich es nicht mehr drauf, es frißt nämlich auch die Akkus leer ;) Was mir aufgefallen ist: die Koordinaten stimmen nicht ganz, weichen oft mehrere Meter ab. Ist das zivile GPS so ungenau? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Es gibt keinen Unterschied zwischen zivilem und nicht zivelem GPS (die Stoerung des zivilen Signals wurde schon vor Jahren deaktiviert). GPS Kann nicht genauer als "einige Meter" sein, dazu braucht es Differential GPS oder . Das Ionosphaeren "Wetter" sorgt fur Brechung der GPS Signale und leichte Laufzeitunterschiede, die lokal verschieden sind und sich innerhalb von Stunden oder Tagen aendern koennen. Ohne geeichten Referenzsender in der Naehe muss man sich damit zufriedengeben. Hier in den USA gibt es noch WAAS (hatte mal einen receiver der das unterstuetzt, damit geht es ca. bis auf einen Meter genau!) das ist aber quasi eine Form von differential GPS.--Dschwen (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, jetzt verstehe ich so manches. Hatte mich schon gewundert, daß Vermessungsgeräte immer ewig brauchen bis sie erste Daten ausspucken. Du schreibst Ionospärenwetter, ich bin aus der Vermesser-Erfahrung davon ausgegangen, daß Wolken im weitesten Sinne kaum stören, Bäume jedoch stark. Ist mein Empfämger also vielleicht doch nicht kaputt? Werde das mal weiter testen. Wäre ja eine äußerst nützliche Geschichte in Verbindung mit deinem Bot. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auf etwa 10 Meter genau sollte immer drin sein: de:Global Positioning System#Genauigkeit der Positionsbestimmung. Und Bäume sind egal, solange der Empfänger Signale von 4 Satelliten empfängt. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.183.38 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(BK) Wolken gibt's doch in der Ionosphäre nicht. Wohl aber diverse magnetische Phänomene, die alle Einfluss auf Funkübertragungen haben können. Siehe de:Ionosphäre#Ionosphärenanomalien. Speziell GPS in Europa betreffend: [4] und SWIPPA (in Englisch, tut mir leid). Lupo 11:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interessante Diskussion. Hier ist auch was: de:GPS-Technik#Signalstörungen --93.104.183.38 11:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich stand 2002 zum letzten Mal an einem GPS-Gerät ;) hat sich doch ne Menge getan. Danke für die Links, das erklärt vieles. Die Gernauigkeit ist bei meinen Bildern so etwa plusminus 3 Meter, damit kann man ja eigentlich leben. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich haette jetzt aber eher auf Ionisation und damit verbundene Aenderungen des Brechungsindexes fuer Radiowellen getippt. Das ist es doch auch was dafuer sorgt, dass wir mittels Totalreflexion an Boden ond ionosphaere Langwellensender vom anderen Ende der Welt hoeren koennen. Also nicht magnetisch, eher elektrostatische Phaenomaene. --Dschwen (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja gut, dann halt "elektromagnetisch" oder "elektrostatisch" oder einfach "elektrisch". Sooo genau kenn' ich mich da oben auch nicht aus. :-) Lupo 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je nach Empfangslage, freier Sicht und insbesondere Reflexionen können GPS-Daten durchaus auch schon mal 50 oder 100m daneben liegen. Man schaue sich mal bei Openstreetmap Gegenden an, wo es viele Tracks gibt - da gibt es die lustigsten Abweichungen, Punktwolken und Linienbüschel. -- smial (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:122 - Toronto - Septembre 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:122 - Toronto - Septembre 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new ZoomViewer gadget

excellent stuff! thanks for that! Amada44 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Little Reminder) Could you please repair File:Dresden-Fuerstenzug4.jpg. Or create a URL-parameter like "action=purge". Thanks. --Kolossos (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a processed version now. --Dschwen (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Daniel, dabei war mir aufgefallen, dass die Flashversion allerdings in sehr großen Schritten reinzoomt 3 Zoomstufen und man ist drin, bei der Nicht-Flash-Version sind es 7 Stufen. Könnte an dem ungewöhnlichen Seitenverhältniss liegen. --Kolossos (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Das Plüschtier bedankt sich auch.;-)

Bie mir sinds im Flash-Viewer 6 Schritte. Benutzt Du das Mausrad? Sendet das vielleicht zwei Events? Oder Zoomst Du per Doppelklick ;-)? Einfachklick zoomt ca faktor 2. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich nehm das Mausrad, stimmt mit den +/- Zeichen gibt es nicht das Problem. Die selbe Maus funktioniert aber unter Gigapan und anderen Seiten sehr feinfühlig. --Kolossos (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nochmal getestet, meine Maus war unter Windows pro Scrollbewegung auf drei Zeile springen eingestellt, nachdem ich auf "eine Zeile springen" umgestellte hatte lief es vernünftig. Ist mir aber jetzt für andere Dinge zu langsam. Vielleicht gibt es da zwei unterschiedliche Events. --Kolossos (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must ja nicht auf +- klicken. Einfacher klick irgendwo ins Bild reicht auch. --Dschwen (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalibrierungsdingens ;)

Siehe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Diskussionen_%C3%BCber_Bilder#Monitor-Kalibrierungsger.C3.A4t_auf_Weltreise - könntest du das bitte sinngemäß ins englische übersetzen und hier irgendwo an passender Stelle veröffentlichen? Oder hat das keinen Sinn? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Marcela has made a colorimetric monitor calibration device (eye-one display 2 by X-Rite) available to all interested parties. The device has so far been used to calibrate screens of Wikimedia users in Germany in the Nürnberg/Fürth region, and will travel via Helsinki to Stockholm and the international Photo-Workshop in Nyköping. After that it will travel to Senegal, Africa. Its further route is yet to be determined. If you are interested in calibrating your screen you may request the device to be sent to you. Software for Windows computers is packaged with the calibration device. Linux computers can be calibrated using Argyll CMS (see write-up here [5])

Dorfpumpe? Oder wo sonst? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da gehts sofort unter. Ich hattes auf COM:QIC und FPC gepostet. Da sind Fotobegeisterte Leute besser zu erreichen. Aber ich kann ja nochmal ne Kopie auf VP posten. --Dschwen (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bei wem sollen sich die Leute ueberhaupt melden? Bei Dir? --Dschwen (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, bei mir. Ich versuche, das zu koordinieren. Ich spreche noch die Foundation an. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castles by Christopher Chant

I did not know if you were aware, but your photo "CH Tarasp Fontana.jpg" has been published in Christoper Chant's new book titled "Castles" (ISBN 9780785824190) on page 211. It's a beautiful 8.5"x11" nearly full page print. It's been cropped a bit differently than your original. The caption reads "Tarasp Castle, located near Tarasp in Lower Engadin, Graubünden".

I was interested in the fact that nearly every photo in the book came from TopFoto, Flickr Creative Commons, or Wikimedia Commons. As I was working my way through the list, I noticed that your photo was sadly mis-attributed to Andrew Bossi, which I think technically violates your creative commons attribution share alike license.

I was curious if Chant or his publisher had contacted you and whether the error was regretted, or whether they had even bothered to notify you that your photo was being used. I hope this doesn't discourage you from publishing more excellent photos for Wikimedia Commons, but I thought you should know if you did not already.

74.109.215.249 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't. That is a bit disappointing. I've had a couple of cases where book authors notified me and sent me copies of the book. But I guess not everybody has the courtesy to do that. --Dschwen (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they made an error and confounded something, how could they contact you? Maybe you should throw light on this mistake. --188.174.2.106 08:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you contacted me. On the other hand I did some googeling yesterday for a few minutes and was unable to come up with a contact page for either the publisher or the author. --Dschwen (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I understood everything correctly but if they thought the picture is from someone else why should they contact you here?? --188.174.2.106 12:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that is a good point. But how did you find me by the way? --Dschwen (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, isn't it? I'm pretty sure the authors didn't do that mistake intentionally. I came here because I wanted to ask you something about edits by DschwenBot but then solved the question while typing here. So I horned in this discussion here ;) --93.104.171.181 08:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VICbot issue

Hi Daniel. Apparently VICbot keeps removing this candidate, which is a renomination after a candidate page rename (don't ask why). If you have an idea about how to avoid removal... --Eusebius (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although we/I tried to make it look like a renomination following the standard procedure, and can't find any category membership or page link indicating the nomination page as closed, he still removes it on every run. I'm afraid we need help... --Ikar.us (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar case three months ago, see [6]. Maybe the same kind of issue? --Myrabella (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhg, let me take a look. Where is that bot running anyways? --Dschwen (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the standard toolserver (login, become qicvic). --Eusebius (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got it. When removing candidates the name matching is done in a lazy way. In short: an existing candidate matches a new candidate, if its name is a substring in the new candidate. Quick fix: rename Commons:Valued image candidates/Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg to Commons:Valued image candidates/Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg-2009 . Better fix: Program a more restrictive yet fault tolerant matching routine :-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The VIC is now in a MVR (not renamed yet). --Myrabella (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still removed before closure: [[7]]. About the name, the current VIC had been renamed "Commons:Valued image candidates/Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg-2010"; the former one had been renamed "Commons:Valued image candidates/Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg OLDER" and now we have these two but VICbot is still confusing. However the nominator has just withdrawn his candidate so maybe we can let it vanish? That will make a MVR with only one VIC inside, but that's another problem ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed by Ikar.us, by renaming the flying review page (see [8]). Tip: the new name mustn't contain the exact original string of characters. --Myrabella (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rewrite the renomination instructions accordingly. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot misreads nominator

Hi. I want to make you aware of an issue with the QICbot. It seems that it has got photographer and nominator a bit mixed up. I have never nominated any of my own pictures (that I can remember), but am still being told so by the template placed by the bot on my user talk. /Dcastor (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but this is known and intended behavior. Figuring out who nominated and who took the picture is too much work for no apparent gain. The first username that shows up in the QI candidate gets the notification. Many people who nominate other peoples images mention the author's name as a courtesy. The intended outcome is that the author gets notified and thus introduced to the QI project. --Dschwen (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I do think that the wording should be changed then, since it doesn't feel quite right to be told that I nominated my own picture. I am not saying that one shouldn't, but I have chosen not to, and suppose that the same goes for many others. /Dcastor (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well and you shouldn't say "you shouldn't", because you should. Users are explicitly asked to nominate their images. QI is not a shoulder patting vanity contest, it is not about ego, it is not about reward, it is for our end users! It is a service we provide them. QI is trying to build a large library of images reviewed to a certain technical standard. Not nominating your own images is actually counter productive for the project :-). --Dschwen (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: If you still feel strongly about it, you can have a stab at {{QICpromoted}} and change the wording to that you nominated (or that was nominated for you). I personally think this would be a bad idea since it sounds clumsy and overcomplicated and makes the situation worse for 95% of all cases, just to get a marginal improvement for the remaining 5%. --Dschwen (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change, though not exactly the way you suggested. I hope you find it ok. /Dcastor (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that actually sounds pretty good. :-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

da Trento engraving

Considering unwithdrawing this, but no idea how to do so without killing its chances of promotion. Any suggestions? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renominations of declined candidates are possible, if the reasons for declining are adressed. This one isn't formally declined yet, and the only reason until now would be the withdrawal. I think nobody will object if you just change the status back? However, considering the present comments, the chances for promotion seem small... --Ikar.us (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about the FPC candidate? --Dschwen (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I answered about the VI candidate, Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Most_valued_review_candidate_list#Tiburtine_Sibyl. Didn't notice that it's also FPC. --Ikar.us (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! San Francisco 1.jpg, 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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! San Francisco 2.jpg, 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 Question Geocode? --Slaunger 22:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC). On the image page. --Dschwen 07:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)* Support A little undersized, but OK otherwise ;-) BTW when are you going to submit to FP ?--Ianare 16:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC), With the discouraging reaction below: Probably not at all. But anybody is welcome to nominate other peoples' pictures. It would be better than the constant self-nominations. --Dschwen 17:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, but where is the famous San Francisco fog? :)--Mbz1 00:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nigel Farage.jpg

You're about a mile and a half out with the location - ([9]) --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Actually the iPhone's GPS was off. I'm just operating a bot that translates the GPS-EXIF data into a Location template. There isn't much I can do if the images contain faulty data. That is about the same as if the uploader supplies a wrong Location template. But you are more than welcome correct such mistakes if you spot them. --Dschwen (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stich request

Hi! You reviewed my panorama on QIC-page, thanks! Maybe you could help me with restich, if I send the original files to you? —kallerna™ 13:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, which software did you use? Hugin by any chance? I'll wikimail you. --Dschwen (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take image resolution into account

"Noise and sharpness depend on resolution" can be taken into account only provided some output with some resolution; say, printing with fixed resolution. But when I watch the image on my screen I watch it in several resolutions depending on scale factor. So I would like to ask your opinion, how can i think of fixed resolution speaking about file, not about printing? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is quite simple: when you judge a file for noise and sharpness, look at it not at 100% magnification, but zoom out until the picture is as big as let's say a 2 or 3 MP image. With some experience you don't have to actually zoom out, but you just know that if the sharpest edge in the image is 3 pixels wide, it would be sharp if you scale down to about 10% of the size. So such an unsharp 30MP image would appear perfectly sharp at 3MP, which is well above the FP size minimum. Well, this is an extreme example and real world examples are much more subtle than that. But I hope you get the drift. It just makes me mad that some users go all happy-clappy when they see a severely downsampled and sharpened image that barely fulfills the size minimum and claim it is oh so f*cking crisp and sharp, and at the same time the bash a 14MP image for being soft and noisy. They do not realize they are just being screwed over and played for a sucker by the uploader of the downsampled image. The downsampled version is in no way better than the full version. This is just so incredibly.. Ok, my blood pressure is rising again and i better stop typing before i get all vulgar ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a document transferring me the fact of being of the scene (the item, the human being, anything). It tells me some information of that scene (or anything depicted). Unsharp 30MP image is a sharp 3MP image, you are right, that's the only amount of information stated in it. Those users do a mistake speaking about "sharp". But speaking about "soft" picture they may be right, when they criticize big-sized photos for technical problem of unsharpness. -- Yes, the downloaded version is no way better, both original and downsampled photos are no way better, are bad: first is unsharp, second is recalculated, resampled. The good picture is original-sized sharp one.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the good picture is original-sized sharp one, I agree. But it seems unfair to me to promote downsampled pictures over originals, even if the originals do not look as sharp at full size. And those double standards are what bothers me. --Dschwen (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, and GENERALLY you are completely right. In detail noone will even try to think there's any usefulness in so much pixels to be consumed to scaling so to get a sharp image. Most users think author's eager to downsample himself to get sharp pixels, not excessive amount of non-sharp pixels. Thus each side is right :-).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then read User:Stefan_Vladuck/Downsampling nice write-up about downsampling. That, and reports from an event in Switzerland where 1m+ sized prints of swiss-themed commons images were printed for a Wikimedia meeting, made me support the anti-downsampling view. In short, for large prints the original will always look much better than a downsampled and then upsampled version, no matter how sharp the image looks on screen. Downsampling is nothing more than a sham. --Dschwen (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Baker Beach 2.jpg, 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 Awesome composition. Juliancolton 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! San Francisco through GGB.jpg, 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 Excellent (sharpness, composition...). Might be FP. --Cayambe 11:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Embarcadero from Coit Tower.jpg, 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 many details --Mbdortmund 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DschwenBot

...appears to be removing all the info from hundreds of image pages. I don't think this is intended, so I blocked it for 24 hours until this apparent defect can be sorted. If I'm wrong just go ahead and unblock. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UUUUHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Epic fail!!! --Dschwen (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, no big deal. Need help rollbacking? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I can manage it, plus I need that lesson to sink in. Got distracted by a colleague coming in and chatting with me. That run was supposed to be supervised... --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for catching this before more damage could be done. I unblocked the bot, fixed it, and will try a little more careful again. --Dschwen (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for the quick responses. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has the bot been running the past two days? My new pix haven't been done. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran it maybe 30mins ago It must have had login problems for the last few days. It might need some further work. Are you sure your pics are not processed now? If not, then I'd know one more issue (related to the bot's built in caching). --Dschwen (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! My error. My last two uploads, Lazarus PS 268 Clarkson jeh.JPG and Goodwill Tapscott jeh.JPG lack not only artistic merit, but coordinates in EXIF. I'll tag them manually. Checking the recent bot change activity on old pictures is slowing my uploads and other actions with new pix. Thank you much for your geotagging services and other good things you do for Commons. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with tagging the large images! IIP is really convenient, but I had never used it before for lack of a convenient way of accessing it. Just one remark: it would be nice to know which criteria the bot is using (byte or pixel size, or a little bit of both) and how frequently it will be searching for large images to tag. Maybe you could add this info to the bot's user page? –Tryphon ^☂ 10:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the Template documentation. Bot user page is a good idea too. --Dschwen (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! GGB Marin County line.jpg, 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 Useful and informative. Good technical quality IMO.--Jebulon 14:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Golden Gate from Baker Beach.jpg, 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 I have supported the discussed one below, and maybe this one is better. Good composition. Sky is beautiful, sand is visible, the wave is nice and general sharpness good. And...I love the bird.--Jebulon 14:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! SF Chinatown street sign Clay.jpg, 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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Baker Beach 1.jpg, 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}}}

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Baker Beach 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baker Beach 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! SF Transamerica full CA.jpg, 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 Very good. --kallerna 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lincoln Log Cabin 2.jpg, 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 Good. --Cayambe 16:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Golden Gate 2.jpg, 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 Always the same fascination for me. Good as QI. Thank you for this view, Dschwen!--Jebulon 17:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QI bot again

I think it happened again. The images removed from QIC yesterday noon were not processed or messages sent to the nominators. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nargh. Thanks for noticing. I'll have to build in a failsafe I guess. --Dschwen (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Oysters.jpg, 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}}}

User talk:Dschwen/Archive11

New star :) for you

Quality Image Promotion

FYI

VICbot

QICbot not running

Löschung Fefe...

FP Promotion

:)

The QI Barnstar

Geocode robot problem

Thank you!

VICbot removing a renominated image

neue Idee

OICbot and sub-pages

:)

You might be interested to learn

Re:Glaciers

A Quick Query...

:-) One of a kind barnstar for you! :-)

Das Bild in {{Location}}

Notification bot

QICbot problem

Removed Locations of some Pics, but Tags are still in Maps

Please help replace this outdated license

Commons:Photoworkshop Nyköping 2010

Tag by VICbot

VICbot small trouble

Profile size and activity criterion for Commons:Meet our photographers

Merkwürdig

QICbot oddity

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Template:Overlay

Quality Image Promotion

Mail?

Signature is missing

Quality Image Promotion

FP Promotion

Geotagged images missed by the bot

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

Large image viewer

Quality Image Promotion

Zoomviewer

VIS

Geokoordinaten

FP Promotion

new ZoomViewer gadget

Kalibrierungsdingens ;)

Castles by Christopher Chant

VICbot issue

QICbot misreads nominator

da Trento engraving

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

File:Nigel Farage.jpg

Stich request

Take image resolution into account

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

DschwenBot

Quality Image Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

FP Promotion

Quality Image Promotion

QI bot again

Quality Image Promotion

Navigation menu

Search