User talk:Samsara/Archive12

Bronze wing...

Neutral. Seems oversharpened, esp. in the neck feathers. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting - considering you were happy enough to support this... --Fir0002 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fir, can you stop following me around? This may be the last warning you will get before I take this further. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "...before I take this further" - now what do you mean by that threat? Keep it civil Samsara - what are you hiding from? I was just pointing out a strong inconsistency, if not a double standard in your voting - which needless to say is counter-productive to the FPC process. And commenting on this page as I frequently do, and having a nomination I have voted on in my watchlist is hardly "following you around". --Fir0002 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm talking about dispute resolution. Harrassment is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you feel that we need to enter dispute resolution right away. Otherwise please limit your behaviour to sensible and constructive comments, not just towards me, but also towards other users, or dispute resolution will be our only option. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no dispute with you Samsara, and as far as I can tell from a quick look at WP:DR the dispute resolution process is mainly applied to article revert wars - hardly applicable here. What I do have is an issue with what I see as inconsistent voting (which I can only assume is sourced in some kind of personal bias) disrupting the FPC process. What were your motives behind supporting this nom despite clear over sharpening (later removed by uploader) and finding fault in this image for oversharpening? That is what I wish to be explained. Although this image may be approaching over sharpening it is no where near the levels of oversharpening in the Venessa nom. Duplicity isn't healthy for FPC and waving a dispute resolution is only muddying the waters... --Fir0002 10:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think you understand. It is your behaviour that is at issue here. You have demonstrated in the past that you will dig through previous comments of mine and try to concoct some inconsistency in my voting to then justify an attack on my integrity. You are actually harassing me. Digging through previous comments is clear evidence of wikistalking, as is the fact that you have commented in this way repeatedly. Wikistalking needs to be dealt with. It is surprising that you attack me in this way and demand explanations when I am one of the editors who have gone furthest in writing down the criteria they use to judge pictures, and tried to collaborate with others to develop clearer guidelines than currently exist. It is you who simply cannot accept my opinion as valid. I was really hoping that you would be able to understand what you are doing, and refrain from it in future. Yours in hope, Samsara noadmin (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fir has just posted further comments here that misrepresent things that I said (see talk page history if you really need to know), and have therefore been duly removed. This thread ~~will be shortly~~ has been archived, in keeping with User:Peripitus's earlier sensible action. The original premise still stands. The warning I posted was meant as a warning, and will simply remain a warning if no further incidents occur. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.

Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.

I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.

Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pix

Hi Samsara,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. First off, I can't believe there's a Casliber and a Calibas. That's as confusing as Samsara and Spamsara.

On my talk page, you wrote: "nobody has been able to make a strong general case for head shots in birds or any other larger taxon"; Actually, there are several dinosaurs known only for their skulls or mandibles, and we could only illustrate that portion of the body (conversely, many sauropods are known for skeletons missing the head). Some dinosaurs are recognized as separate genera because of their skulls: particularly the ceratopsians and the pachycephalosaurs.

There are so many dinosaurs known from single bones, or only bits of bone... or teeth. I'd like articles on these genera to be able to reach FAC, but if there is a mandatory "no head shot" rule or somesuch, I worry that articles will be rejected on spurious grounds by users simply unfamiliar with the condition of many fossil specimens. Does that make sense? Firsfron of Ronchester 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I tried to get people to appreciate that phrases such as "unless there are special reasons for not doing so" are repeatedly used in the original proposal. I think this is preferable to giving a long list of known exclusions, because such a list is bound to be incomplete and going to be met with new, not previously listed examples that then require continuous updating of any such list. That latter situation sounds like the real nightmare to me, but allowing for exceptions in very special cases is fine. I would prefer to inject some clarity into the situation rather than continue to rant my mouth off at every FPC that leaves part of an animal's appearance to the viewer's best guess. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sold. :) Where do we go from here? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're feeling ~~f**ked off~~ a little frustrated with the whole thing, I think what you're doing has lotsa merit. I have tried standardising headings and subheadings on loads of bird, dino, fungus, some mammal and now some star articles, especially when going to FA. Question is whether it is better done incrementally or all at once, - maybe just a big essay/guideline or writing the 'best' biology article? Funny about usernames, I stuffed up when I joined and didn't mean to stick my first and second names together and cant be arsed doing anything about it now. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		To Samsara for...just doing things which require more patience than what I have on a good day...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soaring birds

Hi Samsara: Having just read your message summarizing the animal photo discussion (a DYK notice got posted after your message, and I didn't see yours until today :P ), I just have one further thing to say re: flight silhouettes. While they'd certainly be useful for non-soaring birds (i.e. swifts, swallows, etc.) in a more general article, I think they'd be less useful for individual species. The difference between flying warblers can help someone with considerable experience ID them to genus, for example, but rarely further than that (without further clues, like location, vocalization, etc.) And, given that experienced bird artists often struggle to represent them well (and I've got scores of field guides that prove that), the chances of getting somebody with a computer mouse to do better is highly unlikely! : ) Of course, that's just my two cents! MeegsC | Talk 17:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Discussion of a FAC you reviewed, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Frogs in popular culture

I have nominated Frogs in popular culture, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design - unprotection?

Hi,

I think Intelligent design could be unprotected now - in Talk:Intelligent design#The little edit war User:Ed Poor says, "I undid one reversion User:dave souza made, because he didn't give a good reason. He repeated his reversion, this time with a good reason, and that was the end of it." This appears to be a declaration from Ed Poor that he has no problem with the version of the article proposed by the other participant in the low-level edit war, Dave Souza, which as far as I can tell means there is now no edit war. Ed Poor requested unprotection on WP:RPP and the closing admin suggested that this request should be made of you first; but as far as I can see no-one has done so.

Thanks, TSP (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size

useful? 'nuff said..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon

I'll regard it as a real alternative when the image is actually put up for display. You Supported that nom of Fir's already, you Oppose mine. Doesn't worry me, but I don't know if there's a lot of point dredging up 2yo noms on which to base your opposes (and noms that you may or may not have been actually originally referring to anyway).
As I've already pointed out, mine has features that none of Fir's have had, i.e., the way it displays the spikes and beard on an adult. Personally I like the composition on mine; others may prefer Fir's. Some may prefer none of them. --jjron (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sea otter FAC

Wow, thanks for nominating it! I had been planning to do some more work on it and then nominate it myself. What's happening now is less orderly but way more fun and a great motivator. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GIMP edit

Hi! Your recent edit to the GIMP article seems to have reverted some of the latest additions ([1]). I am not entirely sure what it was meant to do so I haven't done anything about it. Zarniwoot (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. I made a few additional corrections. It should be OK now. Thanks. Zarniwoot (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template:science portalbar

fine, i have replaced it. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of History of erotic depictions

History of erotic depictions has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Zantastik talk 09:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I didn't realise that rollbacks were monitored, just tend to use it as quick fix for incorrect good faith edits as well as vandalism, but I'll do it properly now I know. Incidentally, the edit you referred too I rolled back because in 1905 Scottish Crossbill was considered to be the same species as Parrot Crossbill, and still is by many people ornithologists. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose Open Source as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Open Source was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Zginder^{(talk) (Contrib)} 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaman Man

I hadn't looked at the rest of the photographer's photos until you mentioned it, so thanks - the others are just as great and rich in composition. I think some should definitely be nominated. I cropped my favourite, Image:Kutia kondh inde 02 05.jpg, to Image:Kutia kondh woman.JPG, but the background is still overly distracting. Are there people on wikipedia who can edit the photo to improve the background? Ta, Kitkatcrazy (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Otter

Hi Samsara. I urge you to withdraw Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sea_Otter. Talk with User:Clayoquot, the primary author, and let her nominate it when she's ready. This is a simple courtesy on Wiki. Concern over FAs is wonderful, but main authors must be allowed to set their own pace with a given article. Marskell (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented further on the nomination page. I realize you've been to FAC before. That's part of what so surprised me. Marskell (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, as I did there, that the tone of my first comment was not acceptable. Obviously, I shouldn't have expected you to take it well.

As Clayoquot has asked to withdraw it pending structural changes, can we just do that? Marskell (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he's taken a wikibreak. I think doing whatever Clayoquot asks will be fine, so I'd suggest you go ahead. pschemp | talk 05:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Mammals

hi, today i created this portal. i want to add this to the related portal section of biology portal. can i be that bold that i can do this. actually i don't want to argue and waste your precious time just because of my stupid things. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'd better fix this.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

It was settled, here. Marskell (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say. The candidacy is closed and our continuing to debate it will achieve nothing. This is conflict avoidance, not a shrug. Marskell (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French Resistance

Hi, Your edit is just what I had in mind, do you want to put the photo on Wikipedia:Picture peer review first?

Also, you changed the header of one of the sections of the French Resistance article from Sociology to Participants and another from Role of the Resistance in the Liberation of France to Role in the liberation, while I prefer the original titles. I've done a lot of work on the article and I think that the previous titles suit the article better. Ta, Kitkatcrazy (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new version of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ceratopsian poster

Hello Samsara! there is a higher resolution version of the dino poster at WP:FPC. Please check it out if you have a moment. The creator has also addressed the phylogenetic order question to some extent. Cheers, de Bivort 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cethosia cyane.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Cethosia cyane.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. 26 January 2008

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loved your quote

[2] Just wanted to tell you. You've got the right spirit. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Samsara! Maybe it is the right spirit but probably not the prevailing one. WP:FPC has become a less interesting place, with fewer self-nominations and most authors (like myself) fying away from it, to avoid to be patronized. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Admiral

Alas no. They are very photogenic little beasts though, and perhaps when the Buddleia flowers in the summer I'll try to do better. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Heliconius melpomene Richard Bartz.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Heliconius melpomene Richard Bartz.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal collab

OK, I'll set this up here - feel free to nominate and foraward to any other editor interested in furry critters. We'll see how it flies and I'll drop a note in the signpost.

Nominating key articles is ok, even if you can't work on them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Philaethria hecale 2 Richard Bartz.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Philaethria hecale 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?

I don't understand why you did this. We are using that template for the nominations. (Copied from the page, not from the edit window.) I went ahead and restored it, so people can continue to use the template to format nominations in the same manner. --JayHenry (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, this is supposed to be a fun collaboration. Nobody was trying to "serve people bullshit". Somebody made a format change. --JayHenry (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sucks? Uther made a formatting change so that you could edit each individual section, and the template at the top of the page didn't get updated immediately (less than three hours later it's now fixed). That's such an incredibly minor thing, and I don't understand your tone at all. This is supposed to be a fun collaboration :) --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]