User talk:Elcobbola/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Thank you for your work at FAC during April

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
To Elcobbola,
For your exceptional reviews of at least 39 Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your dedication to helping assure that only Wiki's finest (and most "legal" :-) work is recognized on the Main Page.[1]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I haven't been entering comments one way or another on articles that come to FAC without image issues; the deceptively low 39 count lets me retain the delusion that I don't need to get out more ;) (Thanks, Sandy!) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I knew the 39 was a drop in the bucket :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Xzibit

How should the captions be? I want to fix this soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughing at my money now (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a minor thing; in the absence of multiplicity, captions should not end with periods unless they are complete sentences (see WP:MOS#Captions). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Query

Elcobbola, can you browse the query at the bottom of User talk:Raul654? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the actual image has been deleted, so I entered general comments at the article's talk page. In a way, they're both wrong. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion

Hell Elcobbola. Are you willing to reconsider your vote of opposition to Priory of Sion becoming a Featured Article in light of recent changes that I have been made? --Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Freudian slip. ;) Oppose stricken. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

hello,

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping me with the audio samples of the Janet Jackson article. This is the first music artists page I've contributed to significantly and I've been hesitant to delete any of the current audio samples in case I can find critical analysis since I have no way of recreating them if they are deleted. Do you have any recommendations? Esp on how to write a fair use rational in terms of policy? I'd appreciate any help. Thankyou. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with one audio clip, as establishing vocal and musical style is important, I think, to understanding such a performer. I wrote the rationale for the clip used in the Michael Jackson article and would suggest similar verbiage for Janet. That said, however, I don't think there's support for six song clips, which seems superfluous even in the absence of NFCC#3A (which requires minimal use). As someone unfamiliar with Janet's music, I'm afraid I can't recommend which one should be the one to stay, nor do I know whether a significant voice/style change has occurred during her career that might warrant the inclusion of a second clip. If you think certain clips need to stay, perhaps I would be most helpful as a sounding board (e.g. let me know the reasons you think they are necessary and how they are expected to contribute significantly and we can work from there).
I've removed three audio clips and moved the remaining ones to the "Artistry" section of the article. The three clips I've left remaining I believe hold significance to Jackson's musical style and public image-the later being a cornerstone of her overall career.
1) "Control"- the song establishes Jackson as an independent woman, emerging from the shadows of her family's careers.
2) "Black Cat"- This is the only song in Jackson's career to be written entirely by herself and her only pure rock song. The single deals with drug abuse as a part of Jackson's over all socially conscious theme of Rhythm Nation 1814.
3) "If"- the single is the first instance of Jackson exploring her sexuality through her music which is a central theme to the janet. album.
All three singles follow the chronological order of her albums: Control (1986), Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 (1989), janet. (1993). They also follow the order of her evolving musical themes: Independence (Control) Social Responsibility ("Black Cat"/Rhythm Nation 1814) and sexual freedom ("If"/janet.)Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

I have debated images with you to the point, where I am certain that you have far greater understanding of image guidelines. Is there a policy against altering fair use images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the very same question as Tony. D.M.N. (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, alter at will. Wikipedians are constantly altering FU images (e.g. changing resolution, cropping, adjusting balance/contrast, etc.) The resulting image would just be a derivative work (and would thus still need a fair use tag/rationale and credit to the original copyright holder). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Aeneas Mackintosh

Could I ask you to look at the Aeneas Mackintosh page, and let me know if what I have done with regard to the group photograph is OK? Basically, I ve ditched the photo with the dubious source, located another copy of the photograph and uploaded it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, indeed. I just added some author and publishing information. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC check

Could you please perform a WP:NFCC check for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare per this? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

With Black Kite's opinion noted, I've removed the images of the book covers, reward poster, and the F-16 (which BK felt was irrelevant). I hope we've sufficiently addressed your concerns that you can support the nomination. - auburnpilot talk 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the changes we've made per your concerns, would you reconsider your oppose vote on the FAR for this article?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Trumble

Hi and thanks for taking the time to take a look this article at FAC. Following up on your concerns I have raised a query at FAC about the sourcing of the images that you queried. Could you please take a look and give me your advice if possible.Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I have addressed your concerns about images if you an opportunity to take another look. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying hello

Hi Эlcobbola, Sorry for not telephoning you first, but I'm just popping in to say hello and to thank you for my not having to worry about the images in the FACs that I occasionally review. Your detective work is admirable. Graham. GrahamColmTalk 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image OK?

Hi. Is this image good for a FAC article? ('Image:Kanaka.jpg').

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Image:Kanaka.jpg is in bad shape. Most glaringly, it doesn’t have a license (required per WP:IUP). The uploader, also, acknowledges it is a derivative work (“scanned copy”), but does not provide a source, author, etc. for the image, nor is there any reasoning or basis provided for the assumption that it is free of copyright restrictions. I've tagged it with {{nld}} (no license). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Map load time

Hi Elcobbola. I'm writing to ask a favor. Johnson Creek (Willamette River) is at FAC, has support from various quarters and no opposition. However, a question has arisen about the load time of the largest of its maps, an extra-wide, multi-panel photo map. None of us working on the article has found a specific rule or guideline about this kind of image. Any guidance you could give would be appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy/guidelines actually recommend uploading the largest (i.e. highest resolution, quality, etc.) possible, so long as it is under 20 mb. This recommendation, however, seems to be made with the assumption that the "thumb" parameter be used as mitigation in cases of extreme file sizes. The only real hint of an "official" stance on avoiding large image sizes I've seen is the recommendation that still frames be used to link to large animated .gif files. WP:SIZE addresses the issue in spirit, as it addresses the issue of load time on dial-up connections (i.e. decisions on content inclusion should consider impact on those with older computers and/or slower connections). Possibilities to remedy the problem may be (1) to utilize a thumbnail with a larger than average forced size, (2) to create an alternative image with less frames and a link to the full version for those who want more than just a sample or (3) to upload a lower resolution/quality version (i.e. more so than has already been done). Obviously, these suggestions would enact WP:IAR to a degree. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to say thank you here too. This was most helpful, and we are working on a solution amenable to the involved editors. Finetooth (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Not caught up yet, was in the garden all afternoon ... what's the issue with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, now tell me what I missed ? I had to get the garden out of my hair :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Hey, just wondering why you removed this [2]? The Facebook FAC that Sandy archived was the 2006 FAC. -- Naerii 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct; give Ec a moment to respond so we can sort this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, saw the edit summary for this and acted too soon. It's back. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see; I should explain :-) GimmeBot and articlehistory started about January 2007. Old FACs before that weren't all botified; they don't all have a previous FAC file, and the FAC archives contain the original FAC file. Some editors (grrrrr ... ) don't follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAC when moving the old file manually, which instruct them to check "What Links Here" and update other links. Whenever I notice on old FAC file got moved, I have to check everything (it's something to watch for, and I often notice when checking each talk page). Even though the instructions tell them to check What Links Here on the FAC, and correct the old links, they rarely do it. That leaves the *new* fac archived in the old fac archives. We have to add the archived version (which is something GimmeBot has done automatically since Jan 2007). They also often fail to update the article talk page when they move the old FAC page. In this case, the nominator got the talk page, but didn't get the old archive file. Thanks for looking out ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yakshgana

Please review the images in this page. I plan to use one of these images in a FAC per reviewer request. 'Image:Yakshagana Progress1.jpg', 'Image:Chittani Dancing.jpg', 'Image:Devendra Shivashankara.jpg', 'Image:Kondadakuli.jpg' and 'Image:JT-tikacharyaJT.jpg'. Sorry for the bother. thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Akhtar Hameed Khan

Hi, per Sandy's advice, could you pls confirm if either Image:AHKhan.jpg (just updated rationale) and/or Image:Akhtar Hameed Khan.jpg (just added) can be used in this FAC? Cheers. --IslesCapeTalk 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image issue

Can you help? This:Image:Sir Tannatt William Edgeworth David (1858-1934).jpg appears on Commons. From the information in its Commons file, do you think this image is free for use? Previous problems on images sources have made me cautious. I'd be grateful for your opinion. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It had been tagged with the wrong license (and the information template was corrupt), but I've cleaned it up on the Commons side. This is one of those rare images that actually has verifiable proof that it was published before January 1, 1923. This is a good one. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, I know you review images well. Can you please run a check on the images on this article please? The article is up on FAC and I see some red flags especially in the light of this scam I helped bust. Can you please take a close look at the images and their sourcing. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:PreityZinta.jpg and Image:Ness & Preity.jpg both claim OTRS tickets. The tags were added by Lucasbfr (talk · contribs), an admin and OTRS member, so I don't doubt that they are genuine. I've emailed OTRS to double-check, but I fully expect the response to be that all is well. Otherwise, I don't quite buy that both of the non-free images are necessary, but my opinion on the matter isn't strong enough to raise at the FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, fwiw, I also dont buy that fair use rationale and I've told them that only to be jeered at. And dont be so sure about those OTRS tickets. They had OTRS tickets last time round too - all 150 (or so) of them. The question in the Bollywoodblog case was not whether they'd released the rights on CC-3, but whether the rights were theirs to release in the first place. That was something none of them could answer.. including an admin with OTRS access. I was even told that it was "multi-million pound company.. they are obviously reliable" etc.,. Turned out that it was just another screwed up blog who'd scammed us from the get go. I wont be surprised at all if this was just another such scam. Sarvagnya 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the threshold for inclusion on Wiki is verifiability, not truth. If we have an email of release from the source site, we have done our due diligence. Even if, for example, we were to find those images on another site (e.g. through Google images or on Flickr), it could be possible that those sites also obtained the images from the Bollywood site. Ultimately, in the absence of reasonable evidence to the contrary, there's not much we can do. Wikipedia does indeed have a philosophical problem of "how good is good enough", but requiring, for example, photographic negatives with signed and notarized statements of release would go beyond practicality and common sense. (OTRS still hasn't responded, by the way) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're still watching/interested, OTRS replied confirming the release. I'm happy to forward the email to anyone interested. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

I requested Peer Review of an article today, here. Would you mind taking a look? The peer review includes an image issue, and I hear that you're very good at addressing those. Thanks in advance for peering into this.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied there. I'm not sure whether that was the correct place to have done so (I'm not familiar with PR), so certainly let me know if the comments should be moved elsewhere and/or if I should be following-up elsewhere. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the many useful comments. I've replied to some of them, and hope to address others later today.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi elcobbola, I think we've addressed all of your comments now.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe now.[4]  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I made comments, only one of which needs any action (double-check my source correction). Otherwise, images look to be resolved. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To Tell the Truth GA reassessment

I have removed all the unreliable sources from the article To Tell the Truth. I've also added a buttload of amboxes, as I think they're needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick look?

Would you mind taking a look at the comments in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Ignition Facility? I'd like to know if they address your concerns, and/or if there is some more formal method I need to use to do this? IE, does this need an OTRS ticket? Maury (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Myst at FAC

Hey, Ec, this doesn't seem to have had an image check at FAC yet; are you able to have a look? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you also do an image check on the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article, which is also at FAC? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do get to Myst, I think it's almost done in terms of criteria; by the way, I opposed Super Smash Bros. Brawl at FAC because I felt there was excessive use of fair use images in some cases; I was wondering if you could look over my comments and the article and see what you think. FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the Smash Bros. assessment (I'll comment there and at Myst later today). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments on the Myst FAC page, thanks for the review! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A thought...

Have you seriously thought about administratorship? I've known you for a while now (we met once on an article that needed reviewing over at GA, I don't know if you remember me or not) and I know you are a civil editor, with a clean history and excellent contributions. Would you consider going for it? Regards, Rudget (Help?) 21:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dibs on co-nom! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Rudget; I remember you indeed! Seldom is there a day when I don't wish I had the ability to fetch neglected source information from Wiki images deleted after being moved to the Commons. In that sense I've thought about it, but I very seriously doubt that an Elcobbola RfA would succeed and I'm not convinced that the handiness of the tools would be worth the pettiness and paranoia which seem to plague the RfA process; I seem to get more than my fair share of criticism and stress outside of that process. ;) I greatly and sincerely appreciate the thought (and the support from Sandy) and it's been encouraging to see the (apparent) success of Risker and Jbmurray, but I worry it would be an exercise in futility. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If those are your thoughts, I can't change them. No matter. Contact me when you feel the time is right. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

film stills as fair use

I invoked you here with reference to this. What's the WP position on film stills, do you know? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As I may have been canvassed, closed the GAR, and am not exactly thrilled with certain comments at the FAC, I'm going to keep my distance on this one. G-Guy responded correctly that, although the stills would indeed satisfy fair use in "the real world", Wikipedia has a proprietary FU policy which is deliberately more restrictive than the actual U.S. fair use law. Not to put words in the Foundation's mouth, but the reason therefor is to minimize and discourage what is essentially a "necessary evil" in a free encyclopedia. Film stills are treated as any other fair use images; if they're necessary and contribute significantly (among the other criteria), they may be used. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the response. (I wasn't too bothered about that particular FAC; I more wanted to know in general.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix FAC

I've replied at the FAC. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doddabasappa Temple

Hi. yesterday I uploaded three images (photographs I had taken in India) in this article's gallery and indicated the license to be "user created Public domain". Is this okay?. Or should I have put it in creative commons? Does it matter?Thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether "should I have put it in creative commons" is refering to licensing or uploading to the actual Commons, so I'll cover both bases:
Short answer: As the author and copyright holder, you are free to use whichever license you wish. Uploading to Commons (as opposed to Wiki) is preferable, as it allows all projects to access the images.
Long answer: PD, GFDL and certain variants of creative commons are all okay to use on Wikipedia. As long as one of those is being used, the only sense in which the choice of license would "matter" is what rights you, as the author, would like to retain. CC, for example, allows you to request attribution and require derivative works be published under the same or equivalent license. Public domain does not retain such rights. I release my images as PD because I'm such a lousy photographer, but your philosophy may differ. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will switch to CC license from next time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hence forth, I will upload under "cc share alike 3.0" as here Image:Sadashiva Temple at Nuggihalli.jpg. Looks ok?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, looks good! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. How do I delete an image I uploaded myself?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Without a mop, you can't (literally speaking, that is - and, even with it, there would need to be a policy-supported reason to do so). If it meets a certain criterion, it may be eligible for speedy deletion. Otherwise, there is WP:IFD. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT

Hi there. Please review this again, changes made to the lead. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street

I see I have resolved your issues. You have remained neutral. You are one of the experts on images. Can you tell me if there are other WP:FAs that have taken advantage of the new templates to incorporate a new level of pictorial detail. I had hoped for support from someone such as yourself given images are at issue here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Irony of ironies: I was just reading the article. I generally remain neutral unless I'm specifically asked to review, or it's a topic on which I have substantial competence and personal interest. If you'd like me to do a complete review (i.e. not just against criterion three), I can try to enter a review by or over the weekend. Note, however, that I usually take substantial time to review (partly why I stopped doing GAs) and Sandy might, therefore, promote/archive before I get to it. I'd have to do some research regarding whether other FAs are utilizing the multiple image templates; I don't know off of the top of my head. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use

Can you let me know if I am using an appropriate fair use template at Image:Old CBOT.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm concerned that it fails NFCC#1 (and, consequently, NFCC#8). Image:Old CBOT commemorating Lincoln.jpg is free (PD) and provides a reasonable view of the exterior. Given the understanding already provided by that image, does the "whole building" image really contribute significantly to our understanding? There are then minor issues, such as some missing "necessary components" as described in WP:RAT. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
... and to answer the question I think you were actually asking: no, {{Non-free 3D art}} isn't right (U.S. buildings are indeed copyrighted, but public photos are allowed - and the pertinent law applies only to buildings completed after 1990, so this one just made it ;) ), so the applicable copyright here is a photograph owned by Chicago Daily News. {{Non-free historic image}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} would be better. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC) shenanigans

Facebook

There are questions about the screen shot that haven't been cleared up on the FAC; would you mind looking if you get a chance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also a question at Mulholland Drive (film). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Give me ca. two hours... ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hi! I am genuinely impressed by the elegance of your prose at the userpage. Since your're obviously also proficient in German, I hope you can help. How do you translate the following Goethe citation into decent English: "Ich sah Heidelberg an einem völlig klaren Morgen, der durch eine angenehme Luft zugleich kühl und erquicklich war. Die Stadt in ihrer Lage und mit ihrer ganzen Umgebung hat, man darf sagen, etwas Ideales". Thanks in advance for helping out! Fred Plotz (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Allzu wörtlich:

I saw Heidelberg on a completely clear morning, which, due to a pleasant air was both cool and delightful. The city, in its circumstance and with the totality of its surroundings, had, one might say, something ideal.

Etwas Elegantes:

I saw Heidelberg on a perfectly clear morning, with a pleasant air both cool and invigorating. The city, just so, with the totality of its ambiance was, one might say, something ideal.

Natürlich ist die letztere Version wünschenswert. Erinnern Sie sich doch, dass die deutsche Sprache (besonders Goethe!) zu schön ist, richtig ins Englische übersetzt zu werden. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Herrlich! Sie finden Ihre großartige Übersetzung jetzt hier. Nochmals vielen Dank für die freundliche und überraschend schnelle Hilfe. Sollten Sie sich doch noch, wie oben vorgeschlagen, zum RfA durchringen können, dürfen Sie mit meiner Stimme rechnen. Beste Grüße Fred Plotz (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)