Dysmachus

Unidentified species

Hi Dysmachus, welcome to the wikimedia commons! -- Schusch 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC) And thanks for your hint at Image talk:Unidentified species schusch 005a 20050808 066.jpg and Image talk:Unidentified species schusch 005b 20050808 072.jpg. Are you sure or is it a propably? -- Schusch 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. --Dysmachus 14:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

possible Copyvio

Hi Dysmachus - i was wondering, why Dennis did this edit, because you signed the image with "CC-By-SA-2.5" ... but now I see the reason: the image is signed with "Museum Wiesbaden, Naturhistorische Landessammlung". So if this is not your image and if you do not own the rights to distribute it, you are not allowed to put it here ... please see Commons:Licensing for more information. There has to be a possibility to check, wether you are allowed to upload this image here or not. Greetings -- Schusch 18:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you for asking. I'm the author of the image. The mount is stored in the collection of the Museum Wiesbaden, where I'm working. As a member of the staff, I have the right to make photographs and to offer them on the internet, because a Natural History Collection need the public and has to support scientific studies.--Dysmachus 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hainich fg01.jpg

Please don't forget to add license tag(s) ({{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}).

Please add your files to appropriative pages and/or categories where other users could easily find them. For example to Category:Thüringen.

EugeneZelenko 04:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Sorry, please tell me the image file, which has no license tag. I thought that all of my photogrpahs have the license tag(s) ({{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}).--Dysmachus 08:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Araneus spec

Hallo Dysmachus, Image:Araneus ceropegius fg01.jpg und Image:Araneus marmoreus fg01.jpg sind identisch. Wahrscheinlich ist es eine ceropegius. Gruß --de:Benutzer:Brummfuss, 16:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wärst Du bitte so nett und löschst Image:Araneus marmoreus fg01.jpg für mich, ich verstehe leider noch nicht, wie dies erfolgen kann. - Danke --Dysmachus 20:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Coluber constrictor image

I believe this image Image:Coluber constrictor Schwarznatter fg01.jpg is actually a Black Ratsnake, Elaphe (Pantherophis) obsoleta. See Image talk:Coluber constrictor Schwarznatter fg01.jpg. Best wishes. I have long enjoyed your pages on Asilidae. --Cotinis 01:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you very much for your identification and correction . I try to add a new version next week.--Dysmachus 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories

hi, i removed the Mammals category from some of your pictures. It's better to categorize them more specifically, so that they don't clutter the broader categories. They can even be found easier, by walking along the category tree. Also, you might try to add pictures to gallery pages. Then you don't have to put any category to the pic at all, because it's less cluttered if only the gallery pages are categorized. Btw, i liked the pic of the giraffoscope :) I'm working at a zoo, and will show them this nice idea. Sarefo 02:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Thank you very much for your help and hints. You are right and I try to do it in that way.--Dysmachus 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

{{cc-by-2.5}}

As eugene noted, you need to indicate the licensing not using plain text, but with curly braces. {{cc-by-2.5}} .

I have updated a number of your photos with the change as an example. Could you update the remainder of your photos with the proper tag? Without them, your photos are in danger of being deleted.

-Mak 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Sorry, please tell me the image file, which has no license tag. I thought that all of my photographs have the license tag(s) ({{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}).--Dysmachus 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dysmachus, here you can see, what Mak did (mainly he added the missing curly brackets) - just take a look at your user contributions (with monobook-skin, which is the standard, you find a link there at the left side of your browser window). There you can choose the namespace "Image" and see all your contributions in this namespace. Greetings -- Schusch 10:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer: I understand - Thank you very much. I used an incomplete dot template . --Dysmachus 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dornfinger_fg5.jpg

I think the Dornfinger image is yours, so I just want to let you know that this picture is used here by the Austrian public service broadcaster, but they didn't mentioned your name.

Greetings, Lukas

Dear Lukas, thank you very much. I agreed with the publication in an Austrian newspaper last week, but not in this case. So I sent an email to the ORF team now, demanding the deletion. --Dysmachus 18:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is delated in the meantime. Thanks again. --Dysmachus 12:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Amnh fg08.jpg

Hi Dysmachus, I recently noticed a photograph you uploaded back in 2004: Image:Amnh fg08.jpg . It appears to be a hadrosaur, but does not have any sort of caption about what it is. I'd like to use it on one of the English Wikipedia's dinosaur genera pages, but without a better clue about which genus it is, I'm hesitant to add it to any of them. We recently had to remove some photos from Velociraptor because it was revealed the pictures were actually of the closely-related Bambiraptor instead. Do you happen to know or remember which genus, such as Hadrosaurus, the animals in the photograph belong to? --Firsfron 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for confirming my ID of Image:IC Asilidae with prey.JPG. I really appreciate it as I'm not an expert. Needless to say, if you have time to check some of my other uploads, I would be very happy (see my user page). IronChris 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I could identify the following image as Sceliphron curvatum (Smith 1870) (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae): [1]. --Dysmachus 07:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Maggia lacerta viridis viridis fg05.jpg

Hallo Dysmachus, beachte bitte meinen Kommentar bei der Diskussion Image talk:Maggia lacerta viridis viridis fg05.jpg. -- Gruß, Fice 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis. Das Tier ist in diesem Tessiner Tal fotografiert worden. Da ich kein Fachmann für diese Tiere bin, habe ich das Foto einem Spezialisten (U. Hildebrand) vorgelegt und bestimmen lassen. Ich werde also tunlichst diese Diskussion nicht begleiten. --Dysmachus 17:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So sei es. Ich melde mich. --Dysmachus 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Credits in your images

Hello, Dysmachus. I notice that many of your uploaded photographs contain credits in the image itself: "Foto: F. Geller-Grimm". Having credits in the image itself is discouraged on the Commons; see Commons:Manipulating meta data#Purpose for using EXIF at Commons. If possible, could you re-upload these images without the credits? —Bkell (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Commens I can only read that this is a suggestion not a must. Nevertheless I accept the reasons and relinquish the adding of my name in the pictures. The changing of the existing pictures would take a lot of time. --Dysmachus 18:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. We have tagged the images and 'in the end' someone will clear things up. Have fun! Siebrand 23:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have the time, it would be nice for you to upload the original images again without the credits, because otherwise people will crop the credits out of the image, which removes a large part of the picture. See for example Image:Museum fg01.jpg. This does not have to be done immediately, but it would be nice to see it done eventually. —Bkell (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lincolnzoo fg03.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Lincolnzoo fg03.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion on its entry.

Siebrand 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a new version of the image without any text information. --Dysmachus 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Superseded" tag

Please explain the procedure. I have to change the images or use a former version without watermark. Next I have to open the Commons webpage with the demanded image, using the link "Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen" (Downloading a new version of this data file) under "File History". The template box "This image contains digital watermarking or credits ..." suggests to replace itself by the following term: "superseded|Image:Mount Everest - no watermark.jpg|image without watermarks". Now I got your note "an image cannot be superseded by itself". What does it mean? I know that Wikipedia Commons isn't able to offer an easy instruction book for all cases, but more common actions should be explained for newcomers. Thank you very much. --Dysmachus 09:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Dysmachus. The {{superseded}} tag is meant to be used when an image has been replaced by an image with a different name. For example, Image:KMT flag.JPG has been replaced by Image:Naval Jack of the Republic of China.svg. The {{superseded}} tag tells people to use the newer image instead of the older one. If you are uploading a new version of the image with the same name as the old version, then you do not need a {{superseded}} tag. Does this make sense? —Bkell (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation. --Dysmachus 08:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Watermark

Thank you for removing watermarks of some of my images (e.g. Image:Agarkroete_fg4.jpg). ). I started replacing of such images in the meantime. Unfortunately, I have a problem with uploading. I have to open the Commons webpage with the demanded image, using the link "Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen" (Downloading a new version of this data file) under "File History". Afterwards, the new uploaded version of the image (without watermark) isn't visible and the former version still exits - but same days later, it works. Please tell me why. Are only administrators qualified to exchange existing images by a new versions? Is there an "Editors help" for replacing existing images? --Dysmachus 08:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank für die Entfernung von Wasserzeichen in einigen meiner Bilder (z.B. Image:Agarkroete_fg4.jpg). Ich habe inzwischen mit dem Austausch solcher Bilder begonnen. Leider gibt es ein Problem beim Aufspielen. Nach dem Öffnen der mit einem Warnhinweis versehenen Commons Internetseite nutze ich den Verweis "Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen" unter "Dateiversionen" (Bsp.: Image:Hohlweg fg01.jpg). Anschließend wird leider noch immer das alte Bild gezeigt, die veränderte und neue Version erscheint nicht. Nach einigen Tagen funktioniert es dann doch ohne mein Zutun. Sind nur Administratoren zu einem unmittelbaren Austausch befähigt? Findet sich in der "Editors help" ein Hinweis auf das Austauschen vorhandener Bilder? --Dysmachus 09:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hallo! Das kommt davon dass die alten Bilder sich noch im Browsercache befinden (und vielleicht auch im Cache der Wikimedia-Server). Benutze einfach die "Aktualisieren"-Funktion des Browsers. Wenn das nicht hilft, dann kannst Du den Browsercache leeren bzw. beim Aktualisieren den Cache umgehen (geht bei mir auf Firefox mit Shift+Aktualisieren). Gruß --Bricktop 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank für den Hinweis. Leider scheint es daran nicht zu liegen (Cache immer zuvor gelöscht). Beispielsweise habe ich nun wiederholt das Bild Image:Adler_fg04.jpg versucht neu zu laden (ohne Wasserzeichen). Die Kontrolle von zwei anderen Rechner aus ergab immer, dass das alte Bild (mit Wasserzeichen) noch vorhanden ist. Was kann es sonst noch sein? --Dysmachus 15:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm bei mir funktioniert es (und bin auch kein Admin). Auch das Image:Adler_fg04.jpg kann ich ohne Wasserzeichen sehen. Es scheint also nur Dein lokales Problem zu sein, auf den Wiki-Servern ist wohl alles OK. Versuch doch mal einfach auf die letzte Bildversion in der "File history" zu klicken. Dann kannst Du direkt auf das Bild zugreifen. Ansonsten würde ich vorschlagen, dass Du einfach die Bilder weiter hochlädst und sie dann einige Tage später prüfst... Gruß --Bricktop 16:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: noch ein Lösungsvorschlag: mit einem anderen Browser, den Du normalerweise nicht benutzst, die Bilder nach dem hochladen checken. --Bricktop 16:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Isar fg06.jpg

Mit diesem Titel ist ein Bild, zu dem Du als Autor genannt bist, im Artikel Monochamus sartor eingestellt. Da man deutlich das relevante Bestimmungsmerkmal erkennt (Schildchen in einem Mittelstrich unbehaart) handelt es sich nach Freude-Harde-Lohse (Erstauflage, Berichtigungen sind mir nicht bekannt, gibt es aber möglicherweise) sicher nicht um M. sartor, sondern um M. sutor. Es wäre schön wenn wir die Frage endgültig klären könnten, da die Bilder in der deutschen Wiki zur Verwendung anstehen. Es schien mir sinnvoller, mich hier zu melden als auf der Diskussionsseite des Bildes. Gruß Siga, in der deutschen Wiki unter dem gleichen Namen --Siga 21:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ich habe das Tier selbst nur bis auf die Gattung bestimmt. Der Hinweis auf der Bildseite Monochamus sartor ist nicht nur falsch plaziert, er stammt auch nicht von mir. Wenn sich das Tier zweifelsfrei bis zur Art bestimmen läßt und es sich um Monochamus sutor handelt, ändere ich die Beschreibung. Grüße --Dysmachus 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Der Blickwinkel des Photos ist so ungewöhnlich glücklich gewählt, dass das Bestimmungsmerkmal deutlich sichtbar ist. Es wäre höchstens möglich, dass bei FHL in einem Ergänzungsband die eigene Tabelle korrigiert würde. --- Eben habe ich bei Reitter nachgesehen, auch dort steht: Das gelb befilzte Schildchen ist längs der Mittellinie vollständig geteilt ...sutor. Also kann man die Beschreibung getrost präzisieren und in einen Artikel M.sutor einstellen. Von dort greif ich ihn mir dann, schönes Foto. Gruß --Siga 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

welcome

Hi Dysmachus,

you may be interested in joining Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life or Commons:WikiProject Insects

kind regards,

TeunSpaans 14:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the invitation. Unfortunately, I have only little time. I concentrate my contribution to the Wikipedia and Commons at the moment. As soon as something changes, I announce myself again. --Dysmachus 10:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:275252580 822c5b26b9 b.jpg

It would be a good idea trying to contact the photographer of the image instead of me. All I did was to add the link to Flickr, where he seems to be more active than here on Commons. Good luck. --Para 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Dysmachus 08:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fliegen

Hi, höre bitte sofort auf, hier alles ohne Sinn und Verstand umzukrempeln. Wie schon in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia gesagt: informiere dich bitte erst. Hier konkret: wie Kategorien funktionieren, welche sinnvoll sind und welche nicht. Es gibt hier die Kategorie "Unknown species" und einige Unterkategorien. Ich verstehe nicht, warum du das ändern möchtest und die nicht identifizierten Fliegen mit in den normalen Kategorienbaum hängen möchtest. Wo wurde das abgestimmt? -- aka 13:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Nachtrag: du machst es nur noch schlimmer: unknown flies ist nun ein redirect zu unknown diptera, ist aber gleichzeitig eine Unterkategorie dazu. Das funktioniert so alles nicht und ich werde jetzt deine ganzen Änderungen rückgängig machen. -- aka 13:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Nachtrag 2: ich hoffe, ich habe nichts übersehen. Bitte widme dich doch erst einmal einfacheren Dingen und sammle etwas Erfahrung, damit uns in Zukunft solche unerfreulichen Aktionen erspart bleiben. Du kannst nicht einfach einen Teil hier umkrempeln und dann so ein Chaos anrichten. Wenn das dann rückgängig gemacht wird ist es auch keine gute Idee, es einfach ohne Diskussion erneut zu ändern. Bitte bedenke, dass hier zwar viel Potential zum Aufräumen vorhanden ist, aber manche Dinge durchaus aus gutem Grund so sind, wie sie sind - zum Beispiel eben die Kategorie "unknown species" mit ihren Unterkategorien. -- aka 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Antwort: Als erstes wünsche ich Dir ein schönes Neues Jahr. Ich arbeite an der Sortierung der Diptera bereits seit einigen Tagen und halte meine Arbeit weder für sinnlos noch unbedacht. Ganz sicher bin ich nicht mit allen Geheimnissen der Commons vetraut - aber wer ist das hier schon? In der Kategorie Diptera befindet sich keine Unterkatergrie Unknown species, sondern bisher (und nun also wieder) die Unterkategorie Unknown flies. Da auch bei anderen Taxa der wissenschaftliche Name verwendet werden soll, muß es doch Unknown Diptera heißen. Ist dies unzutreffend? Was schlägst Du vor? Wenn Du der Meinung bist, daß diese Umstellung anders stattfinden soll, möchte ich um eine ruhige und entspannte Diskussion bitten - ganz ohne Emotionen! Vielleicht ist Dir entgangen, daß ich hier ebenso wie Du konstruktiv mitarbeite. Gelegentlich ist man unterschiedlicher Meinung, aber so ist das Leben. Bei der Speispinne habe ich Deine Zurückstellung akzeptiert und nicht wieder torpediert.

Wenn ein Tier auf einem Bild als Bibionidae bestimmt worden ist, sollte es meiner Meinung nach auch in die Unterkategorie Biblionidae gestellt werden. Erstens ist sonst die Hauptkategorie bald völlig überfüllt und zweitens werden Fachleute dort einsteigen, wo ihre Taxa genannt werden und somit schneller sich zu einer weiteren Bestimmung äußern. Wo gibt es dazu eine allgemeine Anwesiung und wie kann man sch hier konstruktiv einbringen? --Dysmachus 13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ein gesundes neues Jahr wünsche ich dir auch. Wo du solche Dinge diskutieren kannst, wurde dir zwei Abschnitte weiter oben genannt. Daneben gibt es noch die allgemeinen Diskussionsseiten Commons:Forum (deutsch) und Commons:Village pump (englisch). Die Kategorie hiess "flies", weil sie sich bisher nur unterhalb der nicht-identifierten Arten befand. Wenn du sie unbedingt unterhalb von Diptera hängen möchtest, sollte sie auch anders heissen, da hast du Recht. Das hat aber auch Nachteile, da kaum ein Laie "Diptera" kennt und nicht identifizierte Fliegenbilder dann dort nicht einordnen würde. Weiterleitungen funktionieren bei Kategorien nur mit Einschränkungen. Unter anderem deshalb war ich nicht so ganz von der Sinnhaftigkeit überzeugt. Ich lasse mich aber gerne eines Besseren Belehren. Bitte verliere aber nicht aus den Augen, dass es neben den Fliegen noch viele weitere unidentifizierte Unterkategorien gibt, die dann analog angepasst werden müssten. Sonst sieht bald gar keiner mehr durch. -- Gruß, aka 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Antwort: Wie verbleiben wir denn nun? Wie ich gesehen habe, ist mein Tagesputz bei den Diptera von Dir überwiegend rückgängig gemacht worden. Noch einige Fragen/Anmerkungen: (1.) Der Artikel Fly kann ja, wie von Dir vorgeschlagen, verbleiben. Vielleicht sollte dort aber eine Erläuterung hinein, dass man unbestimmte Tiere (also nicht einmal bis zur Familie bestimmte) besser unter Unknown flies stellt. Die dort jetzt wieder vorhandenen Fotos müßten doch in die Kategorie Unknown flies gestellt werden, oder nicht? (2.). Was ist mit den Bildern auf der [Category:Diptera|Kategorie Diptera]]? Die hatte ich ja auch schon wegsortiert auf Unknown Diptera und in die entsprechenden Familien. Auf der Hauptkategorie haben sie doch nichts verloren. (3.)Der Artikel Diptera sollte wohl einmal ursprünglich eine Übersicht der Diptera-Familie liefern. Da es aktuell etwa 170 Familien gibt, macht das aber keinen Sinn und wurde wohl auch deshalb aufgegeben. Wenn man in die Commons Diptera eingibt, landet man aber leider auf diesem Artikel, statt in der [Category:Diptera|Diptera]]. Daher würde ich gerne die Bilder im Artikel Diptera wegsortieren und vom Artikel auf die Kategorie weiterleiten. Gruß. --Dysmachus 14:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Den Artikel Fly finde ich nicht sonderlich sinnvoll, der von dir vorgeschlagene Hinweis würde aber einer ständigen Neuanlage vorbeugen. Die Bilder selbst sollten besser genau wie die Bilder aus der Category Diptera in die Kategorie Unknown flies. Ich helfe dann gleich mit beim Sortieren. -- aka 15:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mein lieber Schwan...

...wir haben ja in den Kategorien ganz schön gewütet! Am Ende kommt in den Laden hier noch Ordnung rein? ;-) Habe auch die vielen Bilder überflogen, die du kürzlich hoch geladen hast. Sind sehr interessante Sachen dabei. Viele Grüße, --Olei 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Beste Grüße und herzlichen Dank für die Unterstützung. Bei den Diptera wird es aber noch einige Zeit brauchen, bis das gröbste Chaos beseitigt ist. Hoffentlich werde ich nicht zu viele Fehler begehen. Sobald da etwas mehr Odnung besteht, werde ich auch einige Kollegen vom AK Diptera um Hilfe bei der Bestimmung bitten. Es ist allerdings sehr mühselig die Spezialisten von der Notwendigkeit der Unterstützung zu überzeugen. Ich muß auch zugeben, daß es mir zunehmend schwerer fällt Kollegen zur Abgabe ihrer Bilder zu bewegen, da der Vorgang ja etwas komplexer und etwas Einarbeitung erfordert. Einerseits schützt das vor Müll, anererseits sind die Hürden für viele zu hoch. Deine Wikipedia-Benutzerseite ist mit den vielen Quellen sehr hilfreich. Vielleicht finden sich hier auch noch einige Links (manche laufen aber nicht mehr). Insbesondere für Tiernamen ist der Nomenclator Zoologicus zu empfehlen. --Dysmachus 11:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wer nichts macht, macht keine Fehler. So, oder so ähnlich lautet wohl ein altes Sprichwort. Dass Experten leider mit der WP nichts zu tun haben möchten und sich generell mit dieser Form der Wissensaufbereitung schwer tun habe ich auch schon an anderer Stelle bemerkt. Es ist offenbar wesentlich einfacher eine eigene Homepage (mit eigenen Bildern) zu pflegen, als das eigene Material - hm, sagen wir mal - einem gemeinnützigem Zweck zur Verfügung zu stellen. Was möglicherweise auch damit zusammenhängt, dass Inhalte der WP lediglich unter Nennung der Herkunft und gleicher Lizenzierung auch an anderer Stelle kommerziell vermarktet werden dürfen. Wenn Hilfe bei der Bereitstellung von Bildmaterial und zur Lizenzierung benötigt wird stehe ich gerne zur Verfügung. Letztendlich war es meine Entscheidung, die eigenen Fotos nicht mehr nur privat "zu sammeln" sondern allen verfügbar zu machen, was mich zur WP gebracht hat. Viele Grüße und ein schönes "Restwochenende", --Olei 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Kategorien

ah, wie ich sehe habt ihr auch am jahresanfang den aufraeumdrang bekommen ;) wie ich olei schon geschrieben habe, hab ich angefangen, die taxon-kategorien leicht zu veraendern. ich hab aber keinen guten ort gefunden, wo ich mich erstmal abstimmen/informieren kann, und deshalb den grundsatz 'be bold' beherzigt. wenns mit meinen aenderungen stress geben sollte, waer dann vielleicht ne art forums-seite zu diesem thema sinnvoll? wenn wir die diskussion auf den verschiedenen user-seiten fuehren, blickt doch bald gar keiner mehr durch. und *falls* wir zu ner guten linie gelangen, koennten wir dann auch versuchen, das dort darzulegen, wo leute, die commons-taxonomie versuchen, es auch finden koennen. im zuge der aenderungen hab ich dann auch gesehen, dass ihr die diptera aufgeraeumt habt. ich hab bei allen Seiten a la Unknown Tachinidae nen link zu Category:Unknown flies eingefuegt. hatte mich naemlich schon gefragt, warum auf einmal keine zu bestimmenden fliegen mehr da waren ;) und ich finde namen wie "Unknown flies" absolut sinnvoll fuer diese seiten, weil sie ja eher temporaer sind, und user, die bilder einstellen, einfacher dazu zu bringen sind, 'Unknown flies' unten dran zu haengen als "Images of Unidentified Diptera" oder so. und wenn wer ne idee hat, wie man zwischen *zu bestimmenden* und nicht zu bestimmenden / unbestimmbaren arten unterscheidet, waer das auch hilfreich. ich hab mir inzwischen ueberlegt, alle zu bestimmenden bilder in Unknown flies bzw. unterkategorien "Unknown xxx" zu packen, und nur die bilder, die nicht bestimmt werden sollen/koennen in den Kategorien (zb. Category:Diptera) zu packen. problem wird sein dass leute immer wieder zu bestimmende bilder dazulegen werden. darum waer ne idee, extra-galleries fuer diese bilder zu erstellen, aber wie die heissen sollen is beyond me ("Pictures of Tachinidae that cannot not be determined or show only general features"? ;) ).

vielleicht sollten wir das ganze irgendwo in en:WP:TOL besprechen?

ach ja, warum ich eigentlich auf deine user-seite gekommen war: woher weisst du dass dieses monster hier eine Tachinidae ist? soll heissen, weisst du vielleicht genaueres? 1,000 arten in Nordamerika, da wuerd ich mich um jede eingrenzung freuen :) und das vieh rechts daneben? gruss --Sarefo 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

aha! :) Adejeania vexatrix - danke fuer die vorbestimmung! --Sarefo 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Guten Morgen, das Wochenende ist da. Die Einführung und Zusammenlegung aller Artikel über zu bestimmde Arten innerhalb der Familien halte ich für gelungen und sinnvoll. Allerdings bleibt noch etwas Arbeit übrig, denn leider werden für die Kombinationen aus Unknown + Ordnungen die enlischen und umgangssprachlichen Bezeichnungen verwendet, also hier Unknown Flies und Unknown Gnats. Letztere umfassen die sogenannten Nematocera (im Deutschen Mücken), erstere vereinen die eigentlichen Fliegen, also Brachycera. Ich denke, man sollte diese Untergliederung nicht zu sehr unterstützen, da sie dem Laien nicht bekannt sein dürfte. Alle anderen Änderungen bei den Diptera orientierten sich an dem, was auch in anderen Insektenordnungen üblich ist. Daher wird eine weiteres Forum kaum nötig sein. Die Unterscheidung von Bildern, die sich nicht bestimmen lassen und Bildern, die noch nicht bestimmt wurden, kann meines Erachtens nicht getroffen werden. Was ich möglicherweise nicht bestimmen kann, ist nicht identisch mit dem, was der Nachbar vielleicht schafft. Außerdem ändert sich der Kenntnisstand und morgen ist es mir daher vielleicht doch möglich. Wie bei anderen Diskussionen auch, betone ich hiermit nochmals, dass ich primär bei den Diptera nur soweit für Ordnung sorgen will, dass Fachleute, die sonst wenig mit der Commons zu tun haben, nicht völlig schockiert sind und stundenlang suchen müssen. Ganz sicher machen Artikel und Kategorien Sinn, aber dem Außenstehenden kann ich das immer nur mühevoll beibringen. Deshalb verstehe ich nicht, warum auf der Category:Diptera schon wieder das Foto mit den an der Zimmerdecke sitzenden Fliegen erscheint Image:Flies around 60 watt light globe.jpg - und nicht mindestens in der Category:Unknown flies? --Dysmachus 09:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

categories and galleries

See Commons:Categories. Being in a gallery does not preclude the necessity of categories; all images should be properly categorized by subject regardless of whether they are in a gallery also.--Ragesoss 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. I guess either way is fine; that page is rather unclear.--Ragesoss 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Camera/Lens

Hi Dysmachus!
First off, excellent macro photography! And from that remark - what are the technical specs? Camera, lens, flash? Thanks again for your excellent images (any chance of getting them in higher res?) --Fir0002 www 07:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fir0002! Thank you very much. Congratulations! Your photographs are excellent and helpful for Wikipedia, not my few contributions. I used different types of cameras (Nikon Coolpix 990, 4500, etc.), but the same macro lens (Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX) combined with a Nikon D50 for one year past. My current dream is a Nikon Speedlight Macro Kit and better camera - but my primary hobby is entomology and therefore I haven't the time for photographing. I'm very interested in Australian nature, because I like it and I plan a temporary exhibition in 2009/2010 for the State Museum in Wiesbaden, Germany. In addition I'm working on some Australian robber flies (the strongest are living in Australia). A museum's volonteer and my person are planing a second trip to Australia this November to make photographs and get in touch with potential supporters. Yours --Dysmachus 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason to delete categories?

Copy of the discussion on Episyrphus balteatus

Please, Dysmachus, ¿What is the criteria for speedy deletion? --Pristigaster 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pristigaster! Please have a look on the structure of the catgeory Diptera and Syrphidae (also used for other orders in Insecta). We use only categries for the images up to the systematic level of families. Identified species are only stored in articles (e.g. Episyrphus balteatus). So we prevent a redundant and confused order. Visitors are able to find the wanted images very easy and aren't constrained to search in both, articles and categories. As you see on Diptera and its familes - all users accept this procedure. Nevertheless it's a never ending story, because people use both, categories and articels for their images for several other subjects. Thanks. --Dysmachus 08:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dysmachus! Good work! I agree in the problems of mixing two references to the same species. Is necessary only one reference to the interwikilinks. The solution that you have done is a possible solution, but I find some problems. First of all, excuse for my poor english and please, is written in friendly tone ;-)

At present there are still few images. But if Commons grows, we will have great, and manually it will not be easy: the galleries of the articles are a manually work... and the categories generate them automatically. You can be ready to work very much, but if you are absent it is possible that nobody does this work and the images stay without cataloguing...

Also, a species might need more than one article: images of imagos, metamorphosis, reproduction, anatomy, larval development, subspecies and varieties, etc. All this might not go in only one article, so it would be necessary to create a reference to include all of them, and for that the categories was create in the Wikipedia Project... --Pristigaster 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pristigaster! You are absolutely right. There are several arguments pro and contra this procedure. Nevertheless time and anterior users discussed that very detailed and the conclusion is this system. It's used for most of the biological species to give them an order. Yes, it needs manpower and several users are offering their time. I'm one of the few people with an interest in flies. After checking the rules and discussions for other taxonomic groups, I started with ordering the chaotic collection of Diptera images half year before. There are significant arguments pro: (-) Having a redundant system with images sorted in articles and using categories of the same term is too complicate for the majority users. They aren't familiar with the system of categries. WikiCommons needs a lot of specialists for identifying organism, but they aren't willing to support a choatic and redundant system. (-) Because articles of Wikipedia link usually articles of WikiCommons, there is a need of controling such galleries. Yes, it needs manpower to maintain the articles, but the result is usable. (-) It's a lot easier to add information to images in an article than editing the image itself. All of us are trying to support WikiCommons and being constructive. I recognized that you are also interested in fishes. If an inexperienced visitor searchs for Fish in WikiCommons, the article Fish is the result - although the Category Fish is much more helping. This is a common problem of WikiCommons. Have a good day - Yours. --Dysmachus 08:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bufff... "This is a common problem of WikiCommon.": Yes, very problem. Let's wait that realize an adaptation of the software of Wikipedia specific to Commons, to fuse categories and articles at once, is the best. Meanwhile, remain to your charge the dipteral ones! je je I centre on Fish... Good Work! --Pristigaster 11:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dysmachus, sorry for interrupting. I had this discussion over and over again. What I don't understand is the fact that there are some users which do all the work of finding, determining and sorting and then some kind of users come along (admins too) with some improper rules at hand and put a second sorting system in an existing (good functioning) one (which makes the the whole system unnecessarily difficult). Some weeks ago Odonata was reorganized. Today I found new categories inside. It's only a matter of time until this old dunghill of categories is recreated. The consequence for my own is: no more searching, determining and sorting - just uploading. Anything else is waste of time. :-/ Best regards, --Olei 13:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Credits

Hi Dysmachus, I've posted a picture derived from your Image:Tachinidae fg03.jpg in Image:Calipter g1.jpg. The purpose was to show the calypter of Diptera Calyptratae. I'm not sure if the procedure is correct about credits and licensing. Please notify me if I violated some rights. Thanks --gian_d 05:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Giancarlodessi. Yes and thanks, I agree. Yours --Dysmachus 09:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well! Regards --gian_d 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

mussel determination

Hello, I have determinated your image Image:Teichmuschel fg01.jpg as Anodonta anatina. --Snek01 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for identification. Yours --Dysmachus 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Species

The image doesn't show a female of Episysrphus balteatus. Please check the the genus Eupeodes. --Dysmachus 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dysmachus,i think its a Syrphus_ribesii --Makro Freak 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bitte lasst die Bestimmung auf der Diskussionsseite des Bildes stattfinden. Danke. --Dysmachus 04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Schwanheimer Düne

Magerrasen heißt auf English "neglected grassland". There's no such thing like "Meager grass". http://dict.leo.org hilft. --Eva K. ^Message 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Prima, dass Du das korrigieren konntest. Allerdings stammt das doch von Andrew-k. Übrigens ist es nicht notwendig wegen solcher Änderungen eine Diskussion zu beginnen. Wen es interessiert, wird die entsprechende Seite bereits beobachten. --Dysmachus 18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, ich sortiere die Bilder der Category:Aircraft in ihre passenden Unterkategorien und sehe dabei, dass du für Image:Nasm fg03.jpg die Category:Aircraft wieder revertiert hast. Ich habe wieder revertiert. Nach deinen Sortierkriterien würden tausende von Bildern in die Category:Aircraft passen. Das ist ungefähr die Sortierlogik bei Flickr (so viel Kategorien wie möglich an das Bild hängen). Es reicht aber, wenn das besagte Bild bei dem Museum einsortiert ist, das wiederum bei Luftfahrtmuseen einsortiert ist. Das ist dann bei Category:Aviation einsortiert, wo man auch Category:Aircraft findet. Ich hoffe dich überzeugt zu haben. Frohes Schaffen! Uwe --84.137.3.42 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bei solchen Änderungen ist es durchaus angebracht, dass man einen Kommentar in die Zusammenfassung stellt - dieser fehlte. Warum? Ich bitte Dich daher zukünftig darauf zu achten. Ohne Erklärung weiß man nicht, ob der Verlust der Kategorie das Bild abtauchen läßt. Außerdem bitte ich Dich um eine Anmeldung. Der zitierte Autor Werneuchen ist nicht erreichbar und warum jetzt nur eine IP-Adresse? Vor was gilt es sich zu verstecken? Ein Edit war ist das wohl nicht - sehr viel mehr handelt es sich um mangelhafte Kommunikation. --Dysmachus 16:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the identification suggestions on some of my diptera. Shyamal (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pamponerus_germanicus

Hi. I've taken the speedy delete off this category. Its is quite useful in fact, even though the respective gallery exists, as categories and galleries are complementary to each other. Now there are only a few pics in the gallery but in the future there may be many more and not all of them will fit the gallery. No harm in having all of them correctly categorised. Regards, Maire (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lappenhopf_fg01.jpg needs to be geocoded

Please geocode Lappenhopf_fg01.jpg because it is a Valued image candidate. -- 72.249.135.22 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The mounted bird is in the collection of the Museum Wiesbaden. The geocode for Wiesbaden is 50° 05' N, 08° 15 E. Please add the geocode because I haven't the experience. Thanks --Dysmachus (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Last day of 2008 Photos

I see you are uploading some excellent photos tonight Fritz.Have a Happy New Year. Very best regards from Ireland. Robert Notafly (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Robert. Thank you very much and I wish you all the best for 2009. Your contributions are much better than my. I read that you are working on Diptera, too. It's a closed community and I hope to meet you in 2010 on the 7th International Congress of Dipterology in Costa Rica. Are you interested in some special Lepidoptera? We have some in our collection in the State Museum Wiesbaden. Yours sincerely - Fritz - --Dysmachus (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fritz Costa Rica Not a chance But I have an Irish friend there who organies natural history tours.If you can extend your stay I'm sure he would show you around.Of course I am always interested in Lepidoptera. Can you e-mail me a list? Right now what I would like a pic of Baronia brevicornis from Mexico (our single specimen is badly damaged).We just finshed the Irish list of Diptera Like a copy? Slainte Robert aka Notafly (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Robert, I add photographs of two specimens of our collection. Unfortunately, they are also damaged. If you need better ones, please tell me. Then I will aks some friends in California.

File:Fly feeding on fly 02.jpg

I think you are right in changing the name of my fly

, do you think they may actually be Neoitamus melanopogon (robber/assassin fly) ? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No. There are several undescribed genera in the Australian region. The genera Neoitamus and Cerdistus are described on the base of Holarctic species. Nevertheless several Australian species are decribed within these genera. Unfortunately, nobody is working on a revision. I checked a lot of material from the Australian region (also from New Zealand). Although several species looks very similar to our European Neoitamus and Cerdistus species, they must be placed in other genera. Your photographs show a female specimen which looks very similar to an Palaeacrtic Cerdistus species (ovipositor, face, chaetotaxy). Therefore I alreday changed the category. More than 95 per cent of the robber fly fauna of New Zealand is unkown to science. Yours - --Dysmachus (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will accept your expertise as I have none!. I did ask on diptera.info but no one seems to have any expertise relating to NZ species. I would say that I find many references to Neoitamus species and pictures of similar flies in NZ refered to as Neoitamus melanopogon. I will take the liberty of copying your response to the talk pages on these two images to clarify the position for others. Thanks again :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I add a temporary copy of the original description of Neoitamus melanopogon on my webpapage for downloading. In particular the characters of the legs do not fit to your photographed specimen. In addition: In contrast to species of the genus Cerdistus, Neoitamus species have a remarbable facial gibbosity. Yours --Dysmachus (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified Spider

Hello, I believe that the image you uploded, File:Araneae fg01 20060513 Nied.JPG, is a huntsman spider, possibly the brown huntsman spider(Heteropoda venatoria). If you wish to thank me, or respond, you can do so on my wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:bugboy52.40

Bugboy52.4 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look on the File talk. Thanks --Dysmachus (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Remark: I transfered your message to the File talk. Please add your signature. Yours --Dysmachus (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Monacha cartusiana

Hello, in your edited file File:Monacha cartusiana fg03.jpg is lower snail accidentaly rotated and so it is incorrect. --Snek01 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You are right, the lower image must be changed next days. Yours --Dysmachus (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Spilomyia-sayi-001.jpg

Hello Dysmachus,

I just have a question concerning this image as I'm not sure why you added the Category:Unidentified Syrphidae - do you think that Spilomyia sayi is not correct? best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I only changed the Category:Diptera to Category:Unidentified Syrphidae, because the image shows a species of the family Syrphidae. It makes no sense to let it in the higher ranked category Diptera. If you think that the species identification is correct, you must introduce and add the Category:Spilomyia sayi within the new Category:Spilomyia, as subcategory of the Category:Syrphidae. At last you have to remove the Category:Unidentified Syrphidae. Yours --Dysmachus (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Dysmachus!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 11:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Drassodes fg03.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Eresus cinnaberinus spec.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Frouzet fg05.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Dysdera fg03.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Drassodes fg04.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Einem Bot braucht man wohl kaum antworten. Wenn dieser allerdings Mist baut, darf man sich bei der "Wand" schon einmal beschweren. Wenn die biologischen Taxa nun alle wegen einer neuen Regelung kategorisiert werden müssen, kann man keinen Bot losschicken. Grüße an ... --Dysmachus (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Andricus fg11.tif

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Es wurde bereits von mir ein Löschantrag gestellt, da das Bild als JPG ebenfalls besteht.--Dysmachus (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified categories

Hi Dysmachus, I note that you are creating categories such as "Category:Dioctria spec.". The proffered name structure for these is "Category:Unidentified Dioctria" which is then catagorizable into the Unidentified organisms structure. I have changes several of the ones you created to this format. --Kevmin (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, therefore I changed the other ones as well. Thanks and Happy New Year --Dysmachus (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified Asilidae from Sicily

All the image of Asylidae I've uploaded come from Sicily. Some of them come from a dead "specimen" that I saved from being eaten by ants. I uploaded all these image in order to facilitate identification (see here. If you find them useless please feel free to ask for their deletion. --Esculapio (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Raubfliege mit Beute auf Eiche 4050.JPG

Danke für Deinen hint. Wie könnte ich mich aus der Affäre ziehen? Gruß --Hedwig Storch (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dieser krampfhafte Umbenennungstick von Dateinamen liegt mir nicht - allerdings habe ich aus eigener leidvoller Erfahrung mir zur Regel gemacht, relativ neutrale Dateinamen zu verwenden. Wenn man nicht ganz sicher ist, sollte man eines der Foren nutzen: insektenfotos.de oder in diesem Fall speziell zu den Fliegen: www.diptera.info. Viel Erfolg und weiterhin Spaß beim Fotografieren und Hochladen. Grüße --Dysmachus (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Zwei Bilder des Verkannten Grashüpfers

Hallo Dysmachus, du hast zwei sehr schöne Bilder des Verkannten Grashüpfers (Glyptobothrus mollis) hochgeladen. Ich würde sagen, ganz klar Männchen, du schreibst jedoch dazu, dass es sich um Weibchen handele. Eventuell nur ein Tippfehler oder gibt es einen Grund für deine Zuordnung? Schönen Gruß --G-u-t (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Danke - habe es geändert. --Dysmachus (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Insekt 7103.JPG...

Hallo Dysmachus, danke für die Bestimmung. Gruß --Hedwig Storch (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Sympetrum fg02.jpg

One of the users of Polish Wikipedia noted that the species pictured in this photo is Sympetrum fonscolombii, not S. meridionale as stated in file description. The author has been informed. Mulat (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was hesitate about my identification and therefore I used the term Sympetrum cf meridionale and categorized it only in Sympetrum. Nevertheless I'm unable to change something without knowing the author of this information. Yours --Dysmachus (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• The author of that information is an unregistered user, so it is difficult to contact him. I left notices wherever he may find them, so I hope he will contact you. In general: his point was that Sympetrum fonscolombii has blueish tint on lower part of the eye (as in your picture), whereas S. meridionale doesn't have. I am not a specialist in this area, but simple web search (google graphics search) shows that he may be right. Regards, Mulat (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I can confirm that this is Sympetrum fonscolombii – accurate: it's a young, immature male specimen (not yet red coloured). Notice also the yellow (later becoming red) veins at the wing base. -- Regards, Fice (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. --Dysmachus (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Long time

Greetings to you too. I have just retired. It was a very difficult time after Frankfurt because my entomological colleague at the museum got a better job in Dublin and left. You can imagine what came next - a very busy time. Hope all is well. I will e-mail you very soon. Warm regards Robert Notafly (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! I know that you will have a nice time now! Hope to meet you again - Yours Fritz - --Dysmachus (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sceliphron

Hallo,

wieder etwas zu Sceliphron: Ihre Bilder "Sceliphron fg05.jpg" und "...06..." zeigen vermutlich die Inhalte von Sceliphronnestern. Die Bildbeschreibungen gehen darauf nicht ein. Das sollten Sie nachholen!

Viele Grüße, --Pjt56 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Erledigt. --Dysmachus (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Danke. Ich habe noch die englische Übersetzung ergänzt. Bitte prüfen. Grüße, --Pjt56 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Chloropidae vs Milichiidae

This comment is a copy of one I posted in Rhinocoris erythropus fg01.jpg I don't mind which you reply to.

I find this very puzzling, in fact confusing!

Firstly, please compare this file and its description with: File:Milichiidae fg01.jpg, and observe that the ID there is by one Irina Brake.

It is completely possible that Dr. Brake might have changed her mind; the photo, though very good, is about at the limit of resolution for making fine judgements, and those flies are not exactly of a size for easy identification. However, the point should be referred back to her for a firm decision on both pictures. Whatever her final opinion might be, whether firm or tentative, I am completely happy to abide by it till further notice. For one thing, I am no taxonomist, let alone a Dipterist.

All the same, the flies in the picture appear to be fulfilling a "jackal" role, which normally is assumed to be typical of Milichiidae, and they do look a lot like a species of Desmometopa. That does not prove anything, because several families of flies, including both some in Nematocera and Brachycera, behave in such a way, specifically including both Milichiidae and Chloropidae. Both those families, please note, are in the superfamily Carnoidea and some of them are easy to confuse. In fact, given the rate at which taxonomic revisions are proceeding currently, I should not be at all surprised if next month (or last month maybe?) new taxonomic evidence were to lead to the families being united... <siiigh!> That said however, at a thumbsuck I would have thought that those in the picture looked more like Milichiidae, though, as I have hinted above, my opinion in these matters hardly carries much weight.

Bottom line: I am taking this matter no further, though I am interested. However, I should appreciate it as a favour if you were to get a new opinion and elaboration from Dr Brake, and accordingly an update to the title or at least the description of at least one photo. If I can help I don't mind doing so, but I don't think that we should try to do anything in parallel, treading on each other's toes in the process. I am including a copy of this note in your talk page.

Cheers JonRichfield (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my mistake. It's a long time ago and I only remembered that Dr. Brake identified the flies. I forgot completely that a second copy of the image is offered. This isn't so clever, but I did it as a beginner in 2006. So I wondered about your change yesterday and reverted the new identification. Thanks --Dysmachus (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I suspected that it was something like that. I make worse slips routinely; so routinely that I almost am getting used to them! All the best, JonRichfield (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC) No problem! I suspected that it was something like that. I make worse slips routinely; so routinely that I almost am getting used to them! Oh, BTW, I notice that there seem to be other species of (non-milichiid jackal flies in the picture, but they are not in focus. I am becoming very interested in Jackal fly behaviour. It is intriguing from several points of view, but difficult to study. Anyway, all the best, JonRichfield (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheeesh!!! When I said I made worse slips, I didn't mean to illustrate them so quickly and graphically! Sorry about that! JonRichfield (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue

And a very happy new year to you too Fritz and to all in Wiesbaden.I was in Hamburg last year, and this year in Berlin and Potsdam.Frankfurt? That is very kind.How about May? Warm regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

When ever you want! I will be thankful for your visit. Yours Fritz --Dysmachus (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Beetle larva

Hi, this image seems to be a Cetonia aurata- larva, also see here. Greetz, Bart -B kimmel (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dysmachus (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I use some of your photos

Hi Fritz Geller!

I have use some photo (Baronia brevicornis, Hyla arborea and Pteropus giganteus) from wikimedia in my free software educational proyect "Animalandia" (http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia)

You can see directly in the follow links and click over "Siguiente" ("Next") (several times in Hyla arborea):

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=29639

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=34136

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=31884

If you wish, you can send me some letters or/and a photo for your "contributor card" in Animalandia:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Fritz%20Geller%20Grimm

This is my "contributor card", for example:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Fernando%20Lis%F3n%20Mart%EDn

In the future, I use more of your photos, I sure!

Thank you for the licence and, of course, for your splendid photos!! Regards! Fernando Lisón

--Fernando.lison (talk)

File:Lincolnzoo 03.jpg

File:Lincolnzoo 03.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

cmadler (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Indian Asilid

Gruß, any chance that you can tell the genus here File:Asilid Wynaad.jpg - maybe a bit less than a 1cm long. Shyamal (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ommatius species - for species identification you have to check themale genitalia. --Dysmachus (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, saw your response on diptera.info too, but only today. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is another File:Black_Asilid_Bandipur.jpg Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dysmachus for identifying a lot of Asilidae photos of me and others from India. It is highly appreciated. Jee 02:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dysmachus, does this a Leptogastrinae? Sorry for the poor quality; it was at night (7pm) and I accidently saw it while observing a spread wing damselfly finding its seat to spend the night. Jee 06:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm unable to identify the genus. --Dysmachus (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Jee 02:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Consider using location template

I just added the {{Object location}} to File:Croat fg137.jpg, a file you contributed in September 2010. When you contributed the file, you supplied the object location in the description, so I used that to fill in the parameters to {{Object location}}.

I'd like to encourage you to follow my example, and consider adding {{Object location}} to the other files you contributed in categories such as Category:Nature of Brseč, including files such as File:Croat fg024.jpg and File:Croat fg181.jpg. Thanks. 68.165.77.71 22:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dysmachus. You have new messages at Pristurus's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Platystoma

Hallo Dysmachus, in der Griesheimer Dünehabe ich diese Platystoma (unappetitlicherweise auf menschlichen Ausscheidungsprodukten) gefunden. Wenn ich mir die Tarsi und Haltern ansehe, finde ich diese untypisch für seminationis. Nach der Checkliste käme dann ja nur wohl nur noch lugubre in Frage? Gruß aus Marburg, --Pristurus (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

geklärt, auch in Hessen gibt es also P. lugubre. Gruß, --Pristurus (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Leptotarsus of Kadavoor.jpg

Any help on ID is highly appreciated. Jee 12:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not a specialist --Dysmachus (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Meantime, Pristurus saw my request here and pointed me to Pjotr Oosterbroek. He made some analysis that I added in the file description. Thanks all for this collaborative efforts. Jee 02:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Nmnh fg09.jpg

File:Nmnh fg09.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Asilidae-Kadavoor-2016-03-23-001.jpg

Asilidae; Kadavoor; 2016-03-23

Any help on ID is highly appreciated. Thanks, Jee 08:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Steinaufotos

Hallo Dysmachus, ich hab so eine Vermutung: Kann es sein, daß mehrere deiner Bilder, zB. File:Steinau fg17.jpg aus dem NSG Weinberg bei Steinau sind? ist mir beim Sortieren aufgefallen. Falls ja wärs schön wenn du sie in die Kategorie packen könntest. Gruß Holger1959 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ja, ich nahm an einer genehmigten Exkursion der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Hessischer Koleopterologen teil. --Dysmachus (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Nga_fg04.jpg

Dear Dysmachus,

I am a Prof. in Architectureand I am currently redacting a book titled “History of Interior Design and Furniture” and it will be published in Turkish edition. I would like to use your image from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._M._Pei#/media/File:Nga_fg04.jpg. Do you prefer us to use your nick name in Wikipedia, or we can use your proper name if you prefer.

Best regards, Mustafa Demirkan mustafaemindemirkan@gmail.com --hippofish 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serhatakbak (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please take the cited name: Photograph: Fritz Geller-Grimm, cc-by-sa-2.5

Luftaufnahme von Weilburg?

Es gibt hier einige Luftaufnahmen vom Schloss Weilburg die Ihn und Commons als Quelle geben; ich kann die aber nicht hier finden. Waeren bei en:Schloss Weilburg, die fuer den Frontpage nominiert geworden ist, nutzlich... Koennen Sie mir weiter hilfen? HLHJ (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Saint-Gervais-les-Bains?

Hi! I thing these 2 pictures were not taken in Saint-Gervais, but in "les Contamines-Montjoie" : do you remember? (need rename)

--2A01:CB15:23B:8C00:213B:57D7:26C9:1C97 09:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Baden-baden Museum Frieder Burda fg04.jpg

File:Baden-baden Museum Frieder Burda fg04.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: copyvio; no fop. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Baden-baden Museum Frieder Burda fg04.jpg

File:Baden-baden Museum Frieder Burda fg04.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)