User talk:Lycaon/Archive10

Archives Archive 1 (3 1 2006 – 8 1 2007) Archive 2 (11 1 2007 – 30 5 2007) Archive 3 (30 5 2007 – 2 8 2007) Archive 4 (2 8 2007 – 24 8 2007) Archive 5 (25 8 2007 – 16 12 2007) Archive 6 (17 12 2007 – 27 4 2008) Archive 7 (27 4 2008 – 30 6 2008) Archive 8 (01 7 2008 – 04 11 2008) Archive 9 (04 11 2008 – 25 11 2008)

administrator tools

When I looked to see if the vandalism had been reverted or not, the first thing I checked in the contributions that were not on my watchlist had been reverted already, so I quit. Now, I am curious if there is an administrative tool that goes through a contribution list which is not simply a dedicated and somewhat bored user or if I should have started at the other end of the list.... -- carol (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess you did what you had to. The only extra tools I used were the block and the delete buttons. Lycaon (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Neotis ludwigii (Ludwig's Bustard).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I hesitate with this drawing, on which the animal presents better. Plus, the contrast with the background is a problem for me here. --Eusebius (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I basically have the same comment as with the grasshopper beside: Should the fact that an animal is photographed in its natural environment be held against it? This is a picture taken in the wild of an uncommon bustard species. Lycaon (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Same reply then! More reviewers needed... --Eusebius (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Prefer the photo over the illustration and the background is no problem for me -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Challenger II Basra 2008.jpg

Hi Lycaon,
What you mean with "Fails the geocoding requirement"? The image description page says that this image was taken in Basra, Iraq (Even I think that it was not taken in Basra rather than near Basra). Number 5 of Commons:Valued image criteria says that geocoding is not required if it's a "non-place-related shot" (which a shooting tank is in my opinion) and if it's a "unknown location". The image is taken in or near Basra, but I don't think that Basra should be used for geocoding this image. Please tell me why you think that the image "Fails the geocoding requirement"
thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You added "as this is obviously a tank in action and not a studio/promotional photo, a set of coordinates is required". Commons:Valued image criteria says "Exceptions include: [...] unknown locations". Even this image is taken in Iraq in or near Basra I wouldn't add the coordinates of Basra. To turn it the other way round: Ivan Ljubičić Umag 2008 (1).JPG is gecoded. But there is no more use of it.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

new scope is "Firing tank"

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

administrator tools

I just watched a movie about the moog (a or the original sound synthesizer) and there was a little piece in that movie about the mini-moog which according to the musician in the movie could only play one note at a time.

Are any of those administration tools that you have access to similar to this device? -- carol (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Lycaon (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC) <insert unsynthesized smile here> -- carol (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Pectinaria koreni (with and without tube).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pectinaria koreni (with and without tube).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

And could you check that I did well not to add it to any category ? I couldn't find any that fits... Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals. Thanks ! Benh (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll check, thanks. Lycaon (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kopjes

Hallo, enige idee waarom deze pipo User:Sir_Gawain kopjes zit weg te halen ? Overzichtelijke beschrijvingspagina's lijken me nogal handig, en ik dacht dat het niets voor niets was dat de laatste maanden men steeds meer en meer lijn in die upload-forms van commons probeert te krijgen... --LimoWreck (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: 't is niet dat ik zo wakker lig van die kopjes op zich. Maar het lijkt me regelrecht in te gaan tegen de verbetering die commons de laatste maanden heeft gemaakt in het aanbieden van consistente "boilerplate" pagina's, o.a. door middel van de nieuwe upload forms. Hoewel die kopjes maar een kleinigheidje zijn, lijkt het systematisch weer terugzetten van een stap niet aangeraden; integendeel, het verhoogt weer het gebrek aan eenduidigheid op commons. Ik heb in de village pump dat wat uitgebreider uitgeschreven, mocht het je interesseren ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Bedankt. Ik heb geen uitgeproken mening over kopjes, maar wel over personen die ongevraagd onconstructieve bijdragen leveren (zoals het domweg weghalen van kopjes). Ik hou het in de gaten ;-). Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ach ja, misschien is mijn reverten van futiliteiten als kopjes ook onzinnig en al even "dom"; of misschien zie ik ook niet graag "onconstructieve" "bij"dragen (al is die "bij" in "bijdragen" misschien niet zo toepasselijk hier ;-) ). Groeten --LimoWreck (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Shepherd

Hi. I would be most gratefull for any other comments you might have. Your first one (obvious as it is in hindsight) surely was. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Windmills D1-D4 - Thornton Bank.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Calocera viscosa LC0123.jpg

Hi, Hans. I'm a little bit concerned about your practice of deleting votes if there are probably sock puppets. Sock puppets of whom? At first a little message could prevent some unnecessary irritation. Maybe I could clear up some thing.

1. I don't know User:Albertgenii12, especially he is no sockpuppet of mine. I would agree in an IP-check in this case
2. I know User:MonaLuna: she's my girl friend. She's no sock puppet either. I only told her, that if she want's to provide her own photos to the wikimedia, it would be a good idea to register. Ok, after that I told her, that it could be also a good idea to vote for my pic, but after all she's an adult woman who can make her own decisions. And she did.

So where's the problem? --LC-de (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspect voting

Hi! You've written a comment on my candidate to FP, "suspect voting". That's not a problem for me, the only thing is that MonaLuna's vote is not a right one, isn't it? Anyway, I'm not being lucky with the candidate picture. Thank you and goodbye! Kadellar (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

QI candidate

Please see Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list#Image:Ab insect 065.JPG. You vote «Decline». Now specie identified --Butko (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ophelia limacina.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment For me too, but no geocoding. --Lestat (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Geo-location not applicable as the picture was taken in the lab. Lycaon (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

Promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grand St Bernard (top).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Meets QI requirements, great sense of scale. TimVickers 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

FPX

Lycaon, can you please stop placing FPX templates in every candidate that doesn't fall within your understanding of a good FPC, but just use it if there is a clear guideline violation (e. g. too small, very bad image quality)? Please. --norro 15:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad light is against the guidelines. Improper perspective exacerbates this. A valid FPX IMO. Lycaon (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this conversation is sort of expanding beyond the scope of my FPC, I figure it's best to move it to your talk page. Anyway, this is the response before I copy/pasted moved it here:

See, that's the insulting part. I did read the guidelines and the template treats me as if this was my first rodeo. I made a calculated decision that the subject's "wow-factor" and difficult shooting conditions made for mitigating circumstances. I understand that people didn't agree with my assessment. The template, however, is a slap in the face. It's condescending. There is a principle of "don't template the regulars" that I think is a very useful guideline to foster actual communication instead of "template-talk". J.smith (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that way (BTW I didn't FPX your picture). I think that insulting and condescending are big words here and a matter of perception. They are absolutely not meant like that. Pictures that are (statistically) not going to make it heap on oppositions till the end, if they are not 'lucky enough' to be removed by the rule of the fifth day. I have yet to see a former FPX being promoted in the end. Is it not better to avoid all that hardship with a quick and efficient template. And by the way the "don't template the regulars" regulars is not relevant here. You also put a template for FP or retouched or watermarked on a "regular"... For me (and I guess for most of us "regulars") FPX is never meant to be insulting nor condescending. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"matter of perception" "FPX is never meant to be insulting nor condescending" - I understand both points. However, if the template is used inappropriately then it is. --J.smith (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I came here to start a new thread but I see this one already covers the subject. I also feel that Lycaon's use of {{FPX}} is over zealous. Examples here and here. I can't explain it well, it just seems unnecessary and make me feel uneasy.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Francolinus adspersus (Red-billed Francolin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Spatangus purpureus (Purple heart urchin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support A scale or size indication should be nice. --Foroa (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Added diameter (~8 cm) on the image description. Lycaon (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Mabuya sulcata.jpg

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mabuya sulcata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment New publications may split up the genus Mabuya and M. sulcata may come to resort under Trachelys. If this is established, the name of the file and the description will change accordingly. Lycaon (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

   Comment I'm unsure of what this remark actually means (and implies for the VI scope). --Eusebius (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  It shouldn't have implications for the scope. It just means that the taxonomy (as in so many organisms these days) is a bit fluid and might (or not) change in the near future. Probably VI's that have there scientific name altered will have to have there scope adjusted when that happens. This should not have repercussions on the VI itself IMO. Lycaon (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK then. We should think about how to update scopes smoothly anyway (harmonization, internationalization...). --Eusebius (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Images

I applied for trusted user status and got that. Am I correct in assuming that to rename an image I do this then a bot takes care of it? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, provided that you were the last user to edit that page before the bot passes along. Lycaon (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Link between photographers page

Hello.

I have made a topic called "More good photographers" on my user page. You could create a similar topic on your user page and you could include me in it. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FPC discussion

A big discussion is taking place in WP:FPC about the promotion and closing processes (various topics). You may be interested in participating and help improving things there. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

QI review

Hi. Would you care to look again at this candidate? I've removed some dust spots. Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Geolocation

No, only that the perspective at 135mm is the likely cause for the zoo comment. Probably more likely that it was just tame (or you were in a hide/car). It doesn't matter anyway, "not taken in a zoo" isn't in the criteria, just like down sampling :) Noodle snacks (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you too

Hi Hans, I've dropped by a few times, keeping an eye on things :-), but I inevitably find myself following discussions and getting involved in some small thing that needs doing ... and find hours have gone by. I just wandered off following Alves mention of the discussions on wp:fpc, but quickly turned around and came back to these relatively soothing backwaters instead :-). I have taken quite a few more photographs, and a quick check shows I have 20013 photographs on my computer (that's not counting edited copies, or ones from other sources). I keep thinking that I should get a new camera that overcomes some of the faults with my one (slow focus, low resolution, high noise) but get diverted into looking at cameras with 20x zoom, super macro mode down to 0cm etc and the price goes up rapidly (and that's without even looking at SLR cameras) :-(.

(PS: The fly with the unclean eating habits in most likely an Eristalis tenax, called a Drone fly in these parts, rather than a Hover fly) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Sorry, what was wrong with my vote? I didn't want to anger someone... -- Serpens ?! 16:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, only that the vote was closed almost a month ago. ;-) Lycaon (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. -- Serpens ?! 02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Who threw the first stone?

Hans, I was just minding my business and you came in and made sarcastic comments about my scorpion being dead, etc.,etc., stating it matter-of-factly. Do you think I am so stupid as to not to get the meaning of your intent? Your use of parenthesis and italics clearly denote sarcasm and agression, and in a way questioning the truthfulness of my statements. Sarcasm has a way to show through in the written word.

This is an encyclopaedic effort, and as such, it is also an arena of discussion, and that means that many times a lot of things will not be to our agreement, but that is an essential part of democracy and freedom.

You seem to feel free to pass judgement on many people, but your judgement in my opinion, many times, strictly from the technical point of view is flawed and may even be interpreted as rude and lacking in generosity. How do you measure the impact of your own words?

You are a valuable contributor, but so am I and so are many others. Let people feel free to contribute, and a way of doing that is to make them feel that their contributions are appreciated and when critiqued, critiqued in a generous manner that gives them something to grow, not just feel discarded. There have been many instances where I thought your work was worthy and so I supported it, and other times when it was not, but stated the reasons. Many other times, I opposed with my silence because I had nothing to say that would have contributed to you or others.

This does not mean that you cannot oppose. Do so, but also give the people an argument so that they can become better.

I am not the only one who feels that you apply a double standard, one to your own work and another to other people's work. Al least be consistent. Be honest, be truthful to the great opportunity this efforts puts in front of all of us.

Now you threaten me with being blocked. There is so much to say about that. But I tell you one thing, if you do, to me, it will be an act of cowardice from someone who choses a type of violence over the power of logic and dialogue.

I am man enough to speak my mind and recognize talent and good work when I see it, regardless of who it is.

So you choose the path. Go ahead and block me, I will find a way to make myself heard. (well maybe, I will really think about this place, it could be that it is really worthless).

Or choose the path of dialogue and contribution.

And just remember... Who threw the first stone? The record is there.

Regards,

Tomas --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Seagull FPC

I Hans,

I just had a look again at your Seagull FPC page (I've been very busy lately, and unfortunately can't spend much time on Commons).

I agree with your comment. But I find it more difficult to catch buildings nicely than stand and still seagulls. I've shot tens of similar quality seagulls, but wouldn't have nominated them, because I simply don't find the picture amazing (the famous no wow ;) ). When I nominate a picture I first ask myself "is this a casual shot anyone could have taken easily ?" and if the answer is "no", than I go ahead. Seagulls fly away, but on right places, with hundreds of them flying very near you, it takes a little move to find another subject. I hope you didn't take my vote bad. Benh (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Blue Moon jellyfish

I really like the jelly fish, and would have promoted it except I see it could be better ;-). Before you processed the image (as in the original upload) there is a lot more fine detail around the outside of the fish, which helps to give it a less 'cut out' look. Can you remove the other background distractions without loosing that detail? (could be a FPC?) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Tony. I'll give it a try. I'm on a GIS course for a couple of day now however, so it might take till the weekend before I make the attempt. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone else couldn't wait, so they promoted it ... I couldn't really oppose that :-) Still I hope you find time for that improvement :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do, promise ;-). Lycaon (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Cartesian_Theater.svg

Could you have another looka t this image? I don't think that the quality of the pan SVGs is yet good enough to feature. (unsigned message, 05:40, 17 December 2008 User:Adam Cuerden)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys apifera (autopollination).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. --Eusebius 11:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for adminship

Hi Hans, I'd like to tell you that I have recently made a request for adminship. You might want to express your opinion about it. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calicotome spinosa (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Eusebius 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad name

New version File:Budzowa Igła a1.jpg - File:Turnia w Grani Orlej Perci a1.jpg. Thanks. Selso (talk)

Need help with pelicans

Hi, if you have some time it would be nice to have a look at this VI candidate. I'm unable to tell whether the other pelicans of the category are properly identified or not: there are several, distinct colour schemes but it might vary with age or seasons, I don't know. --Eusebius (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an ace in identifying American birds, but I'll have a go at it later today, or check with some specialists I know. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aurelia aurita 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Superb, but! in processing from your original upload you have lost many of the whispy bits coming off the outside --Tony Wills 08:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Correct color, details. Well, it's awesome. --ComputerHotline 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lamium album (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Great details --Ianare 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pelagia noctiluca (Mauve stinger).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Correct colors and details. -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Phyllodoce rosea.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leucothoe incisa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tomares ballus (Provence Hairstreak).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Correct details and colors. -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sphaerophoria scripta male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure, colors and details. It's a beautiful image. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sphaerophoria scripta female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support There is some competition, but I think it is the most illustrative. --Eusebius (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Sorry, I've done my review too quickly and didn't see the gender sub-scope. How do you differentiate male from female? --Eusebius (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment In males the eyes touch, in females they are separated. Lycaon (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK then. --Eusebius (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure, colors and details. It's a beautiful image. -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Loxa viridis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Correct exposure, colors and details. It's a beautiful image. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chamaerops humilis (fruits).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharpness is good, useful composition for wikipedia. _Fukutaro 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gymnadenia rhellicani (spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good a cubic effect and freshness. _Fukutaro 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Methyl chloromethyl ether2.svg.png

Hi Lycaon. Concerning your comment: I know, but the PNG image was obviously made from the SVG image (converted by Mediawiki, see file name). I think there is no reason to keep that (low quality) PNG image. --Leyo 21:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. I'll process it. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Won't work (quote: "To avoid World War III, CommonsDelinker will ignore a command to rename an image if the new image is svg and the original is not."). You'll have to process manually, sorry. Lycaon (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There was only one use on fr:. I replaced and deleted the svg. Case closed ;-). Lycaon (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW: Funny quote. ;-) --Leyo 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Raja brachyura (Blonde Ray).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas review!

Hi Lycaon/Archive10. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong ID

Hey Hans, Thanks for your comments about my picture. Why do you say its a wrong ID? Do you have the correct ID as this was the ID I was provided with. Belated Merry Christmas to you. Muhammad 20:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes to you too. Regretfully I do not know the id of your fly. The one you think it is though doesn't have the downy thorax. It has a very shiny thorax with some stiff bristly hairs. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The image of the feeding greenbottle has a the hind part of the fly blurred. Here is another picture of the same fly with better details of the thorax. Can you please confirm? Muhammad 21:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Southern Royal Albatross in flight.jpg

Hi Hans. I saw you improved my image File:Southern Royal Albatross in flight.jpg. Thank you! IMO it will be only fair, if you add your name to the image desription. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Women of Arles.JPG

Hi, I see you recently "set back" some edits by "Commons Delinker Helper". I agree that the file in question is not a duplicate, as this one stated, but I do think it is preferable to remove this file nevertheless: It is by far too bright. See the piece as published by (owning museum) Hermitage Museum on http://www.arthermitage.org/Vincent-van-Gogh/Memory-of-the-Garden-at-Etten.html in case you have no good print at hand. Best, [w.] 14:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not saying it shouldn't be deleted, but you'll have to go thru a regular DR I'm afraid, cause duplicate is not the way. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd dislike to waist my time for [imo] useless DRs. As soon as a file is "disqualified", it might be removed, or it might be used by users who disqualify themselves by using it. Best, [w.] 17:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

@Lycaon: This was not meant to be unpolite -- I did get up very early yesterday and therefore was already quite tired. [w.] 13:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, this was not perceived as impolite. I largely agree with you, but there are some rules which have to be followed. ;-). Lycaon (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

messange (answer)

Je ne suis pas pour un lissage parfait. Une fois imprimée les images lisses paraissent artificielle. Sur l'écran oui c'est bien. Je ne suis pas contre la soumettre au vote ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Je comprends bien que tu parles de cette image? Si non, je m'excuse.

Quand aux votes, je n'y crois pas tellement, mais il faut avouer qu'il peut arriver que avec certains écrans, le "faux" pouvait donner und résultat "acceptable". Quandmême, la touche de la brosse n'est pratiquement plus visible sur le bonnet clair de la femme à droite, ce qui indique la sur-exposition. Alors, si tu allais faire un DR, je le supporterais bien sûr, mais je viens de déclarer mon opinon dans la fiche, ce qui me suffit: Fera chacun à son goût ;)

Je trouve cependant qu'il y a déjà trop de DRs, puisque il y en a qui ne sont pas finis depuis Juin ;) -- c'est sûrtout pour cela que je préfère ma façon de me débrouiller. Amitiés, [w.] 13:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No no, this was about something else. No probs. Lycaon (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks. Hopefully made more clear my POV on DRs, nevertheless ;) [w.] 13:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous white lumps

Any idea what this is File:White lump on tree stump.jpg ? I assume it is some sort of fungi. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! No direct idea. What's the scale? The 'weaving' could also point at an egg cocoon. Is it soft to the touch? Lycaon (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a shot from further back to show the location File:White lump in situ.jpg. I didn't touch this one (I prefer to photograph rather than poke, prod and dissect :-). But I have seen them before in similar locations, I think they are firm to the touch and about 3cm across. I will go back and investigate it later --Tony Wills (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a slime mold type beast. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Ursa Minor constellation map.png

Hi, I noticed that you had deleted the file. The file that should have been deleted was File:Ursa minor constellation map.png with the small "m" and I've tagged it. Ursa Minor with the capital "M" is the correct spelling. They have this complex template on the English Wikipedia that only shows the image if it's using the identical name as the article. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 15:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. File:Ursa minor constellation map.png will need deleting and I tagged it as such. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Microsporidia

Beste Lycaon, je verwijderde de categorieën Eukaryota en Parasites van de pagina Microsporidia en voegde de categorie Zygomycota toe. In de wetenschappelijke literatuur is nog geen overeenstemming over de plaatsing van de microsporidia in de taxonomie. De meest waarschijnlijke juiste plaats is in de Fungi of naast de Fungi. In het laatste geval is plaatsing in de categorie Zygomycota pertinent onjuist. Zolang er nog geen wetenschappelijke overeenstemming is, is plaatsing in de Eukaryota dus de enige juiste en plaatsing in de Zygomycota voorbarig.

Verder is plaatsing in de categorie Parasites op zijn plaats i.v.m. de vindbaarheid door de gebruikers.--Wickey-nl (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine on the higher taxo, but please leave specific and generic taxonomy as is. Lycaon (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hebben we het bij de Fungi dan niet over de hogere taxa?

Overigens, het aanmaken van families, klassen en dergelijke is systematisch juist, maar op commons niet praktisch. Door het aanmaken van veel lege en bijna lege categorieën wordt het voor gebruikers onoverzichtelijk en kunnen afbeeldingen niet worden gevonden. Daarom zijn categorieën als Category:Parasites nuttig.--Wickey-nl (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

Lycaon (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Misc Questions about QIC

Hi Lycaon, you seem one of the most active admin in QI section so I'll ask you some questions I have in mind.

• Ok first, I've uploaded a new version of File:Bihoreau_Gris.jpg following you composition advice. That's ok but now should we remove File:Bihoreau_Gris_crop.jpg since it will not me used?

• Seconds, I could replace File:Bihoreau_Gris_2.jpg also using the same advice but since the process of QI nomination has ended and has failed, can it restart? Or I really have to upload with a new name?

I had more question about COM:VIC but I don't know where to start so I'll just re-read the page before bothering. By the way, happy new year ;)

--Acarpentier 05:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-evaluate your vote

Hello.

I've geolocated this image. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why:

In answer to your question: File:Olympus C-750UZ minimum minimorum.jpg :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it another way: for subjects this small you can of course have the whole 4MP image with more distracting background elements and a less pleasing crop. A moderate crop to just 71.5% linear dimensions of the original 2288x1712 (4MP) gets you down to 1633x1225 (2MP) --Tony Wills (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That answers my question. Mind you, I did not oppose ;-). Lycaon (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But QICbot doesn't know that, the souls of those poor slime molds are now held in limbo, not sure whether they are destined upwards or downwards. I have sped them towards the gates of ??? via CR :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I have uploaded a restitched and color corrected version of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2a.jpg - please take a look! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Marshal-star.jpg

Quoting from the deletions log:

17:00, 7 January 2009 Lycaon (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Marshal-star.jpg" ‎ (Universally replaced by Image:Badge-silver.jpg. Reason was "exact, or scaled-down duplicate")

Hi. Um, it does not appear to be an exact duplicate, when viewed from my computer (iMac G5, Mac OS X 10.4.11). The "new" file, Image:Badge-silver.jpg, looks black and, frankly, indistinct and hard to see on my screen (is it different for you?), and you also robbed me of my cherished "barnstar" (see the top of my talk page here: pl:Dyskusja wikipedysty:Mareklug, leaving a ...red link :). So... for these two reasons, could you please fix what you took away? :) Best wishes in the new year, --Mareklug ^talk 21:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Sorry for the trouble, I restored. Best wishes to you too. Lycaon (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

QI categorization: Protista

Hi Hans. There is no defined QI gallery for this QI pic. It is apparently a Protista, neither animal nor plant. Since fungi are classified under "Plant life", should we do the same for "Protista"? or make a gallery for "Plant life/Other"? Or something else? --Eusebius (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look into it one of these days. Thanks for the reminder. Lycaon (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

the kingdom is w:en:Amoebozoa which is same as Plants,Animals,Fungi etc see this for a visual arrangement Gnangarra 12:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've meant to split off the Fungi from the plants for some time now. I think the time has come ;-). Lycaon (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For slime molds you need a cat. Fungi and protoctists.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Pas ik nog aan een dezer. Lycaon (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

POTY 2008

Lycaon, I hate to be a pain, but would you be willing to help out with getting this off the ground? We have different views on a lot of things, and I think that someone I often disagree with, but respect, would help make sure that I don't just steamroller through a vision just because me and JalalV are the only ones actually working on it. We're planning it at User_talk:JalalV#Running_the_POTY_program, at the moment. In particular, I've proposed something (seeding the finalist list with the top contenders in various categories, in case people get tired of reviewing before reviewing all the categories) that seems like a good idea, but isn't how it was done before, and which I would really like someone with more experience to comment on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok deal. I'm a little busy these days though, but I'll see what I can do. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! What we'll probably end up doing is just a straight copy of 2007's voting, as far as we can manage. It won't be innovative, but it WILL, at least, mean we have POTY 2008 in decent time, and, you know, we can innovate next year when the contest isn't already 9 days late. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I apologize for having abandoned the ship without notice and appreciate that someone took care of it. But I'm quite busy now and didn't want to start something I couldn't finish properly. Agree that this is not the time for implementing thematic prizes, but what about the "Special Prize of the Juri (SPJ)"? We have still time to launch an election (15, 20 members?), so that when the finalist pictures are chosen, the juri will be ready to decide. What do you think, Hans and Adam? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request

Expressed my opinion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Готови ли сте за това.jpg. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Afbeelding van het jaar/2008

Hi,

Thnks. Ik maak de meeste foutjes in het dt gebeuren :)

Groetjes, Abigor talk 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:-)). Lycaon (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiton in your image

Hi Lycaon! Happy New Year! I wanted to tell you that the species of chiton in your image is in fact Acanthopleura granulata (Gmelin, 1791). It is not Chiton tuberculatus. There is a nice picture of A. granulata here [1]. A picture of Chiton tuberculatus is here: [2]. Chiton tuberculatus lives much further down in the intertidal, usually away from the sun, like under stones, and the species has a girdle which is scaly, like snake skin, rather than being spiky like A. granulata. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Happy new year to you too. I'll correct the name soon. BTW, I found some good Aporrhais pespelicanis in my collection, but now I'm waiting for some good light, (and time) to photograph them. Coming soon too. Lycaon (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome, thank you for all your help. That image is now called File:Acanthopleura granulata with Nerita tessellata.jpg . Good news about A. pespelicani, thanks in advance. By the way, you may already know this, but if you have a scanner you can take great pictures with it. Take a look at the crab carapace I scanned yesterday at [3]. best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Noise Reduction

Lycaon - First thanks for improving the image File:Seasquirt.jpg by reducing the noise. Given I have a number of lower resolution photos taken with my first 5MP camera that may be useful additions to the Commons, can you give me some tips on how to reduce noise and any other tips that will help me provide better images ? Thanks again! --- Nick Nhobgood (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Waltzing Phenakistoscope vertical shake

Looks like it should have the vertical shake: The centre hole around which it spins was put slightly off-centre, as can be seen here:

Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Why did you revert the "featured picture on" -> "Assessments" template replacements? --Slomox (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the revert? --Slomox (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the layout of the assessments template. Lycaon (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't have redundant solutions for the same purpose. Redundancy is a thing to avoid and that's especially true on Commons, which is a multilingual project. There are serious efforts to make templates multilingual to serve users from all language editions. If we maintain different templates for the same purpose this means much more work to maintain localisations.

In my opinion personal layout preferences are a very weak reason to put additional workload on the people who maintain those templates. --Slomox (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Hans, als dát geen toeval is... Prachtig beeld van een mij inderdaad bekende plek! Het doet me plezier van die zo in wintertooi te zien. Jammer genoeg moest ik vrijdag werken, anders was ik er ook op uit getrokken. Dat is een mooie QI-kandidaat (al is er iets met de scherpte van sommige grassen rechts beneden, een fenomeen dat ik niet direct kan verklaren). Let ook op het vlekje rechtsboven in de blauwe lucht, dat makkelijk te verwijderen is - je kan de kritiek beter vóór zijn. Met vriendelijke groeten, Marc (MJJR (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Duplicate images — both deleted

I marked File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1989-1104-047, Berlin, Demonstration, Rede Heiner Müller.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1989-1104-047, Berlin, Demonstration; Rede Heiner Müller.jpg as duplicate. What I meant to say was that these two were identical to each other. It now seems they have both been deleted. Naturally, that was not my intent. Could you undelete one of them, preferably the latter as that was used in de:Heiner Müller? If that is not possible because it's a "bad name", the former will of course do. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Lycaon (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Microstomus kitt (Lemon sole).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Why is the nominated picture better than this one? --Eusebius (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment ;-). Nomination shows natural colours (typical large spots on the back) better as the fish was alive at the time of the picture and on a black surface under a few millimetres of water. The other one concerns a dead fish which was photographed on the (brown/red) sorting table under artificial lighting conditions. Also quality is much higher IMO. — Lycaon (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Go_Kano_Eitoku2.jpg

Hi. According to the CommonsDelinker bot, you were responsible for replacing Image:Go_Kano_Eitoku2.jpg with Image:Kano_Eitoku_010.jpg because it was an exact, or scaled-down duplicate. The file Go_Kano_Eitoku2.jpg however, was a copy of Kano_Eitoku_010.jpg, but with the vignetting removed (or at least greatly diminished). Can you restore the image? Regards, HermanHiddema (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Do you want the other version replaced now? Lycaon (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I am not the original author of Kano_Eitoku_010.jpg. Personally, I think my version looks better and that it would be a good thing to replace Kano_Eitoku_010.jpg with my version, but I am no expert whether that is acceptable on Commons. If it is acceptable, then by all means go ahead. Regards, HermanHiddema (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A funny story

Hi Hans, May I please share with you a funny story?

I do not sell my images. Somehow I do not feel right selling "free" images that I upload to Commons. I give them away for free even, if I am offered to get payed. Few months ago a magazine asked me for the permission to use one of my images. As usually I said "yes". Few days ago I got the magazine. There was my image published there all right, but there was no... my name.

I e-mailed them and asked them for the compensation in the amount of 200 Euros for the violations of my copy rights.

They responded:

"Under Dutch case law, it is customary to pay a certain percentage of the original price that has been paid for using the image or place a rectification as a damage restrictive measure, in the event a name credit is forgotten. Since there has not been paid any amount to you for the first time publication of the image, a rectification will be enough to limit your damage."

In other words nothing comes from nothing. No matter how many times one would multiply a "certain percentage" to zero, one still will get zero.

I emailed them back and asked, if Dutch case law says somewhere: "do not pay compensation for free images".

Apparently it does not. They are going to pay!

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for you. I had this year four of my images used on Belgian national television in a quiz program without attribution. I invoiced them and they paid up without protest: €100.00 each. Lycaon (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for you too! Did somebody told you about this, or you happen to watch the program yourself?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Marines in the Korean War 003.jpg

I noticed you removed the duplicate template off this image & it was left uncategorized. I know the template should have contained the alternate image. However, in absence of that, the images will show any duplicates in the “Links” section at the bottom of the file’s page. This may provide a good backup way to determine duplicates of an image. Just thought I’d pass along some info. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Lycaon (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)