User talk:Lycaon/Archive7

Archive 1 (3 Jan 2006 – 8 Jan 2007)
Archive 2 (11 Jan 2007 – 30 May 2007)
Archive 3 (30 May 2007 – 2 Aug 2007)
Archive 4 (2 Aug 2007 – 24 Aug 2007)
Archive 5 (25 Aug 2007 – 16 Dec 2007)
Archive 6 (17 Dec 2007 – 27 Apr 2008)

FYI

FYI--Mbz1 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Borago officinalis (flower).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}}}

On a QI candidate

Hi there,you declined on the grounds of it being noisy.Is there anything that can be done to bring it up to quality image level? Thank you for your time - Amog |^Talk 09:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If not,please tell me if this picture at least,is worth a candidature: - Amog |^Talk 09:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You might try to use some noise reduction software (such as Neat Image) or use a lower ISO value on your camera. But the other thing I notice on your images is some posterization (largish areas of monochrome colour), also on the tulip pic (the yellows, e.g.). That's another thing that you should try to avoid. Furthermore, if the topic is an animal or a plant the species name or cultivar (for a garden variety) should be given. I know that's a lot of requirements, but that is the way QI works. Cheers. Lycaon 12:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice:)I tried out Neat Image,and it worked out brilliantly! Here's a newer version of the sunset picture: [1].Is this good enough for a QI? May i re-apply? Thank you - Amog |^Talk 14:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-applying is always an option ;-). Lycaon 07:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I did,too :) Now it's sitting without a review.Was it that un-inspiring? Heh - Amog |^Talk 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit calm at QI lately: not enough assessors, plenty of nominations. I've had quite a few unassessed images on QI myself recently. Don't worry, You have eight days. Lycaon 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is now May

And so after the end of April. Can I fill in the nom? Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can still use me, I guess I'm game ;-). Lycaon 07:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just needs accepting & then I'll transclude it - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coris monspeliensis subs.monspeliensis.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 Please assess. Lycaon 12:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)  Comment The stem (is it the right word ??) seems out of focus. -- Stephanemartin 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC) The stem is out of focus but this is normal as the image is shot rather from top. The fruit ( I'm not a biologist!) Is percectly sharp and I like the non-centered composition. --Ikiwaner 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aceras anthropophora (detail).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI --LC-de 11:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pelagia noctiluca (Sardinia).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI --Nevit 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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 Nice shot, with good details and sharpen where it needs --Julroy67 17:36, 1 May 2008 (CEST)

FPC flooding

Hi. I don't think it is a good idea to flood FPC with similar images. The only thing that will probably happen is that people get bored and don't vote, or alternatively votes might be spread over all the images and none of them may reach FP-status. Could I kindly ask you to remove those noms and nominate them one by one (say one a week)?. Thanks Lycaon 07:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have spent days asking around over this. No one raised objections and now I deal with this. It is kinda frustrating. I will remove all deep space ones for now except the main poster per below. However I will not spend the next 61 weeks nominating these one by one. That is not very reasonable. Don't you think?

I would however do not object if you took over the nomination thing. I simply do not want to spend so much time on the page. :)

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi White Cat. Please just nominate two or three of your favourites at a time. FPC is not really usable with umpteen similar pictures nominated. I removed them for now. --norro 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You do NOT remove someone elses nomination like that. I am very irked. Do not do it again. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have recentely nominated in COM:FPC 60 images of coliding galaxies. I suggest you to keep only the poster (which has them all), as there is no way each of the pictures can have a fair and accurate evaluation from the usual reviewers and they disturbing the normal working of the page. Alvesgaspar 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Lycaon 09:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So what do you think of my request? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 09:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mantis religiosa (egg case).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, perfect documentation --Mbdortmund 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing request

Hi Lycaon,

thanks for your review on my picture, promoted for qi. Could you be so kind reviewing this following edit with a few words here on your discussion page? Background, I've tried another software for raw image processing:

Canada Goose - other edit

The picture has clearly improved, but altogether lack of details still prevents it from becoming a QI. I fear that the original was not good enough. Pity, cause the reduced version looks great. Lycaon 12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll trying to work on lenses and tripod techniques in future :) --XN 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys neglecta (flower 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 sharpness given the file size. Nice DOF. --Chmehl 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys incubacea (flower).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 sharpness. --Chmehl 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Multi FP template

Hi witte poes, I have a comment on your template. It gives a non existent page for the german wikipedia, e.g. on Tibia insulaechorab .jpg, while my own box has the correct reference. Could you please look into this? Thanks. Lycaon 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware. We had a similar problem with Spanish wikipedia after a rather brief discussion es.wiki adopted a standardized scheme. I will compensate with code if de.wiki doesn't agree. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, then that will be solved eventually. thanks. Lycaon 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, your computer bot is now even double tagging... Lycaon 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware. It is easier to tag first and then deal with duplicates by hand or software. :) -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit disconcerting though, as those edits all show up in my watchlist. Lycaon 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You should not see my bot's edits. Its a flagged bot. It may be a setting issue. You are welcome to help deal with duplicates :) I am kind of holding back from that task because I want to process all wikis first so as not to wate time with duplicates. I have processed de.wiki, tr.wiki, es.wiki, and en.wiki so far. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FPX Template

Re:"Removing an FPX template does NOT mean removing a user's remarks!! — Lycaon 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)" My apologies about that, I'm new here and the template said if you disagree to remove it so I just took out the whole line, I'll remember that for next time! Sorry! JDiPierro 11:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. No harm done ;-). Lycaon 12:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Land crab

Dank je, Lycaon.
you've identified Cardisoma carnifex very quickly and friendly.
Groeten
--B.navez 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, don't you think this one could be rather Birgus latro ? --B.navez 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be Coenobita brevimanus. Lycaon 10:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pelagia noctiluca (Sardinia).jpg , that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelagia noctiluca (Sardinia).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Gefeliciteerd, Beste Administrator!

Een cadeau voor onze nieuwe adminstrator van je collega's

Lycaon, gefeliciteerd! Je hebt nu administratorrechten op Commons. Neem een moment om Commons:Administrators te lezen en plaats gerelateerde pagina's op je volglijst (vooral Commons:Administrators' noticeboard en Commons:Deletion requests), voor je in verwijderen, beveiligen, blokkeren of wijzigen in beveiligde pagina's duikt. De meerderheid van de acties van administratoren kunnen ongedaan worden gemaakt door andere administratoren, behalve het samenvoegingen van bewerkingsgeschiedenissen, die dus met bijzondere zorg behandeld moeten worden.

Neem eens een kijkje op het IRC-kanaal: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net.

EugeneZelenko 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Many congratulations! And for your initiation, perhaps you can sort this out ? ;) --MichaelMaggs 15:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks guys :) Lycaon 22:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

FP template

Hi Hans,

I think you might want to take a look at this discussion Alvesgaspar 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Size

Hi, I don't understand what you modified in this picture to change the size like that... Is that a better JPEG compression ? Or something else ? Romanceor 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I merely removed a lot of noise, which was taking up a lot of real estate ;). The files I post are always compressed with a mere 5%. Cheers. Lycaon 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Multichill

Hoi, bedankt voor het herstellen van de lijst. Ik zag net te laat dat ik de verkeerde opsomming gebruikte en toen ik het wilde herstellen kreeg ik twee bewerkingsconflicten met jouw stem en fix. Groet, Erwin(85) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Platycapnos tenuiloba (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 Clearly QI - Peripitus 09:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Silene gallica.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 pretty. I have no complain. I would say, a bit not centered and be necessary to remove the spider's thread before... _Fukutaro 04:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Which community?

"per community request"? Which community? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be the FPC and QIC communities, I've been working with since I stumbled upon wikicommons near three years ago ;-). Lycaon 15:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that the template in question is used on well over five thousands of pages? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not two days ago before your bot prematurely moved it. Nevertheless, the protection is registered users only, and it is on my (and others') watchlist. Lycaon 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Noise in Galaxy pictures

That "noise" are individual stars (or clusters of them). If I were to process the image to remove them, this would no longer be an image of a galaxy. The dust like noise are hundreds or thousands of individual stars. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then the quality is not good enough for FP. Pity. Lycaon 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, didn't we ask you not to flood FPC with nominations? I thought that was understood? Lycaon 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

Is there any reason why you are reverting me? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilfe ?

Hallo Lycaon, du hast mir bei einem Bild schon mal geholfen. Meinst du, dass man bei diesem Bild noch etwas retten kann? --Böhringer 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) D A N K E --Böhringer (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Podarcis sicula.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 Clearly QI. --Dilaudid 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrrhosoma nymphula.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 composition and nice damselfly. I would like to see a little more detail and sharpness on the head though -- Alvesgaspar 11:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Podarcis siculus (Losa Nuraghe).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 Should have that plant identified. -- carol 06:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC) The plant is navelwort (Umbilicus rupestris). Lycaon 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC) QI --Nevit 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bug and fly May 2008-1.jpg

This fly was killed by a crab spider in the morning. I returned to the same spot in the afternoon and there was this strange creature apparently feeding on the remains. I have no idea of what it is, not even if it is a bug or a beetle. Look at the long antennae (or palps?). Any idea? -- Alvesgaspar 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joaquim. No success so far. I've seen this thing before (a picture). It is a bug (Heteroptera), but I haven't found a name yet. I'll keep on searching. ;-) Lycaon 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Hans, I'm really puzzled with this one. Are you sure it is an heteropteran? I went through all bug families and I couldn't find this kind of long and thick antennae. Have you noticed the sucking beak? -- Alvesgaspar 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Found it, Heterotoma planicornis (Miridae)! -- Alvesgaspar 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Congrats!! Nice one. Lycaon 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From Messier to messiness

I just read the page {{ITIS}} and I have been making a mess of things if what I understand from reading that is correct. I have been putting tribe into the Cronquist System information and it doesn't go there. I did this because I simply did not like the number of genus there were here: http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=35420 eh, not there 'here' but here at the commons as listed there, at ITIS.

Am I correct in saying that I was wrong? -- carol 07:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ITIS has of course it uses and is often a good (be it incomplete) source. However, they tend not to bother with the fine art of subdivisions. Tribes are necessary and useful when they have been taxonomically defined. In Asteraceae, e.g. they are a must. Lycaon 07:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the very prompt reply. My solution was going to be to strip which ever system did not break that family into tribes from wherever I had put it. I just made a quick review of things (a review that I had opted to ask you about instead of looking myself) are the words legion and cohort supposed to be in the scheme as they are at en:Tribe (biology)? And those systems are about things at the top of the (for lack of a better word) the break down? -- carol 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tomares ballus.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 quality. --Dschwen 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with the Valued images project

As you may have seen, this project is going live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC. Before then, there are a few things to be finished off, and any help you can give will be welcome. The latest discussion is at Commons talk:Valued images candidates#Open action items for Valued images.

When the project launches publicly on 1 June, it will need reviewers who are able to jump in quickly and provide prompt feedback. During those critical first few weeks it will be important to have a decent number of reviewers who are prepared to put in the effort to make sure the first nominations are well-reviewed, as that will set the standard for the future.

Would you help, please, with the final tasks now, and also pledge your help with some reviewing on 1 June and thereafter? --MichaelMaggs 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch translation

Thanks for the translation on User:MichaelMaggs/Sandbox2. Could you do the main heading "Wikimedia Commons announces launch of new Valued images project" as well, please? --MichaelMaggs 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Valencia - Maquette of the cathedral for the visually impaired.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 Seems OK--Nevit 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quercus coccifera (acorns).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 Fine illustration (I wonder what are these red tiny things : capsules of the mosses or Kermes dyes ?). --B.navez 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC) They are indeed moss capsules. Lycaon

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euphorbia characias (habitus).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 Rich picture --B.navez 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Quaid's mausoleom

Hi,

Ok i know this has been an old photograph, but why was the photograph not featured. It recieved more supporting votes then opposed.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures_candidates/Image:Khimaz.JPG

Cheers. --78.86.216.241 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rules for featuring are a 2/3 majority. In named case that should have been 18+/9- or 14+/7- or something similar at least. Cheers. Lycaon 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

a bonus

Image:Packera paupercula 8.jpg has a cute little (I think) six legged thing in the frame as well -- ever see this in real life or in popular non-fiction? -- carol 08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arion rufus (Dourbes).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 Shoulda gotten a shot of that little guy without all the clutter around, but he still comes though just the same RevolverOcelot 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

VI closure

Hi Lycaon,

I have written down a proposal concerning VI nomination closure. I'd like to hear your opinion on the procedure because you have a lot of experience with closure. I have tried to find a balance between providing sufficient structure and keeping the workload for the closer down.

In particular, I have tried to lessen the burden of maintaining a monthly log. This happens behind you bag in monthly categories, when subsituting {{VI-add}} onto the image page (where it is replaced by a {{VI}} template with some added date related parameters generated during the substitution).

Also I propose not to have a parallel subject hierarchy as in QI and FP (Animals, landscapes, natural phenomena, and so on) as it seems that closers always run into problems that there is really not a fitting category). Rather I propose to weave in the VIs in the normal category/gallery structure, as it is here the editors looking for specific material will notice it.

You may want to review my structuring proposal right above as it gives some further insight. -- Slaunger 12:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with species?

Hi, I notice you seem to have some expertise in marine creatures and wonder if you might be able to identify the species in this image. Thanks. -- Aldaron 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It look very much like an Asterias rubens to me, it also seems to occur in the West-Atlantic. See here for distribution. Cheers. Lycaon 22:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Cymbidium Clarisse Austin 'Best Pink' Flowers 2000px.JPG , that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cymbidium Clarisse Austin 'Best Pink' Flowers 2000px.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cynomorium coccineum 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 * Support I don't see any problem there --LC-de 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)  Oppose Don't agree : overexposed background. --B.navez 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)  Oppose Yep, overexposed --Dilaudid 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)  Comment tried a slight fix. Lycaon 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)  Support BG os not overexposed, and what matters in a pic like this is the exposure of the main subject. --Dschwen 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)  Support It does look overexposed to me, but I agree with Dschwen. Great DOF, main subject "framed" perfectly Fvasconcellos 17:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) The subject is OK and is worth attention but this is not one of the finest pictures of Lycaon (exposure, weak composition -the same we can we find easily googling on the web-) and for not a perfect picture I would have preferred the other one which shows that the flowers of these parasitic plants appear in groups and which shows the parasited plant too, probably Halimione portulacoides --B.navez 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)  Support Main subject is properly exposed and well photographed - Peripitus 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I hardly could imagine there was so many awful wild animals in Belgium. ! What's the next ?--B.navez 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Black bird with white moustache

Hi Hans,

DO you have any idea what bird is this? The shot was made at the Lisbon Oceanarium (you should go there!) in the arctic section. -- Alvesgaspar 23:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it is an Inca Tern. Cheers. Lycaon 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, that was quick! -- Alvesgaspar 07:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea

Ahoi Hans, here i have a massive problem in identifying this bug and the grass ... the bug looks similar like Cantharidae - Cantharis sp ? the closest approximation via my books says roughly Cantharis livida ... same with the grass .. any idea ? Thanks - Richie --Richard Bartz 09:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to get through but my book also confirms C. livida -- Alvesgaspar 11:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could the gras be Elymus ? --Richard Bartz 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed guys, I can confirm the beetle to be the pale form of Cantharis livida. The grass however should start flowering completely to be sure, but for now it very much looks like a Lolium sp.. Cheers. Lycaon 09:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Danköööö --12:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fishy deletion request

Hi Hans,

You might be interested in taking a look at this. Looks fishy, doesn't it? Maybe it is a good idea to remove all those templates from the pictures -- Alvesgaspar 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Himba lady preparing deodorant.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 aesthetically beautiful implemented --Böhringer 20:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xerus inauris.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 wau, a top image --Böhringer 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

question

Hi, Hans,
May I please ask you how the media of the day is selected? I also like to ask you about your orchid. I wonder, if you saw a bee, who polinates it? Thank you. --Mbz1 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

About the orchid (I guess you mean this one?), I didn't hang around long enough to see the pollinator (in casu the bee Andrena morio), as I had only three days to discover 'all' the orchids of Sardinia ;-).
As for the potd, that is up to the contributor who first fills in the spot. Lycaon 22:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant that beautiful orchid, which I wish I was able to see. Thank you.--Mbz1 02:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued images test review phase has ended

Dear Hans, Thank you for participating in the development of the Valued images project by test nominating one or more candidates. We have used the input from the test reviews to fine-tune the guidelines, process and templates used, hereby hopefully improving the setup. We have now decided that on June 1, 2008 at 0:00 (UTC), the valued image project will be opened for official nominations. To get ready for the grand opening, we will close down the last remaining open test candidates in a few hours, such that the candidates list pages are emptied and ready. Since there has been a certain amount of instruction creep over the course of the test review pahse, we have decided that all promoted and declined candidates from the test review phase will be reset to the so-called "undecided" state prior to the opening. This means that test valued image candidate review pages all end up in Category:Undecided valued images candidates and the test sets end up in Category:Undecided valued image set candidates. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Although all nominations will be reset, you, as a test nominator, will still have the advantage that each candidate can be re-nominated beginning June 1 0:00 UTC. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Click on the links to the aforementioned categories for instruction on how to renominate. In addition, the project has decided to re-nominate all candidates, which were test promoted, unless you tell us not to do so on my talk page. Also, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems relating to valued images. I hope, you will also take part in the project once it goes on the air, either as nominator, maintainer and/or reviewer. Happy editing, -- Slaunger 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

the fate of the pet alligator

Never put a large frog in an aquarium -- scroll down to the paragraph that starts with that. They don't write them like this any more. I read the preface, btw, which was very very good and started out something like, "If you read this preface, you are not my target audience". It is on page 53 (I think that without a google account these links don't work so well). -- carol 10:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hyla sarda (spotted).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 OK for the green quality.--B.navez 03:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ephemeroptera ?

Ahoi Hans, is this Ephemeroptera ? .. subimago of Ephemera danica ? Best Richie --Richard Bartz 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Richie. You're moving beyond my expertise... ;). Have you seen these images? Cheers. Lycaon 17:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now i get it :-) It's a stonefly (Isoperla sp.) --Richard Bartz 10:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thankyou for your support in my RfA, it's most appreciated. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Aceras anthropophora (detail).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Aceras anthropophora (detail).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lotus sp. (habitus).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.--B.navez 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Limosa limosa (calling).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 For having entered intimicy of the wild with fine delicacy, for composition and light too, and despite some stains in the grass and some head feathers looking repainted.--B.navez 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested wording

The coordinates of where an image has been taken are possibly important to the jet-set or tourist crowd; the retouched templates are possibly more important to the wrongly grounded and others who are working with wiki information only. I am going to ask you right now, respectfully, what is the best way to ask a person who should know that much to use the template? -- carol 00:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goneplax rhomboides 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 Seems OK.--Nevit 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How many words equals a potential QI candidate

I just transcribed a title and seriously do not want to waste the enormous effort it took me to transcribe this title on a mere article. Here it is: "The Journal of Botany: Being a Second Series of the Botanical Miscellany; Containing Figures and Descriptions of Such Plants as Recommend Themselves by Their Novelty, Rarity or History, or by the Uses to Which They are Applied in the Arts, in Medicine, and in Domestic Œconomy; Together With Occasional Botanical Notices and Information"

As it is just a title, it seems to me as if it should qualify for something. Thoughts? I was thinking that it wouldn't take that large of a font to make the pixel minimum as perscribed by the guidelines. -- carol (tomes) 13:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhingia campestris on Cytisus scoparius.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  CommentWhat is that pattern in the eye? Looks like a snowflake. --Berthold Werner 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I think it is a refraction pattern caused by the hexagonal arrangement of the ommatidia, making up the compound eye. Lycaon 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC); seems to meet QI-requirenents --Mbdortmund 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, Hans, in case you have not read my respond to your message yet, I've archived it here. Thank you.--Mbz1 16:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (courting).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (courting).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Oh la la... Alvesgaspar 23:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neotinea lactea (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 QI. -- carol (tomes) 01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

VIs of visually distinct species

Hi Hans, I am a little bit surprised by your withdrawal of the parasite image and your associated message, which seemed to express some frustration. Especially I think Michaels question is relevant and I do not think it is that fair to snap at him for posting a question (or is it carol you are snapping at?). I know you have earlier argued that any species could warrant a VI. That makes sense as long as the species are visually distinct. There are many species where you cannot id the species just based on a photograph of it, so I think we have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to photographs of species. Otherwise nominators could start claiming that uncertainly identified species is this and that and nominate that for VIC. Therefore I think the question posed by Michael is relevant. We all know you are an expert in identification of marine animals, so it is only natural to ask what is the difference? You mention the host animal for instance. Is that specific for the species?

Can there then be a VI for any species. I think so, but for very similar species I do not think those VIs are photographs but rether illustrations and or drawings detailing the differences between the species or highlighting exactly what identifies a certain species.

I saw a cat disagreemnent later on, on this one I am with you: Being in a species category is just fine. As a matter of fact it is probably better than having it in a species cat. -- Slaunger 21:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to reconsider the withdrawal of the cat disagreement one. -- Slaunger 21:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sometimes a little letter means a lot. Maybe it was good we had the category discussion after all? I was actually pretty amazed that you (apparently) had been in the middle of the Amazon jungle far far way from road just to photograph this caterpillar. :-) -- Slaunger 23:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you have withdrawn the withdrawals. Do you feel the process is more on track now? How about the one I absentmindedly in a state of premature Alzheimers closed as declined. Should I do something about that, or should we just leave it be? -- Slaunger 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert war

Hi Hans, I can see a long history that has lead to this and have seen a fair few other odd interactions in my time here. I have wondered though how much of this is caused by language differences and how is just an odd approach to interraction. I have a lot better time understanding Richard Bartz's German comments (which I don't speak) than some of Carol's English (which I do) comments. Here's hoping it all resolves amicably - Peripitus 09:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trifolium stellatum (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 quality. – Ilse@ 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request for usurptation on Korean Wikipedia

Hi Lycaon! In Korean Wikipedia, We are discussing about accepting usurptation in village pumps. It maybe require many time. Best regards.--Kwj2772 ^{Disc. kowiki.} 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, I'm not in a hurry Lycaon 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your request was accepted. Now you can make the username Lycaon on ko-wp. :) --JeongAhn (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

감사합니다 -- Lycaon (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Mwamongu water source.jpg

I have changed the scope on this one and you may want to have a look if you can still support it. -- Slaunger 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

re: ko:user talk:Dus2000

I don't have any power to accept your request, so I moved it to WP:Request for managing user. There are no consensus on usurp yet in Korean Wikipedia, so please be patient :) --Dus2000 04:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

VI candidate Commons:Valued image candidates/Chicago 2007-4.jpg

Would you like to re-visit? It has now been geocoded. --MichaelMaggs 06:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Platanthera bifolia (flower).jpg , that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Platanthera bifolia (flower).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Platanthera chlorantha (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 Blade of grass obscuring plant. -- carol 08:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I do not condone of removing other plants in a nature reserve, just for the purpose of taking a picture of a rare species in its natural habitat. On the other hand there is no leave obscuring the main topic. The rest is called nature. Lycaon 10:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Platanthera bifolia (flower).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A little noisy at full resolution but a good closeup nonetheless --Ianare 06:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Is that the right name? -- carol 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC) yes it is Lycaon It is named differently than the image which seems to be the same plant as the nomination made at the same time by the same photographer. -- carol 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Id is correct. Lycaon Yes it is, but I came here to change the vote -- unfortunately, I was not able to do what I wanted because it was what? changed for me? I will change it soon enough. -- carol 10:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

FP Candidate Iguazu Falls

Good day

I saw your vote on the FP Candidate page about my picture. From you and other users, I recieved opposing vote because my image contains either artifacts or a lack of details. Here is the comment I posted on the voting page in reaction to your votes:

•  Comment Please consider the fact that the image is 4800 x 3500 pixels. You are judging it from it's quality (artifacts, details) when viewed at 100%. Pictures stitched with Hugin have artifacts from the manipulation (rotation, deformation of the original image). Have a look when I downsample this image to 2000x1500 px, (the same size than the previous and following candidates images), and you can clearly see that my image has the required levels of details and no artifacts. From the guidelines: "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible". If the artifacts and lack of details at 100% is the only reason why it fails FP nomination, if I upload a downsampled version of this image, would you change your vote? If yes, then we need to change the guidelines. -- S23678 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If my picture presents problems other than lack of details or artifacts, please state it in your vote. However, if was the only reason for your opposing vote, please reconsider your position basing yourself on my arguments, and either cancel your vote, make it neutral, or support my picture if you now think it's a FP.

I also posted a comment about this on the FP candidates talk page. Feel free to add your comments.

Thank You

S23678 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neotinea maculata (Sardinia).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 quality. DOF could be a tad larger. --Dschwen 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys fuciflora (detail).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 quality. Do you also have a non postcard-sexy shot of the full plant for documentation purposes? --Dschwen 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) check this gallery ;-)). Lycaon 21:27, 6 June 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:
Abludomelita obtusata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Excellent quality and only picture of the species on commons. -- Lycaon 11:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now. Fails criterion 5 which requires geocoding "unless it would not be appropriate to do so". Unfortunately, there is no exception for images that fail only because location information is not available. Here, though, the specimen was taken from the Belgian Continental Shelf, which should be enough to give at least an approximate location. Happy to support when that is added. --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Geolocation is not applicable for an organism which was caught 'somwhere' at sea and photographed years later in the lab. Lycaon 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I tend to agree with the nominator on this. Geodata should only be added when the location is known with quite some certainty. If the precision is too low it may be misleading instead. If geodata declines continues this way, I think we need to intitiate a discussion about the geocoding requirement on COM:VIC to see if the current description is adequate and helps establish the goals of this project. I am probably more inclined to supporting more exceptions than currently stated based on "Common(s) sense". -- Slaunger 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Agreed. My previous comment was wrong as this is s studio shot, and the whole basis of geocoding is to record the camera rather than the subject position. So it is not needed. --MichaelMaggs 06:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So, will that change your vote then? -- Slaunger 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    •  Support Yes, would have supported before, but the nomination had been withdrawn. --MichaelMaggs 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I think this is an exemplar of the sort of photograph that Valued Images should recognize. It is a high quality micrograph, not just the best photograph, but the only illustration of an entire genus.[2] I will support it when it is added to a gallery page for the species. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment With reference to COM:TOL it does not have to be in a species gallery if the taxo tree in questions is only sparsely populated (as is the case here). No need to build deep taxo hierarchies when there are no media to put there. Should mere media come by it can be rearranged later as the need arises. -- Slaunger 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) My recollections of what is stated was incorrect. -- Slaunger 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support IMO crit 6 is OK. When the taxo tree is so sparsely populated as here I think it is OK that it is not in a species gallery. -- Slaunger 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, although COM:TOL seems unambiguous. "Each species gets its own article, titled with the scientific name." Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratz with your first VI, Hans! It is well deserved. I suspect you nominated this first to get at the top of the list on Commons:Valued images by scope... -- Slaunger 20:30, 10 June 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:
Ampelisca brevicornis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Only identified picture of the genus on commons. Geolocation n/a. Lycaon 12:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Nice microscopy work. Adam Cuerden 12:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now. Fails criterion 5 which requires geocoding "unless it would not be appropriate to do so". Unfortunately, there is no exception for images that fail only because location information is not available. Here, though, the specimen was taken from the Belgian Continental Shelf, which should be enough to give at least an approximate location. Happy to support when that is added. --MichaelMaggs 16:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Geolocation is not applicable for an organism which was caught 'somwhere' at sea and photographed years later in the lab. Lycaon 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Agreed. My previous comment was wrong as this is a studio shot, and the whole basis of geocoding is to record the camera rather than the subject position. So it is not needed. --MichaelMaggs 06:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment An excellent example of a Valued Image micrograph of an animal, in my opinion. It satisfies or exceeds all criteria, except it needs to be added to a species gallery page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, per Slaunger.[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Glad that the nom has been reinstated. --MichaelMaggs 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 20:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And another nice one. -- Slaunger 20:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Chthalamus stellatus.JPG

Hi Hans, I think we need some marine biologist input here. Thanks, -- Slaunger 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the name. --MichaelMaggs 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

De nada. ;-). Lycaon 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a follow-up question for you there. -- Slaunger 10:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May I please ask you to take a look?

here. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euphorbia characias (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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Platanthera bifolia (flower 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 {{{3}}}

Your vote in FPC

Hi,

I made an modification to the image Wan Chai.jpg, hope this would address the issues you specified in Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Wan_Chai.jpg. Thank you.

--βαςε_LXIV™ 04:04, 12 June 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:
Pseudosphinx tetrio, caterpillar.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Only caterpillar of the species on commons. Lycaon 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Is it rare? I see there's no geocoding. --MichaelMaggs 10:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• geocoded. Lycaon 11:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Almost there. I'd be more than happy to support, but criterion 6 requires categorization, and not simply the adding of the image to a gallery page. --MichaelMaggs 16:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Gallery equals category in organisms. Lycaon 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support I agree with nominator on the categorization issue. It is actually recommended that species are put in species galleries instead of species categories. This exception is also mentioned in the description of criterion 6. I hope the nominator will reconsider the withdrawal. -- Slaunger 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of adding a supplementary category: Category:Animals of Bolivia. -- Slaunger 23:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Which has now been changed to Category:Animals of Dominica as there was a South->North error in the geodata. -- Slaunger 14:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support To my way of thinking, this image is a good example of a Valued Image of an animal. The only other images of this genus on Commons are of adults, Image:PseudosphinxDiscistriga.png and Image:Pseudosphinx tetrio sjh.JPG. The image quality and resolution are high. I should like to see a categorization exception for biota added explicitly to criterion 6 to forestall such objections (as above) in the future. I agree that geocoding is not relevant for this image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  Yes it might be a good idea to mention the COM:TOL special case explicitly in the criterion to avoid further misunderstandings of this kind in the future.

  I do not agree that geocoding of this image is irrelevant, though. -- Slaunger 14:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

-- Slaunger 08:52, 12 June 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:
Euphorbia characias, flowers and fruit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Best picture on commons of a plant in the wild, showing both fruits and flowers.
•  Support best overall picture of the species. Meets all criteria. – flamurai 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Image:Euphorbia characias (habitus).jpg is another valuable image of the species, but is a better illustration of the leaves and habit, than flowers and fruit. This is the best image within the scope of the nomination, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with Wsiegmund. I added Category:Plants of Spain: Should it really be Category:Plants of Catalonia? -- Slaunger 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 09:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

-- Slaunger 09:33, 12 June 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:
Pariambus typicus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

user bofis

bofis is a very good friend of mine, why would you strike him and say he is fake? hes real.Evilarry (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of this and a similar edit. Lycaon (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

that makes no sense, please correct your striking of that user. Evilarry (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding categories door BotMultichill

Ik heb ook last van de boodschappen die BotMultichill plaatst bij foto's van planten die wel in een gallerij staan en waarvan het niet wenselijk is ze in een categorie te plaatsen. Herstellen blijkt niet te helpen want even later staat de boodschap er weer. Ik heb nu Category:No_category_required gemaakt die ik toevoeg aan de betreffende plaatjes om te voorkomen dat de boodschap opnieuw verschijnt. Groeten, Wouter (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Chthalamus stellatus.JPG

Scope has been changed. Would you like to re-visit, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Lycaon (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I just switched on ;-). Lycaon (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Machu Picchu

Considering the number of images of Machu Picchu on flickr, it's amazing how hard it is to find a great photo. Do you think it's worth uploading/nomming this or any of the other photos in this set? – flamurai 05:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Spider May 2008-5.jpg

Hi Hans, Have you got any idea if it is possible to id this critter to a lower taxon based on the image and location info alone? -- Slaunger (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galactites elegans.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 Slight noise but I like it way more than the version below. Should be OK for an 8MP photo. --Lerdsuwa 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

QI recently promoted

Hey Lycaon! I take it the QI recently promoted tool works for you too. What browser are you using. Any problems? Sorry for the revert, but you had an old version of the code in you cache with an out dated list of categories. But your last edit looked fine. By the way, the show changes button works, so that can be used to double check if the script performs the edits correctly. --Dschwen (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yep it works. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.14. Great tool. And I love being reverted, especially when I'm wrong ;-). Lycaon (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tettigoniidae

Ahoi Seebär ! I need your expert opinion in identiying a species and a plant. Maybe you have an idea onto this ? Best, Richie --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Papaya raindrop.jpg

Hey, Thanks for carrying out the edit for my image. Regards, Muhammad 18:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Beer cans

I have speedy deleted some of the most blatant copyvios. More to do, but don't have time just now. Awaiting the backlash, cries of anquish, and allegations of a personal "campaign" :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:26, 21 June 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:
Nereis succinea.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Meets all criteria easily. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 23 June 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:
Epitoky in Polychaeta.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Meets the criteria. Would be good if the description linked to en:Epitoky. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Done It's but a word... ;-). Lycaon (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, I meant to say  Support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Noise reduction

You did an amazing work on this picture ; what software and profiles did you use to remove the noise ? I tried Capture NX, Photoshop, NeatImage... I never had this result, even better than your 12-May compression. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Тенерани - портрет графини С.Л. Шуваловой (1).jpg

I have reverted curves, marible should not looks so hard. Automatic contrast not always the best. #!05:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK no probs. Lycaon (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Two for the wolf:

http://xkcd.com/87/

http://xkcd.com/155/

If you are around?

Tomorrow maybe - can you nudge me about this. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mail :) It will save you some time! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Brachyura

Hallo, Lycaon, please have a look on this category. You are the expert. Makes it sense to sort the Superfamiliae in alphabetical form? Cheers. Orchi (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably better only to withhold the alphabetical section. This isn't Wikispecies after all and chances that someone is going to search taxonomical on this level are negligible. Thanks for the change. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rana what ? :-)

Ahoi Hans. I have difficulties in identifying this Brownfrog picture 1 picture 2 picture 3. Is this Rana temporaria or arvalisor or dalmatina ? Please help. Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on.... an expert is being consulted. Give it a few days max (unless he is on holidays;-)). Lycaon (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

After consultation. They are Rana temporaria: distance between tympanum and eye is to wide for the other two species. Also (largish) tympanum itself is typical for R. temporaria. Gruß. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot <3 --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Flora/ plants of categories and species association

Hi Hans, I'd like to hear your opinion about these two threads: Commons:Village pump#Plants of vs Flora of and Commons:Village pump#Should species be categorized to area-specific categories?.

Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the language of the discussion some: Adaptive evolution theory. It as much of a "red carpet runway" as I could put there for you, sir. -- carol (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me

Forgive me if I offended you but I don't see what's wrong with not using the "standard" method when my vote is perfectly clear. You're too serious. Commons is not a bureaucracy. --Calibas (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is a bureaucracy and they are constantly rerunning Did You Knows and things like that. I am summarizing many images and stories and no real facts that I can cite, but it seems like "community" behavior is at its worse when uniformity is demanded.

I don't remember this happening so much before 1980, but there seems to be a lot of power obtained by doing a lot of wrong things to a person who tries to be communicative. Then when the communicative person changes the nature of the communication enough in an honest attempt, that the attempt becomes the issue and not the wrongs that initiated the attempt. The actual wrongdoings never get looked at. Bureaucracy devolves into functioning like that. I think (or my wish is) that Hans does not want to be in a situation like that. -- carol (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Babesia life cycle human en.svg

i just finished this two and i was wonderfing if you could have a look at them and tell me if you find any mistake :P. -LadyofHats (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 

== What happened here ? == --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Uuups!

Commons:Valued image candidates/Earthworm faeces.jpg

Does the additional information provided by the nominator change anything for you? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Lumbricidae is as good a guess as any, but I'm not convinced. That doesn't mean however that I would oppose if another user would support. It is just that I can't be certain one way or the other, so I'd rather stay neutral on this one. BTW, if I can't answer your mail before you're off on holiday, I wish you a good time. Lycaon (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am wondering how important the taxonomy is for the scope of "Earthworm feces". I considered supporting it, but on the other I guess (this is not something I know of) that the way the feces look would depend somehow on the taxonomy, so I do not think I will vote either. You do not have to reply on the mail, as things are now..., but of course, if you choose to, that will be welcome too. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:57, 10 July 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:
Lithops karasmontana.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies all six criteria; one of the most valued pictures of the genus. It shows both the fully open flower and the bracts of the partially open flower. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support
=> Promoted

-- Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

the Prins

Hi, Hans, I do not feel good to crop the Prins , but... Image:Prins Filip (Profile) edit 1.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure he'll never find out ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Image

Hey, Can you please delete this image for me, as I have misnamed it? A properly named image has already been uploaded. Thanks Muhammad 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)