User talk:Lycaon/Archive11

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)

Being a fervent quizzer myself, I happened to see them first hand. :-)). Lycaon (talk) 17:35, 16 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)

Image:Carla Bruni-Sarkozy (3).jpg

Hi,

I'll see your message under my photo. Would you like I upload a bigger size of this photo. The original size is 2592*3888 (4,9 Mo). Witch size do you think is ok? Have a goo day. CaptainHaddock (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, a larger version would help a big way ;-). The picture is actually quite good, but below FP size limits. Please upload the largest good quality version you have (not upsampled evidently). Regards. Lycaon (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the new version ok? CaptainHaddock (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ..

...for the RFB support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. :-) Lycaon (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Systematik Strasburger

According to BotBln the Systematik Strasburger doesn't actually exist (or something that is close to the equivalent of non-existence). To the best of my understanding, it was introduced here as the system being used by de.wikipedia by Brya. In my attempt to add that system here, it became apparent to me that de.wikipedia was using the taxonomy which is being used at GRIN[1] more than 90 percent of the time and I looked at hundreds of families there.

My sympathy is encountering difficulty finding a path to the TOL for this problem. My motivation for including it was to 1)cease any reason to argue "which taxonomy" and 2)use the software to make this image server the best of its kind online.

If the lesson is that I should not trust the people who have placed themselves as the expert here, perhaps the better lesson is to not place non-experts in the position of expert. I am angry and this is the beginning of angry ranting and I am not going to continue it....

A simple change of the template: from

{{#switch:{{{1}}}
| Cronquist = [[Cronquist System|Cronquist System]]
| Ehrendorfer 
| Strasburger = [[Strasburger]]
| APGII
| APG II = [[APG II|APG II Classification]]
| APWebsite = [[APWebsite]]
| Sibley = [[Template:Taxonavigation/Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy|Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy]]
| Smith = [[Smith System]]
| [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}} Classification]]
}}

to:

{{#switch:{{{1}}}
| Cronquist = [[Cronquist System|Cronquist System]]
| Ehrendorfer 
| Strasburger = [[GRIN]]
| APGII
| APG II = [[APG II|APG II Classification]]
| APWebsite = [[APWebsite]]
| Sibley = [[Template:Taxonavigation/Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy|Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy]]
| Smith = [[Smith System]]
| [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}} Classification]]
}}

would make my work with this previously broken information correct (the Strasburger has been changed to GRIN).

What the plant editors at german wikipedia are going to do -- it would be nice if they would (if they are going to change the taxonomy they follow) also repair the templates which are here. Seemingly, this would take contributors and an effort from those who were interested in making things accurate here and there. And all I know is not to trust the experts here....

Grocery store stories (sorry). I had an incomprehensible situation where the person who was responsible for the cashiers in the afternoon would remove my cashiers leaving me with not enough people to complete the sale. The person who made our schedules was really good at this, btw and if her schedule had been followed, the "manpower" available would have been adequate. There were many occasions in which I was unable to complete the paperwork, especially for the shifts in which my staff had been reduced. The cause of this was actually "selling groceries" and the paperwork could be done even a day or two after but the groceries had to be sold when the customers were there.

The point is this: if the goal is to complete paperwork, then not selling groceries insures ample time for completing paperwork and accuracy of the completed paperwork.

There is another point about rewarding managers who complete paperwork and talk on the phone in the office instead of selling groceries. The reward was continued financial stability and continued authority to do this. There is another point here about keeping in authority the people who do not work with the schedule that was given. I am still unable to figure out why the woman who wrote such excellent schedules was so very tolerant with the woman who messed them up.

None of those things sell groceries which was supposed to be the goal.

TOL does this also, seemingly for similar goals. I cannot repair the situation I outlined here, but I can suggest to you that some of the rotten/not goal oriented users could be found and disarmed and that you yourself, if you are still the same person as last year could perhaps look at some of what you have done (like assisting in the merge between the "Plants of" categories to "Flora of") and review what your goal is and if that is aligned with the stated goals. -- carol (talk) 00:30, 18 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:
Gecarcinus lateralis (Blackback land crab).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks fine and the crab is beautiful!--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice one. There are only two in this scope and the color is much better in this replacement. - Nhobgood (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (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:
Guinotia dentata (Siwik).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, only pic in the cat. --Eusebius (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2009 (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:
Dysdercus andreae (St. Andrew's cotton stainer).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, only pic in the cat. --Eusebius (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2009 (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:
Chamelea gallina (Striped venus clam).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, only pic in the cat. --Eusebius (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2009 (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:
Branchiostoma lanceolatum (Lancelet).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I find the diagram quite valuable as well, but I would consider it as a competitor only if it was SVG and if the shape was more close to the visual appearance of the animal. --Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Crist Carrying the Cross Madrid Bosch.jpg

Beste Lycaon, Ik zag dat je opdracht gegeven hebt dit bestand te vervangen en dat dit niet helemaal gelukt is. Het vreemde is echter dat ik het bestand al handmatig heb vervangen op de Russiche wikipedia. Kennelijk is er sprake van een miscommunicatie tussen de Russische wiki en de toolserver. Wat mij betreft kan dit bestand gewoon verwijderd worden, zonder tussenkomst van een Delinker. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt, die file is weg. Niet erg vreemd trouwens, daar er replicatie problemen zijn met de meeste wikipedia's en CommonsDelinker daarenboven er enkele dagen de brui aan heeft gegeven. Het eerste probleem zal nog enkele weken duren (vereist nieuwe hardware), het tweede is kennelijk opgelost. Mvg. Lycaon (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, weer wat geleerd, bedankt. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xanthoria parietina with hoar frost.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 Beautiful image!--Mbz1 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Andromedaview.jpg

You have deleted this file incorrectly. See this page, there specifies the license, this is "Some rights reserved", permited in commons. --Dalmacia (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Flickr user is not the author of the image — a quick web search indicates it was created by Tony Hallas of astrophoto.com. Here's the original. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Perhaps I should've left a note about that on your talk page, Dalmacia. But the Flickr guy is indeed not the copyright holder. With these kind of images on FLickr one should always have a little healthy suspicion ;-). Lycaon (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Renal corpuscle VI

What you think of the proposal to change the scope? Albertus teolog (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FP thoughts

I given some thoughts to the problems at FP I'd appreciate your opinion before I take to the wider community, please look at User:Gnangarra/Sandbox/FP thoughts and make any suggestions Gnangarra 00:17, 22 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:
Ranunculus glacialis (Glacier crowfoot).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, I think it's the best one in the category. --Eusebius (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Size of your images

Philosophically I support copyleft projects such as wikipedia for non-profit and educational use, however I strongly object to giving away my work for commercial use. You could argue that licence restrictions means that private sale wouldn't be impacted, but in many cases images from commons are published ignoring the conditions, downsampling provides motivation to do the right thing and has given me ground to stand on when asked to prove ownership of an image. I would upload full resolution images if someone payed me to do it (which wouldn't happen), or if commons allowed a non-commercial licence (a number of others would do the same). For landscapes I stitch panoramas where practical, so the resolution and quality is usually very high there anyway. I don't see myself with a canon 5Dii in the future (21MP), but I may purchase a 50D which would increase the downsampled resolution somewhat. As far as birds go, 400mm isn't a great deal generally, and so more often than not I have to crop a fair bit, File:Acanthiza ewingii.jpg, for example, wasn't downsampled at all, but at ISO1600 and 100% crop it isn't very pretty! I have had a few people ask for images to print in pHD thesis's, charity calendars and so on and provide the full resolution versions in these cases. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:03, 24 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:
Liocarcinus vernalis (Vernal crab).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2009 (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:
Liocarcinus marmoreus (Marbled swimming crab).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2009 (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:
Goneplax rhomboides (Angular crab).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The English article has been written. Lycaon (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I could hesitate with the lab version, but I guess that the animal is dead on this one, and/or not showing the right colours. --Eusebius (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (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:
Anolis marmoratus (Leopard Anole).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, only pic in the cat. --Eusebius (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Stylidium striatum

Hi there! Thanks for recently taking care of File:Stylidium striatum leaves and File:Stylidium striatum flowers. I was wondering if you might also delete Category:Stylidium striatum. I began to categorize those images before I realized they were misidentified as Stylidium striatum. I don't see the category being utilized any time in the near future until I can find a decent PD image to use. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Lycaon (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Many thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up QIC

Yow! Go get 'em! -- carol (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you lost me again. Can you elaborate? I still can't read your mind ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In your recent pass through the review you seem to have left a trail of red decline boxes in your wake (used here as a metaphor -- "the rough water behind a boat" definition of the word).

Perhaps more lightly, "these reviews take time and knowledge and I thank you for your time there".

But really, it was nice to see what I considered to be that ungracious prick return, heh. Please forgive my enthusiasm for this.... -- carol (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. I see you missed the green one ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

QI review

Hi Hans, Thank you for reviewing my nominations. May I please ask you to take another look at Herby image. I cropped the shadow. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done and adjusted. Lycaon (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

This certainly is rather biting.[2] Nowhere did anyone suggest I deserve more rights than anybody else. Karelj drove off Adam Cuerden today. Isn't that enough for you? Durova (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It was meant as such, as the insinuation above it was rather inappropriate ("so I suggest you think twice before..." sounds very much like a threat to me). I don't like this whole 'non-photographers' cabal who think they are better than any one else and can complain and insult with impunity. FPC'ers (any) have to know when enough is enough and learn to gracefully accept non-promotion. Adam is just having a little fit because not every one of his nominations gets promoted. He'll get over it as usual, Karel didn't chase anybody. Some people just have too long toes here. Lycaon (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Adam and Massimo make their own decisions. I don't agree with everything they do, yet one thing is clear: your hostile reactions and bad faith assumptions aren't improving this situation. Please reconsider. Durova (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks as if you've realized what hostile means. Good for you! Lycaon (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly he posted that without consulting me beforehand or notifying me afterward, and it was disappointing to see. Imagine working hard for a year, both on the content itself and at persuading other volunteers that what matters is content rather than ego. And then somebody who's conjectured to be part of a cabal acts in such a blatant way to undermine the effort toward gaining credibility. It's a setback, and your skepticism is understandable.

The larger goal here among those of us who keep our eye on the ball is to coax open more of the world's great archives. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum donated a high resolution image last year--and one of the reasons they donated it was the prospect of main page attention. We're talking to more organizations like that one, negotiating with the Bundesarchiv for access to selected higher resolution images. I've restored a portrait of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for them as a demonstration project, but unfortunately can't upload it because the high resolution file remains under full copyright. Think of the Baroque manuscript you opposed today and consider the improvement it would be if the encyclopedia editors who currently scrounge Flickr for third rate snapshots instead gained access to high resolution architectural plans. That's the real goal here--better visual content for the WMF projects--and some of that material can only be historical. If history gets shunted into second class projects then that becomes a serious setback for the sites that Commons serves. Durova (talk) 00:00, 30 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:
Hemidactylus mabouia (Tropical house gecko).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Background is not very nice, but I think it is ok for a VI. --Eusebius (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (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:
Canis mesomelas (Black-backed Jackal).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best pic in the cat, criteria fulfilled. --Eusebius (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:24, 27 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:
Adenium boehmianum flowers (desert rose).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support--Mbz1 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Maps template-i18l.svg

Can you delete this/my file Maps template-i18l.svg ? Now, this file is misleading and to delete, while File:Maps_template-en.svg is correct, update, and to keep. Yug (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't just delete, please use the {{delete|reason}} template. Should be no problem. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 28 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:
Helianthemum syriacum (Lavender-leaved sun-rose).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Looks fine to me.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:22, 28 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:
Verbascum boerhavii flowers (Annual mullein).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~~~~

★ 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:
Helianthemum caput-felis (Cat's head rockrose).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info Helianthemum caput-felis is included in the Annex of the Berne Convention and it is protected by European legislation. It is categorized as rare by the IUCN. Therefore only approximate co-ordinates are provided: plant located within 5 km from Putzu Idu, Sardinia, Italy
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ~~~~

Not a commoner anymore

I suddenly feel a little bit excluded! Or do you mean that QIs cannot represent 2D works of art? Because there are a lot of them in the corresponding QI gallery... I expected opposition on my first painting picture, but not of this kind ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch!! :-)) There seem indeed to be precedents. I undid my decline. Cheers commoner. Lycaon (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If you have technical comments/advice on this one (or any other pic, actually, but I'm quite frustrated by this one), please feel free to leave me a message, it will always be appreciated. --Eusebius (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here we go!

Dear Hans, thank you very much for the friendly invitation to rename that file. And anyway, it was interesting to read about the labial palps and now I want to have them, too ;-)). Is this a mixture of mustache and nose ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominate 2 images for Featured picture candidates?

Dear Admin Lycaon, I am trying to nominate 2 images I uploaded onto Commons here:

• File:18th dynasty pharaonic crown by John Campana.jpg
• File:Model of a chariot from the Oxus Treasure by Nickmard Khoey.jpg

I thought I placed one or both of them just today (its my first try at a nomination!) here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/candidate_list#File:18th_dynasty_pharaonic_crown_by_John_Campana.jpg but I made some errors. I am not the author--N. Khoey & J. Campana are. Anyway, when I click on the featured candidates link, my images don't appear here . I had placed them above the file name titled: Nižbor, opylování květin II.jpg. If I did something wrong can you nominate my 2 images here. I am lost with Featured pictures. Maybe you can consider kindly nominating my 2 images instead..if you don't see them? Help, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see it now at last! I'm sorry to disturb you. I guess there is a time-lag before the picture appears here. I am new to this. Sorry, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Prince du Sang.png and File:Prince du Sang.jpg

I'm (at least) a bit unsure about what you've done here. You've delinked (or tried to) the jpg version and pushed the png version, if I understand well. From what I read on the templates, jpg should be preferred to png in article, because of their size (but well, I guess that re-delinking would be far more expensive than leaving them). Furthermore, in the case of these crowns, the PNG is not the original, it has been compiled from the JPEG. This is not originally a PNG picture, and the colours of it are not compatible with the PNG format (because of the colour gradients). As a result, the PNG you've pushed is of lower quality than the JPEG. --Eusebius (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I know, it was a mistake. When you reverted the first change, the command to the delinker had already been sent, but the delinker had some hiccups. Apparently it just now remembered the instructions from this morning. Shall I reverse the replace?. When processing a couple of thousand files, errors do sneak in (luckily seldom). Lycaon (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Nope, let's not do anything, anyway the replacement was effective only on a few occurences, and it's no big deal. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rotate

Thanks for rotating my gull picture, I hadn't noticed but it looks much better now. Cheers. --ianaré (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahoi

Dear Hans, do you have any idea on which plant this spider is sitting on ? And the spider - could it be (Pisauridae)? Thanks in advance. Richie --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hry Richie. Plant is Plantago lanceolata (finished flowering), the spider I will have to check. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. There was a reply at diptera.info where it was confirmed that it's (Pisauridae) Pisaura mirablis. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Update: Spider is Pisaura mirabilis (according to Jones, D., (1983). Spiders of Britain and northern Europe. The Hamlyn Publishing Group. 320 pp. ISBN 9780600356653). Lycaon (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

:-)) After it's tripplechecked i will upload it now. Thank you for your effort. Should I start putting the ID sources into the image description, what do you think ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I only put ID sources when I contact some professor or other specialist off-wiki by mail or so. Wiki or internet sources I don't mention. What you could do is compile a list for yourself as I did with my books (like here), and quote from it when asked (as I did above). Lycaon (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some more nature titles. Cheers - Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Chinery, Michael (2007) – Insects of Britain and Western Europe. London: A & C Black, 320 pp., ISBN 978-0-7136-7239-8
• Borror, Donor; White, Richard (1970) – Insects. A Field Guide to the Insects. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 404 pp., ISBN 0-395-91170-2
• Tolman, Tom (2001) – Photographic Guide to the Butterflies of Britain & Europe. Oxford & New Yord: Oxford.,305 pp., ISBN 0-19-850606-6
• Blamey, Marjorie; Grey-Wilson, Christopher (2004) – Wild Flowers of the Medirerranean. London: A & C Black, 560 pp., ISBN 0-7136-7016-0 
• Davies, Paul; Gibbons, Bob (2004) – Field Guide to Wild Flowers of Southern Europe. The Crowood Press, 320 pp., ISBN 1-85223-659-0
• Flecther, Neil (2007) – Mediterranean Wild Flowers. London: Dorley Kindersley, 224 pp., ISBN 978-1-4053-1813-6
• Humphries, C.; Press, J.; Sutton, D. (1992) – Trees of Britain and Europe. London: Hamelyn, 320 pp. ISBN 0-600-57511-X
• Philips, Roger (1978) – Trees in Britain, Europe and North America. London: Pan Books, 224 pp., ISBN 0-330-25480-4
• Coombes, Allen (1992) – Trees. London: Dorley Kindersley, 320 pp., ISBN 0-86318-812-5

Thanks :-). Lycaon (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very, very much!--Berru (talk) 20:18, 3 February 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:
Anagallis monelli (Blue Pimpernel) orange colour form.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies all six criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2009 (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:
Helsinki Cathedral (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Seems not a valid assessment. --Foroa (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment I've checked the nomination against the six criteria. There are other good pictures but I think this one is the best, even at review size. --Eusebius (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2009 (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:
Tortosa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support ok. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (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:
Castle of Lanquais.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support ok --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate image CottonPlant.jpg

You had recently removed the CottonPlant.jpg, which was a duplicate of File:CottonPlant.JPG I have found another duplicate of it here. I don't know if this site has a sypos, but shouldn't that image also be deleted and replaced with File:CottonPlant.JPG. --Gman124 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The other one however was uploaded to Wikipedia instead of commons. Lycaon (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. so there aren't any sypos that are cross-wiki. like those bots. --Gman124 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked to delete on the Turkmen wiki [3]. Lycaon (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, Thank You. --Gman124 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 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:
Cistus clusii (Male rosemary).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me (added a link in the scope). --Eusebius (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Tara-masjid.jpg

Hi Lycaon,

May I ask what were the copyright problems with this image, and why I (the uploader) hadn't been notified about them? I have the photographer's permission email, and can forward it to you. But in any case, it would have been much better, and less rude, if you had at least notified me about the photo before deleting it. Please rectify the issue immediately.

Thanks.

--Ragib (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just forwarded the permission email to commons OTRS. I noticed that you marked the deletion as "Copyright violation" ... where was the violation here?? --Ragib (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lycaon, I am yet to get an answer from you on this. Can you please comment? Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have forwarded the original email from the photo author to OTRS. The author kept his Flickr version as All rights reserved, but had agreed to donate it to WP under CC. The email has the permission statement. Once OTRS processes it, please restore the photo. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Flickr verwijderde afbeeldingen

Hoi Lycaon, je bent op User:Odder/clean the Commons! 2/T een aantal keer in de fout gegaan, zie Commons:Village pump#Clean the Commons v. 2. Multichill (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kan je dat uitleggen? Alle gewiste bestanden hadden het rode kruis van niet toegelaten licentie. {{Flickr-change-of-license}} was m.i. nergens te bekennen. mvg. Lycaon (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Met FlickrLickr kan je alleen bestanden uploaden met de juiste Creative Commons licenties. Als het bestand op flickr een niet vrije licentie heeft dan betekent dat dat het in de tussentijd is aangepast. Je kan een afbeelding dan voorzien van {{Flickr-change-of-license}} + {{flickrreview|FlickrLickr|uploaddatum}}. Er zijn nu helaas een hele hoop afbeeldingen verwijderd waarbij dat helemaal niet nodig was. Multichill (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dat is gemakkelijk teruggedraaid. Bedankt voor de info, maar die pagina's zijn dan toch niet echt duidelijk ;-(. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nee, die zijn helemaal niet duidelijk. Ik zie al iemand die zich afvraagd waarom {{.../ok}} niet werkt. Multichill (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

Best regards--Mywood (talk) 11:08, 9 February 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:
Sarcocornia fruticosa (glasswort).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. I've eaten a lof of his salicornia cousins! --Eusebius (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk)

★ 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:
Laniarius atrococcineus (Crimson-breasted Gonolek).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info The male and female Crimson-breasted Shrike have the same plumage and colours. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks ok, criteria met, photo more illustrative than the drawing. Thanks for the info. --Eusebius (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk)

★ 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:
Passer melanurus female (Cape Sparrow).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment So far it is the only representation we have of a passer melanurus, and criteria are met. Male can be visually distinguished from female, right? --Eusebius (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed, the male has a black face. Lycaon (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk)

Photographs of identifiable people again

I have made some changes to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal in response to a variety of helpful suggestions that users have made on the talk page. You have already commented there; could I ask you to have a look again? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bird

I have a problem with the caption of this Figure. What are Welwitschia Plains? Welwitschia are plants growing in the namib desert, I know that. But I found no info on a place called Welwitschia Plains. Is it a plain? (sorry if it looks stupid, but Mission Woods are not woody at all, for example...).--Berru (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a proposed Unesco World Heritage site [4] close to Swakopmund. Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:200 DM Serie4 Vorderseite.jpg

This image is not a duplicate of that image. The first one ist the version from 1989 and the other one is the version from 1996. Only the version from 1996 has a hologram. Could you please undo the deletion of the image? --Stauba 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please talk to User:Mormegil ([5]). Lycaon (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Stauba 21:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Lernaeenicus sprattae.jpg

I'd remove the "Parasite" category from the file and add it to the higher relevant taxo level cat, but I can't find out which one it is... --Eusebius (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. Siphonostomatoida also contain mere commensals and symbionts. Lycaon (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How to geolocalize?

Question: is there an easy way nto geocode a location? I have not found how to know coordinatesàf a location on googlemaps or other similar application. That's why I am always slow on tha step...--Berru (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read COM:GEO? There is a lot of info there. Personally a use Google Earth for my old pics. Recently I got myself a GPS-logger. Lycaon (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was sure there was something like that. Thank you so much --Berru (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad file name on image you mass replaced

Please note: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nigeria_Army_322nd_Parachute_Regiment.jpg I've gone ahead and created a file with the correct file name File:Niger_Army_322nd_Parachute_Regiment.jpg. Could you please mas replace to the correct file name? Thanks much. T L Miles (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Processed. BTW, you don't need to file a deletion request for this: just a {{Duplicate}} will do. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NZ Pompilidae

One of the authorities on NZ Pompilidae appears to be A.C.Harris who published a book which I found a copy of online [6] after I had already borrowed a copy from the library. I haven't found an address for him, I think he may be retired. By a process of elimination, looking at size, colouration and wing vein detail [7] I came to that conclusion. But of course without a microscopic analysis it is very tentative. I supplied all this info to the bee and wasp forum [8] and someone there liked the photos very much and said he'd sent them to a specialist, but no news back yet. The main problem I have is that in reading the scientific details I have to look up every second word, which makes for very poor comprehension of the descriptions. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:25, 11 February 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:
Passer melanurus male (Cape Sparrow).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 07:22, 12 February 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:
Pachypodium lealii (Bottle tree).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies all six criteria in my opinion. Wsiegmund 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support We have a gallery, so I take the liberty to link to the local gallery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trifolium pratense ssp. nivale.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 me. --Eusebius 11:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Great work

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I award you this Photographer's barnstar for all your high quality contributions --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:15, 14 February 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:
Oxythyrea funesta.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, I link to the local gallery. --Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tchoř

Sorry about that! I used the tool to check Commons, then used the "auto-select homewiki" choice, which I thought automatically finds the most eligible account (now I know it clearly doesn't). Regardless, I really like the tool you gave; it works much better. Thanks for that (and for the phone compliment)! --Pbroks13 (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys lupercalis 3.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 Correct exposure and DoF. --ComputerHotline 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oxythyrea funesta (el Perelló).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 Correct details. --ComputerHotline 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Passer melanurus (male).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 Noise. --Eusebius 10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Indeed! Issues addressed. Lycaon 10:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Opposition removed, won't vote for now. --Eusebius 11:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC) ----- Corect exposure. --ComputerHotline 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Passer melanurus (2 males).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 Correct composition. --ComputerHotline 08:53, 13 February 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:
Lernaeenicus sprattae (Eye maggot).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Will support once the over-categorization issue ("Parasite") is settled. Other criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Eusebius (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2009 (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:
Hyalinobatrachium colymbiphyllum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Is the removal from the list a withdrawal of the nomination, or is it going to be renominated? --Eusebius (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• If I can't find reasonable geolocation for this file (it is not mine), consider it as a non-nomination ;-). Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is a nom!. Lycaon (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:0627BgMosaikJungf3A.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:
Aeshna cyanea (Southern Hawker).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2009 (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:
Pycnonotus nigricans (Black-fronted Bulbul).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - best image we have (of the 2) for the species, good pose, well described and geocoded...meets all the criteria - Peripitus (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 15 February 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:
Echinolittorina ziczac (Zebra periwinkle).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Further comment requested: Great Wall Child

Hello Hans, I have attempted to respond to your concerns and am looking forward to any further guidance you may be able to provide. Thank you! - Notyourbroom (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered on nomination. Thanks for providing the larger size. Lycaon (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope changed

Hello, I changed the scope for one VIC from Golgotha to Golgotha in Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Please check your vote. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:06, 16 February 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:
Oryx gazella (Gemsbok).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Pose is less interesting, but I think the animal is better shown than on the previously nominated picture. --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (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:
Actophilornis africana (African Jacana).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Why not this one? No visibility over the length of the legs? --Eusebius (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Indeed, one of the typical characteristics of this bird are the long toes with which it walks on water leaves (like this waterlily), hence its other name of 'lily-trotter'. Lycaon (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:08, 16 February 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:
Cercomela tractrac (Tractrac Chat).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2009 (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:
Amphiprion ocellaris (Ocellaris clownfish).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Phagnalon saxatile (inflorescense).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  Comment Technically very good but the composition is not as good as it could be. There's too much void on the right side, which makes the whole image to be a little bit out of balance. --Siipikarja 23:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Cropped. Lycaon 17:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)  Support It's a QI. --Siipikarja 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goneplax rhomboides 1.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 picture, good quality ---Lucarelli 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actinia

Hello Lycaon,
You did a very strange modification here. You transformed a species cat by a genus cat, without describing your modification.
Did you meant this is an identification problem ? In which case, you should know that the identification was made by the aquarium's biologists.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Salut Liné1,

Biologists do sometimes make mistakes (I know, I talk of experience ;-)). Actinia equina always has a smooth scapus and never has white tentacles. I haven't found what it really is yet though. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ammophila arenaria (frosted leaves).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 Good and interesting. --Siipikarja 00:36, 17 February 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:
Actinia equina (Beadlet anemone).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I love anemones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

  Your comment does not tell why you think this one is better for a VI than other candidates in Category:Actinia equina. Personally, I'm puzzled by the fact that they all look quite different, so I don't know which one is the most representative. --Eusebius (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  Same here about the promotion remark. Lycaon (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment The gallery looks indeed somewhat daunting if you don't know the species, which can be rather variable, with red-brown being the dominant colour form ([9], [10], [11] & [12]). I have my doubts about the white form however (now gone) and the blue one is (was) because of a wrong colour balance. Lycaon (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looks ok to me, after clarifications. --Eusebius (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  The other images do not have the location. That's why I believed it was my only choice. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, a candidate can be declined if another image is better, even in the case the better image cannot be nominated (missing geotag, for instance). Criteria are evaluated independently from each other. --Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2009 (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:
Agelaius phoeniceus (Red-winged Blackbird).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Question Looks ok, but is the Nearctic cat really relevant? --Eusebius (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not really sure. There are very few organisms in this scope, maybe they should go in category:Fauna of the Nearctic or the bird should be in all (or most) of its subcats? To me it looks relevant, but it is not consistent with other categorizations. Lycaon (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support (criteria ok) I removed the category because if the categorization is relevant, it should be put on the species category, not on the individual species. It seems to me that Nearctic is too vast a region for us (us = "not me") to categorize directly in it the millions of species that would fit. I guess Category:Fauna of the Nearctic should be a kind of root category for other "fauna of" cats, mostly empty of files or individual species. If you have a more precise idea about geographical categorization, I leave it to you (well, if you know what to do, you can always ask for help anyway). --Eusebius (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Plant ID

Hey Lycaon, Recently I took a picture of a citrus swallowtail butterfly on this plant. Could you please identify it? --Muhammad 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jambo Muhammad. Without an East-African flora, that's not an easy task. A closeup of the flowers might help, but from what I can see, I can already tell you that it is belonging to the Euphorbiaceae. When I find out more I'll let you know. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lycaon, your help is much appreciated :-) --Muhammad 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Standard" date format

I know it's American. By "standard" I meant that it is the format asked for at upload (somewhere, I don't remember where), but above all that this format is parsed by the "information" template and displayed according to the reader's language preferences (like when you state "own work" in the source field). I discovered that recently (it was implemented recently I think) and I think it is valuable to stick to a parsed format. Maybe not all languages are displayed, though, I should have a thorougher look at the templates/parsers. --Eusebius (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the extra info. Lycaon (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi there!

Thanks for removing the noise from my picture File:ACA Boeing B763 C-FTCA.JPG . I appreciate. I'm new at this and the small size of the photosite on my Powersot combined with the fact that I do not own any denoising software make my life as an amateur photographer absolutely miserable. Could you perhaps recommend free denoising software? Thanks again buddy! Phil13 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And another thanks for improving File:Wellington Green Gecko 04.jpg, did you sharpen it a little as well as adjusting levels? :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for deleting my misnamed wasp (a bit embarassing that it sat there for so long without anyone noticing it was a very different genus). I recently saw a similar wasp searching about on a rotten branch and then inserting its ovipositor, it appeared to clench it between its back legs to guide it, or apply more force to drill it into the wood. Of course I had a camera and got some shots, but I found that in my haste I had left the camera on low resolution :-(    --Tony Wills (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Woof, where are the hidden cats

Ahoi, where do I have to place this __HIDDENCATS__ ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK ... fortunately. The news made me jump for a short moment, because I thought I have to place it on the image description ... and thats what I do since 4 hours or so --> changing all descriptions :-)) Just before epilepsy --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Count me in! 1h to go ... --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Weather-beaten sailor, where are you going? --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

---> DONE :-) <--- ! Godspeed! --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:04, 23 February 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:
Tibia insulaechorab (Arabian Tibia).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info As this is is a studio photo, geolocation is not applicable. Lycaon (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very valued and all criterias are OK--Mbz1 (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 12:44, 24 February 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:
Camponotus fulvopilosus (Bal-byter ant).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2009 (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:
Bradornis mariquensis (Mariqua Flycatcher).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2009 (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:
Stenocara dentata (Long-legged Darkling Beetle).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (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:
Pimelia modesta.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me too.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ruminates and their ruminations

I was surprised at what seemed to be not just species jumping but order jumping into Category:Artiodactyla with the not so recent need to "ruminate".

I have forgotten what question I asked you that you promised to ruminate on and I am curious to know if you are still digesting it or if it was perhaps unrecognizable to me after this process did whatever it does to a question.

Personally, I have recently identified a big problem with my narcissism in which I consider the vision of myself to be out of my league. This could easily be subtitled "evidence of a wasted five to six years".

I would have rather thought about whatever answer you had to whatever question it was that I asked you. -- carol (talk) 12:09, 27 February 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:
Borago officinalis (Borage) inflorescence.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies all six criteria. File:Starflower_1.jpg and File:Borago_officinalis.JPG are good, but I think that this one is best. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Category

Hello Hans. Short question, how can I generate a subcategory in an existing category ?. I want to include [[Category:Hypera zoilus]] into [[Category:Hypera]].[ Mfg --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Richie, looks as if it has been solved already. I would however recommend a species piping for the species category. Lycaon (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

question on categorization

Hi

I was surprised by this revert : [13]... what are the recommendations for such categories ?... I've always seen an uppercase ... bye Poleta33 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should've explained in an edit summary. It is logical that species names are catted with a lowercase. All plants use this system already and half of the animals. Non-biologists may have other opinions and maybe that's why this rule is not yet a strict rule and some people still use a capital for the species piping. Anyhow, category:Crustacea has been adhering to this rule since inception. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

inside the category:Crustacea there are lot of examples of uppercase categorisation here, here or here... I'm very surprised because I never seen that, and I've created a lot of categories in uppercase... I've no problem with the lowercase, but it should be a strict rule (enforced by bots)... is it possible to write somewhere this rule and to apply it with bots ? bye ! Poleta33 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ophrys apifera

What a cute little flower (it looks a baby duck to me :D). Rocket000(talk) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually is ;-) That's where baby ducks come from. Forget about the eggs :-)). Lycaon (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Midnight at the glassworks

Ik heb de kandidatuur ondertussen al ingetrokken, maar ik was toch benieuwd naar de reden van jouw opmerking[14]. "Poor quality" is wel héél erg beknopt commentaar op een beeld dat ik zelf heel erg sprekend vond -- kinderen in een glasblazerij om midddernacht -- en waar toch behoorlijk wat uren herstelwerk in gekropen zijn. Dankjewel bij voorbaat! -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Die poor quality slaat op de fotokwaliteit van het origineel, niet op de nabewerking (zie ook [15]). Ik heb ook niets tegen de compositie en het onderwerp. Ik heb alleen iets tegen de huidige trend van 't is oud, dus het moet FP worden. Dat kan voor mij niet echt. Een onscherpe foto is onscherp, ongeacht als het feit dat ie 100 jaar geleden of gisteren werd getrokken. Gebruikers als Durova en Adam Cuerden proberen m.i. al té lang hun eenzijdig standpunt door onze strot te duwen (misschien een beetje scherp gesteld, maar zo voel ik het). Lycaon (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK dan. Ik blijf het een uitstekende foto vinden, maar ik heb niet de minste zin om er een discussie over te beginnen. Voel me wel een beetje het slachtoffer van wat overkomt als een in-fight, maar alla. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you'd like to accuse me of misconduct please do so in a language I can read. Then at least it is possible to understand your perspective and to address it, and to clear up misunderstandings. You accused Adam of POV pushing today and I can't quite make out what you suppose there. Likewise with your comment "Old ≠ automatically featurable,"[16] it is very surprising that anyone would suppose I were in need of such a reminder. So far in 2009 I have had 8 images promoted to featured picture at Wikimedia Commons; if that seems to you like indiscriminate nomination, bear in mind that during the same period of time English Wikipedia has promoted 51 of my nominations. Only a small fraction of the restorations I actually do ever become candidates on this project, and only about 1 in 1000 archival images even gets considered for restoration. Are you supposing it's wrong to work on historical material? Why would that be objectionable? Durova (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I told myself I wasn't going to get into this, but, ah. Getting an unexplained cold  Oppose on an image simply for being a picture of a national flag, for being an engraving, for being an old picture (or whatever) is not my idea of a constructive atmosphere. Getting a couple of oppose votes in quick succession instead of a question or a comment when there's a species name missing in the image description is not really motivating either. And reading stuff like this[17] with an edit summary of "let's have some fun", well... it's like saying "meh, a lizard. seen one, seem 'em all IMO", or "feh, enough with the fish already".

I'll just quietly upload my images to the Commons and that's that -- I'm not one for the MMORPG aspect of all this. Cheers! -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

question

Trebuchet?

Don't you like it? Lycaon (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You answer my question with a question? -- carol (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that inappropriate? Lycaon (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can cows fly? -- carol (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do they have wings? Lycaon (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

third time is the charm?

(reset) There was an edit conflict when I tried to remove my last comment. I have some attachment to the font; it was recommended to me for my web site at a very good time in my life. Its history on my web site is weird and difficult to explain but impressive enough to me to ask this question of you:

Trebuchet?

I stumbled onto it quite recently (on someone else's page, could've been on en:wiki even) and thought it quite elegant. Does this answer Trebuchet?

I'm not sure about the image references though, the left one could be obvious, the right one ?? Lycaon (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've learned something new again (third time is the charm, didn't know this idiom): thanks ;-). Lycaon (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The finger traps are on the right. Do you know this toy? I "rendered" some of these for one of my web sites. I think that the first time I played with this toy I needed assistance to get out of it; in my defense, I was young when the toy tricked me. -- carol (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I 'know' the toy, never having had the change to be trapped, but still in the dark about the reference. Lycaon (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important to understand that I am waiting for uploads to complete and also having problems with being a little bored with a task that is almost completed. If I were a fish biting at bait, I am a fish who is trying to only bite at real food or bait that at least mostly resemble what it is that this fish would consider to be food. I am not a fish and web pages are not food but bored beyond belief is a vulnerable position to be in and one that I thought I had actually prepared myself against. "Do cows fly" was a mistake to write here if my goal is real bait....

After this disclaimer, it is kind of funny and kind of not funny perhaps: two magnets stuck with the same pole facing each other, into this trap?

It has the potential for a lot of energy to be created and used but the formula for work is dependent on position change, so it is a lot of energy which equals no work being accomplished. -- carol (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Money is not a real force, btw. Money is also not a personality. -- carol (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why I take my overtime in days off not payouts. Lycaon (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

VI promotion

Hi, I think this one shouldn't have been promoted (at least not now), I would have opposed before "48h after my last comment" had expired... :-\ --Eusebius (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I usually stick to votes and not to comments for closing promotions. But fine by me. Lycaon (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can it still be reverted? Lycaon (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you did, and it is ok according to the word of the guideline. It would be very rude to revert, but I think it would be most valuable if somebody could explain somewhere why this picture is visually representative of a subimago, because this has never been addressed (according to me). --Eusebius (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the promotion may well have been premature [18] and For most mayflies: the subimago is duller and has cloudy or coloured wings, it still has that layer to moult. . Mea culpa, I didn't read the comments thoroughly. Lycaon (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and reverted the promotion as it seems we all agree it is meaningful to let it be open until Richard responds. --Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok with me. Lycaon (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK but the image page is tagged already and the image is in the list of VIs by scope. It's only a formal revert, I guess the candidate should be considered promoted anyway in the end. --Eusebius (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Your recent comments

I saw Durova illustrating CarolSpears' past incivil behavior and following her around. I saw CarolSpears block log for insulting fellow contributors, after warnings. But no, I did not see Durova not being mellow. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Subst'ed featured picture template

Hi Hans,

I have started playing around with implementing a bot, SlaungerBot, and the first useful (or maybe not) piece of information I have gotten out of that is that I have used to bot to figure out which FPs use {{Assessments}} and which use {{Featured picture}}. In that process I found that I was missing one FP, and that was File:Lutheran Cathedral Helsinki.jpg. I figured out that it was because you have substed the Featured pictures template, apparently to make it link to the correct subpage for the nomination. In fact, this can be done from the template itself using the optional subpage parameter. So you may want to re-introduce the template again (or i can do it for you).

The bot work is (if you are interested) related to the latest thread in Template talk:Assessments. We may be looking into developing an entirely new template, with more meaningful parameter names and values. This means that we may replace instances of {{Featured picture}} and {{Assessments}} with the brand new one, once it has been properly implemented, tested and agreed upon (no premature introduction on the FP image pages). A prerequisite, is, of course that none of the existing templates have been subst'ed. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Noodle snacks' moves

Here is my current backlog of images to delete or rename:

Images to Delete

• File:Unidentified_Flower_4677.jpg

Images to Rename

• File:UnidentifiedYellowFlower2.JPG to File:Pachystachys Lutea.jpg
• File:UnidentifiedYellowFlower1.JPG to File:Lantana camara Bahamas.jpg
• File:UnidentifiedRedFlower1.JPG to File:Euphorbia milii.jpg
• File:UnidentifiedBlueFlower.JPG to File:Plumbago Auriculata.jpg
• File:Little wattlebird.jpg to File:Anthochaera chrysoptera Lindisfarne Tasmania.jpg
• File:Whitepelican.jpg to File:Pelecanus onocrotalus St James Park.jpg
• File:Whitepelican edit.jpg to File:Pelecanus onocrotalus St James Park edit.jpg
• File:Unidentified Flower 6382.jpg to File:Epiphyllum Wendy.jpg
• File:Unknown Pinophyta Zoomed out.jpg to File:Picea Pugens Tree.jpg
• File:ThoraThora1.JPG to File:Calotropis procera Thora Thora.jpg
• File:Smithsoniangardens2.jpg to File:Aquilegia vulgaria hybrid cultivar.jpg
• File:Smithsoniangardens3.jpg to File:Passiflora vitifolia.jpg
• File:Smithsoniangardens16.jpg to File:Digitalis purpurea.jpg
• File:Smithsoniangardens10.jpg to Aquilegia formosa Smithsonian Gardens 1.jpg
• File:Smithsoniangardens11.jpg to Aquilegia formosa Smithsonian Gardens 2.jpg
• File:PurpleFlower 1.JPG to Ruellia brittoniana Katie 1.jpg
• File:PurpleFlower 2.JPG to Ruellia brittoniana Katie 2.jpg
• File:PurpleFlower 3.JPG to Ruellia brittoniana Katie 3.jpg
• File:Yellow Wattlebird 2.jpg to Anthochaera paradoxa Kangaroo Bluff.jpg
• File:Black Swan Head.jpg to Cygnus atratus Head.jpg
• File:Cape Barren Goose edit1.jpg to Cereopsis novaehollandiae edit1.jpg
• File:Cape Barren Goose.jpg to Cereopsis novaehollandiae.jpg
• File:Noisy Miner Perched Tasmania.jpg to Manorina melanocephala.jpg
• File:Musk Lorikeet.jpg to Glossopsitta concinna Tasmania 2.jpg
• File:Musk Lorikeet 2.jpg to Glossopsitta concinna Tasmania 2.jpg
• File:Feral Barbary Dove.jpg to Feral Streptopelia risoria Tasmania.jpg
• File:Black Swan in Flight.jpg to Cygnus atratus in Flight.jpg
• File:Black Swan in Flight Crop.jpg to Cygnus atratus in Flight Crop.jpg
• File:New Holland Honeyeater UTAS.jpg to Phylidonyris novaehollandiae UTAS.jpg
• File:Female Galah Outside Nest.jpg to Eolophus roseicapilla Outside Nest.jpg
• File:Tasmanian Native Hen.jpg to Gallinula mortierii Risdon Brook Dam 1.jpg
• File:Tasmanian Native Hen 2.jpg to Gallinula mortierii Risdon Brook Dam 2.jpg
• File:Tasmanian-Native-hen.jpg to Gallinula mortierii grass.jpg
• File:Tasmanian-Native-hen-Chick.jpg to Gallinula mortierii Chick.jpg
• File:Brown Tree Frog.jpg to Litoria ewingii.jpg
• File:Long Billed Corella Beak.jpg to Cacatua (Licmetis) tenuirostris beak.jpg
• File:Wax-eyes Aug 2007.jpg to Zosterops lateralis.jpg
• File:Juvenile White-bellied Sea-eagle.jpg to Juvenile Haliaeetus leucogaster.jpg
• File:Brown Goshawk (Immature).jpg to Juvinile Accipiter fasciatus.jpg
• File:Unidentified Fly 3597 .jpg to Calliphora vomitoria.jpg
• File:Unidentified Flower 3704.jpg to File:Hedychium Gardnerianum Tas.jpg
• File:Unidentified Flower 4201.jpg to Erigeron Glaucus.jpg
• File:Unknown Pinaceae Cones 3800.jpg to Picea abies Tas.jpg
• File:Unknown Pinaceae Cones 3800 Zoomed Out.jpg to Picea abies Tas Zoomed Out.jpg (You could alternately delete this, it was mostly intended for IDing, as evidenced by half an umbrella sitting there).
• File:Banksia integrifolia.jpg to Banksia Marginata Tas.jpg
• File:Banksia Spike.jpg to Banksia Marginata Spike.jpg

These also need renaming to conform to commons standards, but there are a lot of links to break, so I don't know how practical it is:

• File:Crested Tern Tasmania.jpg to Thalasseus bergii Tasmania.jpg
• File:Crested Tern Tasmania (edit).jpg to Thalasseus bergii Tasmania (edit).jpg
• File:Crested Tern Tasmania (crop).jpg to Thalasseus bergii Tasmania (crop).jpg
• File:Eurasian Coot.jpg to Fulica atra Tasmania.jpg
• File:Tasmanian Native-hen.jpg to Gallinula mortierii.jpg
• File:Brown Tree Frog 2.jpg to Litoria ewingii 2.jpg
• File:Australian Pelicans.jpg to 3 Pelecanus conspicillatus.jpg
• File:Silvereye.jpg to Zosterops lateralis.jpg
• File:Long-billed Corella.jpg to Cacatua (Licmetis) tenuirostris.jpg
• File:Crescent Honeyeater Edit2.jpg to Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus Female.jpg

Thanks for volunteering your time. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check File:Unidentified Damselfly 6142.jpg (no duplicate found). Not yet deleted images have been sent to the Delinker. Also, Move of images is currently disabled, so you will have to wait a bit for those. Lycaon (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dupe is at File:Austroagrion watsoni.jpg, I adjusted the white balance prior to moving. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Well technically it is not an exact duplicate and we therefore have no reason to delete it. Would have been better to upload the original with a better name, delete the badname, then upload the "better" version over top so we retain the revision history. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but uploading a file, then uploading it again under a different name, or waiting for the rename tag to fail doesn't constitute an efficient use of time. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment While it is appreciated that the two of you are sorting this out, this is hardly the page to do it. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Further communication via talk pages ;-). Lycaon (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment You do realize that this section heading does sound kind of kinky? --Dschwen (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, no! Does it? My idiom appreciation of English still needs fine-tuning then. Lycaon (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Define "kinky". Does the heading sound kinky with a german accent or to a subset of midwestern United States English speakers or just to Dschwen? My "early post-baby-boomer, East-midwestern United States" brain/language abilities is (are) having a difficult time applying the word "kinky" here.... -- carol (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A little bit more patience required as Delinker is down too at the moment. Lycaon (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Lycaon's active attempts to disenfranchise voters

Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really have nothing else to do with your time? I feel sorry for you. Lycaon (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

VI galleries

Hi there. It would be nice to have your input in this discussion, or at least in the biology subsection. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But first lunch ;-). Lycaon (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. --Eusebius (talk) 11:10, 22 March 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:
Ononis natrix (Large Yellow Restharrow).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I made a slight modification in the scope format. --Eusebius (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I reread the scope guidelines about plants just to be sure, and the scope is too narrow (habitus). It should be at the species level as I do not think this particular species is notable enough to warrant subscopes of the species level. --Slaunger (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Ononis natrix (Large Yellow Restharrow), habitus to Ononis natrix (Large Yellow Restharrow) Lycaon (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Hmm... I considered for some time if any of the available vintage schemes would be better at illustrating the scope, such as File:The Botanical Magazine, Plate 329 (Volume 10, 1796).png. But then again, no, because the margins on the paper is too large to make a good illustration of the scope. Maybe a cropped and restored version of that old scan would make me open an MVR... --Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2009 (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:
Caesio varilineata (Variable-lined fusilier).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Meets all the criterias, the only images in the scope category, underwater image taken in Mauritius by Lycaon!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I made a slight modification in the scope format. --Eusebius (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Help for image restoration

Hello,

I see that you have been doing image restoration, so I ask you if you could help restoring the images below, and more importantly, explain me how to do it. I was told on QIC candidates than they have "too much noise." These were digitalized from slides made 20 years ago. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 

Thanks a lot for your help. I think that you did a good job with Mila. Best wishes, Yann (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Alopecosa sp ?

Hello Hans, I have difficulties in identifying this spider ... found a picture (Alopecosa sp) in my spider guide which looks very similar to this guy but I could be wrong. Any idea ? Regards –Richard Bartz (talk)

P.S. Philodromus dispar looks similar, too --Richard Bartz (talk)

• Look at this Xysticus sp. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Joaquim. Xysticus sp. looks like a good candidate. Must research further. Lycaon (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • At Diptera.info they confirmed that it's Xysticus sp --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting duplicates

Hi, I've noticed your deletion of File:Passiflora tarminiana - Banana poka.jpg as duplicate (the image was still linked in File:Owoce Kuruba.jpg). May I ask you to read my previous discussion with Bapti: User_talk:Bapti#Deletion_of_duplicates, where I explain the issue with broken links in descriptions of derivative works? Maybe it would be good to talk about that within admins, because it happens to often, and I'm not able to constantly watch the rising number of derivative images. Kind regards, Nova (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll keep an eye on those links. It is however not always obvious when deleting more than hundred 'confirmed' duplicates a day which delinker claims to have all replaced. Lycaon (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Delinker could be modified? Although there might be a reason for not replacing links that are not inclusions. --Eusebius (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The links delinker doesn't 'see' at the moment are galleries and some template inclusions. These I replace manually. Another problem (worse but unavoidable unless delinker is given admin rights on almost every project) is inclusion in protected pages. The latter requires separate requests for modification an followup thereof is rather tedious. Lycaon (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for any action you consider appropriate to solve the problem. Regards, Nova (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

I respect that you have preferences on how your images are handled here, but you seem to have double standards. I kept trying to add the Assessments template to this photo, but you would revert my edits. I was consolidating and cleaning up the page, which currently is very cluttered (and looks terrible IMO; the image page should be clear, informative, and offer ease in finding the information you need). I wouldn't be confused if you didn't have the template on any of your images, but some do. Then I tried to clean up this photo before nominating it for FP at en:wiki, but that was reverted. What is your issue with my edits when I'm only trying to standardize the image pages of FPs? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I like geolocation on top. This has been discussed before and I'm not going to change more than a thousand images for this one. Please leave as is. The assessment template is still under discussion so please no changes until this has been resolved. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, if you want to nominate, then I prefer this one. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

something funny

You might enjoy this:

• http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=203846

-- carol (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe :)). Indeed. First one I've encountered (or you actually). Lycaon (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the first for me: User_talk:Liné1#burning_a_hole_in_my_bookmarks. Do you know of others? -- carol (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Help

Thanks for the color balance, so much better! Regards, --Leonardo Stabile (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to encourage others ...

... to use FPC as a forum to promote other issues? I was a bit disappointed to see the protest votes on File:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png as by protesting in this way those votes were doing exactly what we try to persuade others not to do - use it as a forum for other issues rather than simply evaluating the images. I didn't comment there as by the time I saw it, the protest votes had been withdrawn. But I am now at a loss to know why you are campaigning for new FPC criteria by using invalid FPX boxes. I realise that some people may have mis-read and/or assumed species identification is required for FPC, but now that it has been pointed out that this is a wrong assumption, continuing to assert that it is required, is simply disruptive - It is difficult to maintain any moral authority to insist that other people follow the rules when one does not do so oneself ;-). There is a discussion process needed before changing FPC criteria :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a floccinaucinihilipilification of my expertise? Pictures of organisms without identification have a low value, whether for FP, QI or VI. A (bold) statement at FPC serves well at starting a discussion (apparently) where a note on a talk page would have far lower visibility. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Leckeres Fressie :-))

Wow, thats great. But it doesn't explain what this is. What is this ? Kind of smell rezeptor ? Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Keine Ahnung, have searched quite a bit now, but not giving up ;-). Lycaon (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ich verstehe .. searching, too :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I started a request on this. It's only a matter of time --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:50, 26 March 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:
Genista corsica (Corsican Broom).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I made a slight modification in the scope format. --Eusebius (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Scope should not be narrower than at the species lvl., cf. COM:VISC --Slaunger (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Cancelled due to scope change. --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Genista corsica (Corsican Broom), flowers} to Genista corsica (Corsican Broom) Lycaon (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support OK for me now. --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Worried?

Hello,

Why are you worried when Mbz1 offers help for selecting images for VI process? I am new to this, so it is a bit difficult for me to understand which images meet the required criterias. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deletion of File:Cornell Bailey Hall March09 lines.jpg

Just a quick note to say thanks for the quick attention to that file, since in retrospect I was quite embarrassed at having made such an ephemeral, one-shot image into a full-fledged file submission. Also, please accept my apologies that I've broken my ideal of staying mellow a few times, especially in FPC. It's true that I don't always agree with what you do or say, but I would like to state categorically that I believe you have the project's best interests in mind and that you act in good faith-- it's just that I don't always understand your viewpoint. In other words, I don't mean to question your principles and intentions, and I am trying to be less hasty in my judgements. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:35, 28 March 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:
Crantzia cristata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I made a slight modification in the scope format. --Eusebius (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Crantzia cristata, flowers to Crantzia cristata Lycaon (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support Although I am a little bit torn whether a flowers subscope would be better or not. Also the competing image in the category has its qualities, but i slightly prefer this one. --Slaunger (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 06:54, 28 March 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:
Boscia foetida (Smelly shepherd's tree) leaves.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support What choice do we have? ;) It's the only one of this species we have. It's a good photo too. The only complaint I have is that it doesn't really give you an idea of what the whole tree looks like. It's a lot different than something like this, but I guess the foliage here is the interesting part. Rocket000 (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You always have the choice to state that, though most of the criteria are fulfilled and it is the only available image, it still doesn't (according to the assessor) illustrate the topic sufficiently for it to be a valued image... ;-). Lycaon (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And indeed, the xeric leaves are typical of this plant. Lycaon (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Then I think there should be a subscope here. The current picture gives no idea about what the entire plant looks like. --Eusebius (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      •  Oppose As I sense we are now converging on a general acceptance of subscopes when...it is a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic of the species according to the relevant literature., I'd say a leaves subscope is better. I don't need literature references though. And yes, I know that is another standard than i had just before in Commons:Valued image candidates/Genista corsica (flowers).jpg, but that was before this discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)vote cancelled after scope change. --Slaunger (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Boscia foetida (Smelly shepherd's tree) to Boscia foetida (Smelly shepherd's tree) leaves Lycaon (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support OK for me now. --Slaunger (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Even better. Rocket000 (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 21:27, 28 March 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:
Agama aculeata (Ground Agama).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Meets all criteria. Nice one --Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)