User talk:Archaeodontosaurus/jusqu'à fin 2011

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:
Tenebrio molitor (Darkling Beetle).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Graphium cloanthus MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good -- George Chernilevsky 20:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Promotion tardive

Salut.
Presque un an après, en faisant mon petit ménage, j'ai retrouvé ceci qui dans un premier temps avait été rejeté, puis que tu avais amendé, mais qui n'avait pas été évalué depuis tes modifications. Je vient de la reproposer, et la voici promue "Image de Qualité". Rendons donc à Archaeodontosaurus ce qui lui appartient: cette promotion t'est, pour partie, due.
Bien à toi, --Jebulon (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

C'est curieux comme on se souviens de certaines photo. Celle là je m'en souviens.. un an déja... Tu faisais déjà aussi de bonnes photos. L'abandon de ton filtre polarisant devrait te permettre de retrouver les couleurs naturelles et faciles à travailler... Si je peux me permette... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Tu ne PEUX pas te permettre. Tu DOIS te permettre !--Jebulon (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why I removed the taxonavigation from gallery pages

The taxonavigation template is made for categories only, it does not work correctly on gallery pages. You have to write the taxonavigation manually if you want to have it on the gallery page. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aigle d'Australie MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good--Lmbuga 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Phalera bucephala (Buff-tip).

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Phalera bucephala (Buff-tip).
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Troides oblongomaculatus (Oblong-spotted Birdwing) Imago.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Troides oblongomaculatus (Oblong-spotted Birdwing) Imago.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

--Ikar.us (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2011 (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:
Copris lunaris, Female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope, better than the drawing --Llez (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Discription for VI

Hi Archaeodontosaurus,

do you also think the description of this VIC Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Kraków:_House_under_the_globe is insufficient? Greetings --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry I can not see any case that comes along. In this case, personally I find the caption is sufficient even if it is minimal. If you could add the first sentence of the Description of the monument, which gives the name of architetectes and the role of the building, which is in the article Polish I think it would be useful. You also show your faireplay from ws who often said things useful and wise, but in a way, rough. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • For me it seems to be s.th.personal from ws. I am wondering why he did not mentioned this point at this VIC Commons:Valued image candidates/Chiesa San Zulian.jpg although the description complexity is nearly the same. But I will add the sentence concerning the monument. Thank you for your opinion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I am very happy with this discussion, with w.s. We begin to find healthy relationships and useful. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

taxonomie commoniste

Bonjour, En attendant les changements mediawiki qui permettraient de mieux gérer les images d'objets de musée sur Commons, j'essaie de bidouiller un peu les informations ses espèces biologiques sur Commons. Je vois que pas mal d'information sont données dans les catégories, mais ce n'est pas très très standardisé et je pense qu'un bot pourrait améliorer d'importantes améliorations en important des données depuis Wikipedia ou Wikispecies. Pour y voir un peu plus clair j'ai essayé un modèle {{Taxon}} similaire à {{Creator}}, que l'on peut coller dans les catégories et les fichiers (voir taxon:Gorilla beringei, Category:Gorilla beringei et File:Gorilla Eating.jpg).

En essayant de l'utiliser j'ai vu Category:Caligo teucer et remarqué que les photos étaient celles d'une sous-espèce (caligo teucer semicaerulea) mais que celle-ci n'avait pas le droit à sa sous catégorie. C'est juste par manque de temps ou bien il il a été décidé d'éviter les catégories trop précises ?--Zolo (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Je vais aller regarder ton {{Taxon}}. Tu as remarqué qu'il existait des sous espèces. Il y a plus complexe encore avec les sous-genre. Par example Graphium (Arisbe) illyris hamatus charmant papillon du genre Graphium, sous genre Arisbe, espèce illyris et sous espèce hamatus. Le consensus qui ce dégage, pour l’instant, est de créer les noms d'article dans les WP et les category dans COMMONS en ne retenant que le genre et l'espèce ici Graphium illyris. Ajoute que beaucoup d'espèces ou de genres sont souvent versé sous le nom de synonyme et tu comprends, le quasi chaos dont nous essayons de sortir. Wikispecies devrait être La référence mais il y a aussi des erreur. Bref nous faisons tout çà "à la main" et c'est long. Le bizarre c'est qu'on ne se décourage pas... :)--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok merci pour ces précisions. Je dois dire que vu de l'extérieur, les noms de rang comme ordre, genre, sous-genre paraissent être une source de complications alors qu'il semblerait si logique de presque tout appeler "clade" ou "taxon". Enfin bon si c'est comme ça qu'on fait il n'y a pas le chois.--Zolo (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

L'idée c'est d'avoir quelque chose comme ça (pour les détails il reste pas mal de choses à règler. Ca simplifierait certaines choses, à commencer par le code des descriptions d'image mais si les sous espèces n'ont pas de page, c'est un peu moins évident à faire.--Zolo (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah au fait que voulait dire "(TL)" après Pérou dans la description. Je n'ai pas trouvé la signification.--Zolo (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bien observé. Il faudrait garder le pays aussi. (TL) désigne la localité type (Type Locality); à savoir la région de référence de la sous espèce. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

J'ai remis le pays et ajouté le nom de la localité type dans le menu déroulant. Ca va comme ça ?

Pas tout à fait. Car ce n'est pas le lieu pour dire quelle est de façon générale la localité type mais le papillon de la photo est de la localité type ce qui confère à la photo une valeur suplémentaire. C'est donc dans "Localité et après Pérou qu'il faut mettre (TL). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

J'avais vu une section "type locality" pour un gorille sur Wikispecies donc je me suis dit que ça valait la peine de le mettre sur la page du taxon plutôt que seulement sur l'image. Pour éviter les répétitions, la localité type subit le même sort que la biographie et les cartes: elle n'est plus visible que dans l'espace de nom taxon (mais bien sûr quand on le rajoute dans le fichier comme ici). Ca pourrait libérer un peu de place pour d'autres choses dans l'infobox. Au fait si on ajoute une section de liens vers les bases de données, on peut l'appeller "autorité" ? c'est juste parce que c'est le mot utilisé pour les {{Creator}} et ça éviterait d'avoir à faire deux fois toutes les traductions.--Zolo (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

en fait on s’embête pour peu de chose, c'est assez rare d'avoir un (TL) pour un insecte, le mieux est de le laisser dans la case provenance après le pays. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oui c'est juste que l'idéal serait de pouvoir utiliser le modèle sur toutes les catégories et le maxiumum de fichiers, donc autant que ce soit bien.--Zolo (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour. Je suis votre discussion, et je mets donc mon grain de sel: n'oubliez pas d'éviter de bâtir une usine à gaz. Songez que c'est destiné à être utilisé par des crétins dans mon genre. le maître-mot doit être: 'User fairy'...--Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour. Oui il y a vraiment beacoup de modèle sur Commons et ce n'est pas possible de tous bien les connaitre. Ce que je voulais faire était de cacher tout la complexité à l'intérieur du modèle de manière à ne presque pas avoir besoin de Wikisyntaxe sur les pages "taxons" et dans les fichiers. Pour la plupart des paramètres un mot suffit, ce qui rend la page un peu longue et imporessionante mais en fait je crois que c'est assez simple, ou en tout cas aussi facile à comprendre que le système actuel . Les partie "do-not-modifies" peut être remplie automatiquement et le seul paramètre un peu compliqué est "taxonavigation" qui existe déjà semble assez difficile à vraiment simplifier pour l'instant. Sous la photo du papillon il y a aussi {{Different views of the same specimen}} et {{RelativeLocation}} mais je les ai rajoutés pour avoir de meilleurs traductions, ce n'est pas directement lié au problème taxon.--Zolo (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Pour les descriptions d'image, je pense que c'est vraiment simple: il suffit d'écrire : {{Bio Photo|taxon=Grosse Bébête}}. Si on veut internationaliser "mâle", "larve" ou "crâne", on peut ajouter quelques paramètres mais c'est totalement optionnel. On peut aussi utiliser directement {{:Taxon:Gross bébète}} si on préfère.--Zolo (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Pour être franc Jebulon a raison ce n'est pas si simple et surtout je ne peux pas m'investir dans de nouveau formulaire. Pour la préhistoire j'ai déjà essuyer l’incompréhension du conservateur, point qui pour l'instant n'est pas encore réglé. Pour l'instant nous allons rester sur la charte graphique qui est celle qui a été arrêtée pour l'entomologie et l'ornithologie. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

La charte graphique prévoit de mettre le nom au dessus de l'infobox comme ça ? C'est assez joli, mais j'ai peu qu'avoir une partie de l'infobox en dehors{{Information}} finisse par poser certains problèmes pour la maintenance (sans compter que les tables HMTL ce n'est pas si simple non plus ;) ). Désolé pour les problèmes avec la préhistoire. Cela dit j'étais le premier à reconnaitre ça pouvait soulever des difficultés alors qu'ici je ne vois pas: les pages taxons devraient pouvoir être créées par des bots et on peut faire des descriptions de fichier plus courtes pour obtenir les mêmes informations - avec nettement plus de traductions ajoutées automatiquement.--Zolo (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bon, vu que l'iédée n'a pas l'air d'intéresser grand monde, je vais l'abandonner pour l'instant. Je pense que ça pourrait marcher, mais en fait il n'y a pas tellement d'inconvénient à attendre que la structure de Commons soit un peu plus adapté pour faire ce gendre de choses.--Zolo (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Bonjour, tu as peux être, voir surement, des lumière sur mon problème du jour. J'ai fais un article dans WP sur Jacques Perrin de Brichambaut. Je voudrais l'illustrer d'une photo. Son fils m'a donné une photo. Comment dois-je faire pour la licence? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour ! Je pense qu'il te faudra demander puis renvoyer une permission OTRS, telle que décrite sur cette page. Attention, le photographe détient des droits d'auteur, il te faut donc connaître l'auteur de la photo, et aussi la source (si l'image a déjà été publiée ailleurs). Si c'est le fils qui a pris son père en photo, tu es dans le cas "Je ne suis pas l'auteur de l'image que je souhaite importer, mais j'ai reçu l'autorisation de son auteur", et c'est lui qui devra t'envoyer une déclaration de consentement, que tu auras à retransmettre à l'adresse indiquée. Il devra te préciser la ou les licences choisies (sur ton conseil, il pourrait choisir une license cc-by-sa-3.0 par exemple). Il faut qu'il ait conscience et accepte que cette image placée sous licence libre pourrait être réutilisée en dehors de Commons ou de Wikipédia, voire faire l'objet de travaux dérivés, y compris pour un usage commercial. Les admin User:Bapti ou User:~Pyb sont membres de l'équipe qui traite les demandes OTRS, ils pourront mieux te renseigner si nécessaire. --Myrabella (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bravo. Je le savais. Que tu savais tout! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour. Je m'immisce. Etant moi-même en butte, actuellement, à cette imbécile bureaucratie d'OTRS, je ne saurais trop te conseiller de demander à ton interlocuteur d'envoyer LUI-MÊME le formulaire de déclaration de consentement, sinon "ils" te suspecteront d'avoir commis un faux, ce qu'ils ont fait avec moi. Il ne faut pas que le formulaire d'autorisation passe par toi. Ce n'est pas clair dans la page de présentation: on le suggère alors que c'est en fait obligatoire. Bref, finalement, je recommande hautement de se tenir aussi loin que possible d'OTRS qui n'est qu'un organe obtus et inutile. Il existe depuis quatre ans sur 'Commons' une mauvaise photo de même sujet que celui pour lequel j'ai eu le malheur d'être légaliste, et on risque de détruire ma bonne image, alors que la mauvaise n'est pas embêtée. Quand je dis ça, on me rétorque : Hey, c'est un wiki, mon pote ! . No comment... J'ai donc recontacté le titulaire du droit d'auteur pour le remercier de m'avoir donné son autorisation, mais que ce n'était pas suffisant, et qu'il fallait qu'il recommence lui- même le processus... C'est très agréable...--Jebulon (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Merci je sentais bien que l'affaire est aussi facile que de passer un contrôle douanier aux USA, c'est pour çà que je ne me presse pas...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Petit problème

Salut! J'ai un petit problème, j'espère que tu pourras me donner un avis... Il y a quelques mois, une de mes photos est passée comme VI. J'ai contribué il y a quelques instants une autre image du même paquebot, vaut-elle la peine d'un MVR? Ah, et si tu as un commentaire quel qu'il soit sur la seconde vue, je voudrais bien le lire. :-) Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

L’affaire est délicate. Je ne suis pas très versé dans les navires. Dans l’absolu il n’y a pas de problème pour que tu puisses faire un SET, incluant tes deux images, de ¾ face (déjà promue) et le profil (que tu viens de faire). La luminosité qui t’a été imposée par les circonstances ne donne pas une bonne idée des couleurs vives de ce navire et, dans la category, une photo est très bonne pour çà. Les mettre toutes en concurrence risque de la faire émerger. Une autre possibilité, à mon sens consensuelle, consisterai à l’inclure dans le SET. Merci de m'avoir posé la question... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2011 (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:
Graphium illyris.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Question Does there exist sexual dimorphism? --Llez (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC) For the genre Graphium dimorphism sexel is very low. I will not be opposite, to reduce the scope to Male. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 Support Very good --Llez (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 6 September 2011 (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:
Pyropteron chrysidiforme (Fiery Clearwing) Male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 9 September 2011 (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:
Melolontha melolontha (Common Cockchafer) - male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope and very detailed --Llez (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:33, 18 August 2011 (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:
Ardeola ralloides (Squacco Heron), Egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is a good picture, an probably the best in its scope, but how can you visually differentiate this clutch from a clutch of any other of the white laying herons and egrets (or other birds like some Rallidae e.g.)? Size, colour and form are not sufficient in this case I'm afraid. I specifically addressing criterion 3. here. พ.s. 05:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment This is precisely what should be done, and I will try, over several months or years. If you look at Muséum de Toulouse collection of ornithology you will see that the work started. I have at my disposal 15,000 eggs. I will propose these images VI gradually so as not to occupy that space. You have to start one day, and a little encouragement would be appreciated. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, but I didn't want to discourage you, au contraire, the work is valuable no doubt. It is only that VI is a visual tool and maybe the eggs would find a perfect place in a VI set, combined with e.g. the nest, the chick and the parents. Looking at this I am afraid distinction on colour, size and form might not suffice. พ.s. 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not pretend to say that the only view of the egg is enough to recognize the species. And that's why the scope is reduced to "Egg". We are not accustomed to this approach but ornithologists them do very well and they are able to easily recognize the species for their eggs. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Support I agree with Nominator and scope is correct IMO. Good candidate, criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Promoted manually -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:21, 12 September 2011 (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:
San Zulian (Venice) Exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Best in scope but failing criterion 3. Illustrates well, IMO. You should try again on a shady day when those forbidding shadows are absent. พ.s. 14:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• It's not impossible to do. If I have the opportunity, I would.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support best in scope VI is not FP, some people are mixing this up; obviously and unfortunately --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• VI is not "best of a bad bunch". There are basic quality requirements. But quality is more than sufficient in both the shadow and light area.  Support --Ikar.us (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 12 September 2011 (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:
Boloria freija (Freija Fritillary).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:29, 12 September 2011 (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:
Arctia villica (Cream-spot Tiger).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support The only picture showing both sides --Llez (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:05, 13 September 2011 (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:
Aquila audax (Wedge-tailed Eagle), egg..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope and used in a lot of articles --Llez (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per previous nom. There was no discussion on this. :-( พ.s. 03:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• I am always very attentive to your remarks, but here, this systematic opposition is not constructive. First, unlike many, this egg is very typical and can not be confused with another species. To automatically give a SET with other images of the animal, as you propose, is to be a good idea. But in many cases the images of the animal are of very poor quality. If the SET is labeled and the images of the animal change, it will start to make a new SET. It is more useful to accept that Oology is an important part of Ornithology. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There was no discussion on previous nom which could have been constructive. I stick to my viewpoint that eggs are not in general different enough to be identified on sight. There is no need to rush this things. It is better to set up an accepted protocol first than to the afterwards have to mend errors. VI should be as much as possible be supported by properly argued documentation/guidelines and not by subjective issues like is the case in e.g. FP selection. พ.s. 08:03, 10 September 2011
    • If I understand you propose to open a discuss on Oology for VI? Personally I will do entirely agree. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(UTC)

•  Strong support. Egg is very valuable and very useful for a bird identification. Valuable picture. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 14 September 2011 (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:
Paleoarchean (Stromatolite fossil).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support. All criteria met, rare and useful -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mycetozoa identifcation

Salut, mon ami !
Help me with identification please File:Lycogala epidendrum 2011 G1 scale.jpg. Lycogala terrestre or Lycogala epidendrum ? -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maman de Louise Bourgeois - Bilbao.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 Interesting light. QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 22:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adelpha epione agilla MHNT.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 Il y a des petits points magenta, bleus, violets, au milieu du corps du specimen de droite. Est-ce normal ?--Jebulon 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Very good to me--Lmbuga 18:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I have not seen the commentary of Jebulon--Lmbuga 18:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry for the late response. These small points are colored scales of the wings of neighboring boxes. Have can not be removed, otherwise damaging the specimen. This is very common for collections of Lepidoptera. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:45, 18 September 2011 (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:
Atrophaneura aristolochiae male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope and very detailed --Llez (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Oportunidade perdida

Thanks. All the places have something special. Galicia is peculiar. More than 40% of the place-names or places of Spain are in Galicia: There is much to see, but it is necessary to have luck with the climate, in Bilbao also. if you think to come to Santiago de Compostela, you can send a message to me. The language can be a problem (I can understand if the people is not English and/or speak slowly, but I speak very bad), but, if I am free, I can teach some sites to you. I wish that the next vacations are happy for you--Miguel Bugallo 10:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Es muy amable de tu parte. No voy a olvidar. Sólo pasé 48 horas en Bilbao y llueve todo el tiempo. Para el idioma, creo recordar lo suficiente de mi español ... Me pregunto por qué me molestan en hablar con usted en Inglés. Atentamente.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrrhogyra neaerea hypsenor MHNT.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 Quality image. --Jakubhal 07:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chiesa Santa Maria Maddalena.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 Quality image. --Jakubhal 09:09, 25 September 2011 (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:
Bubulcus ibis Egg of Cattle Egret.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose This can as well be the egg of a duck or several other species of egret. Visually indistinguishable. The discussion has no been held neither. พ.s. 22:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I agree that apart from the ornithologists it is difficult to recognize an egg. But the interest of this label does not lie in photography but also on how it brings. Here each egg was picked up by an experienced ornithologist and is registered in a public collection. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Support I think, that all critera for a VI are fullfilled. Similarity is not only a problem of eggs, there are a lot of sibling species which one can barely distinguish. Is it therefore forbidden, to nominate pictures of sibling species as VI? Or only eggs with charcteristic spots? I think no. This is not quite an egg, it is an egg of Bubulcus ibis, and that's it value. --Llez (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per Llez -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:59, 26 September 2011 (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:
Pterophorus pentadactyla (White Plume Moth).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:04, 26 September 2011 (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:
Eunica mygdonia, Male specimen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:49, 17 September 2011 (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:
Bena bicolorana (Scarce Silver-lines).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Llez (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 19 September 2011 (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:
Rhyparia purpurata (Purple Tiger).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope, no significant sexual dimorphism --Llez (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

QI promotion

Bonjour vieux camarade.

Merci pour mon vieux râteau. Je ne sais pas comment ça s'appelle. Tu le sais, toi ?

Tu te fais rare, j'espère que tout va bien...

Je suis de près ton combat pour la défense de l'oophilie différenciée, car j'aime bien tes oeufs (et tes papillons aussi).--Jebulon (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Je suis toujours là, mais peu actif sur QI, j'essai d'animer VI. Phoebus m'accapare mais je crois que je vais être secondé par des Wikipediens toulousains. Ta herse est très bonne; je ne connais pas ce modèle qui doit être référencé dans les vieux catalogues de Manufrance. Dans un premier temps j'ai cru que tu expérimentais un nouveau dispositif anti-émeute... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Je fais pô dans le maintien d' l'ordre, je fais dans comme à Lyon. Mais en mieux.--Jebulon (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

VI - Sanary-sur-Mer

Merci pour tes conseils! Je les ai écoutés;) Tobi 87 -- (talk)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Charaxes kheili MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --Jakubhal 10:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Papillon guyanais en FP

Bonsoir mon camarade.

Quel magnifique et étonnant spécimen ! Bravo et merci pour la magie de tes propositions, c'est toujours un régal.

Il sera bien sûr promu.

Pour celui-ci, je m'interroge quand même sur la netteté. Je sais bien que c'est de la assez haute résolution, mais je trouve quand même qu'il y a du flou, particulièrement pour celui-ci.

Qu'en dis-tu ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Je pense que tu as une bonne vue. Ce cousin des punaises est très petit et je peux m’en sortir de deux façons. Soit ave un Focus staking soit en prenant un 105mm Et jouant sur la grandeur du capteur de l’appareil (24mega). La série de punaise que j’ai fais ce jour là est avec cette technique. La première technique est la meilleure, mais elle suppose un trépied parfait ce que je n’avais pas ce jour là.

Le Wow n’est donc pas dans la technique photographique, mais dans la bestiole qui des couleurs vives et un nez retroussé très bizarre qui la rend sympathique...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2011 (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:
Santa Maria Maddalena (Venice) Exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. Good lighting, angle, and exposure. Unobstructed. Geocoded. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Delias descombesi MHNT.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 Quality image. --Jakubhal 08:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bilbao - La Salve Bridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2011 (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:
Volucella zonaria (Hornet mimic hoverfly), female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met--H. Krisp (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

VI egg

Bonjour Didier!
You can nominate only egg of Egretta garzetta. Set was not so good.
Très amical, -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Georges
Thank you for your message. As you know "W.S.", is opposed to images of eggs and this systematically. He asked me to make SET with the bird and egg. A spirit of conciliation I'm doing. It's not a good way and I'm not sad that it did not work. So I will have two positive votes for eggs. The "oology project" walking on, very well, and is well received in all the WIKI. "Merci de ton soutien, très amicalement..."--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

W.S. is only one person, not all Commons. The result (consensus with promotion or decline) depends on community instead of a single person. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But someone who brings us a lot, even if the shape of its intervention is sometimes offensive. I want to stay patient. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Pescheria Venezia.jpg

Hello,

Could you please add the correct category in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted for your image? Best regards, Yann (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK done ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palmiste africain MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very useful, QI for me Achim Raschka 09:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Titanus giganteus MHNT dos.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me and didactic --Llez 18:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Titanus giganteus MHNT vol.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Ximonic 11:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

T'es tra ?

Bravo pour la mise en scène et en éclairage de ton grand tétra, c'est superbe. Il y a un petit problème de masque au niveau du pouce du pied droit. Amitiés --Jebulon (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Zut ! Bien vu je le corrige ce soir. J'ai passé 3 jours a faire "l'ombre" je commence à comprendre comment il faut faire, mais c'est long et je ne le ferai pas tout les jours...

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:
Colinus virginianus (Northern Bobwhite), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Please see Visually indistinguishable scopes for my reasoning and/or to discuss this topic. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per said discussion and my previous comments. This is VI not valued explanation. Vissual distinctiveness does not suffice in these cases for me. Sorry. พ.s. 14:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Same reasons as already said in previous comments --Llez (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Same as in previous nominations of egg -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment How cute. Cervantes revisited. พ.s. 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:52, 11 October 2011 (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:
Adelpha epione, Male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support No doubt, best in scope, even I would prefer a photo of a living butterfly. --Tobi 87 (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 10 October 2011 (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:
Blaberus giganteus, female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met--H. Krisp (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 11 October 2011 (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:
Charaxes distanti, Male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grand Tétra MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and valuable for me -- Achim Raschka 05:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Charaxes solon jordani MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oeuf

Faucon peut-être, mais vraie réussite.

Gerfaut sûrement, mais qualité vraie !

Magnifique à regarder en détail.--Jebulon (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Merci de ces encouragement pour l'oologie, discipline que je ne connaissais pas il y a 6 mois. J'essai de rendre hommage à des gens qui ont consacré leur vie à étudier les oeufs... Wikipedia mène à tout! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2011 (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:
Caligo teucer (Teucer Giant Owl), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best for the scope. Yann (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Faucon gerfaut MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me--Holleday 15:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gypaète barbu MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good -- George Chernilevsky 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Faucon kobez MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --PierreSelim 09:26, 24 October 2011 (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:
San Marcuola (Venice), exterior..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope - George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 27 October 2011 (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:
Catonephele acontius, female..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very useful, all criteria met --Llez (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Simone 06:16, 27 October 2011 (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:
Prepona laertes, male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fidicina mannifera MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 17:25, 26 October 2011 (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:
Polygonia faunus (Green Comma), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Most detailed --Llez (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 30 October 2011 (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:
Lyrurus tetrix (Black Grouse), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support best in scope --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per discussions and my previous comments. This is a chicken egg (at least it looks like one). Visual distinctiveness does not suffice in these cases for me. พ.s. 22:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• This picture can not be a VI because the object "egg of the black grouse" is looking like a "chicken egg"? Never heard such a funny argument before. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Best in scope, but the image has irritating green lines across the background when magnified. --Simone 15:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Absolutely true I put the latest version. There was a problem that the layers. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support, now that technical issues have been resolved. --Simone 17:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ganga unibande MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 10:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flatolystra verrucosa MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me --Llez 12:02, 29 October 2011 (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:
Graphium cloanthus, male..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support meets all criteria. --Simone 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. M 93 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crane déformé 1905 MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hemikyptha marginata MHNT dos.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me--Holleday 14:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Syrrhapte paradoxal MHNT.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, interesting and useful--Jebulon 10:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Merci !

Bonjour ArchaeoD., Merci pour avoir distingué mon Orchis pourpre en VI (en la nominant, je pensais qu'elle être mise en compétition avec une image de Hans) ! J'en suis contente, car elle n'avait pas été très facile à voir et à photographier, cachée dans un sous-bois sans trop de lumière... Bien à toi, --Myrabella (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

J'ai la chance d'habiter à la campagne et, dans les champs qui m'entourent il y a des orchidées fr:Orchis bouffon. j'ai beaucoup de mal à aller sur le terrain il y a du vent, la lumière bouge... Bref je sais ce que s'est de faire des orchidées in vivo... tu devrais venir plus souvent dans VI... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Phoebis philea philea MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me and usefull--Lmbuga 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porphyromma speciosa MHNT.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 Really nice, and very good job.--Jebulon 22:49, 5 November 2011 (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:
Lagopus lagopus scoticus (Red Grouse), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Nice picture, only image in scope. --Simone 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per discussions and previous comments. Visual distinctiveness does not suffice, this egg images invalidate the whole VI project. พ.s. 09:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met. Per my previous votes -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2011 (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:
Polyura narcaeus, male..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support -- 320td (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2011 (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:
Pycina zamba, male..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - best image in scope. --Simone 12:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2011 (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:
Numida meleagris (Helmeted Guineafowl), eggs.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Valuable, all criteria met --Llez (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2011 (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:
Charaxes kheili, male..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very useful, all criteria met --Llez (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2011 (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:
Pygoscelis adeliae, ( Adélie Penguin), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2011 (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:
Lagopus muta (Rock Ptarmigan), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:07, 9 November 2011 (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:
Pseudopanthera macularia (Speckled Yellow), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Erreur ?

Salut.

En faisant un peu de ménage, je m'aperçois que j'ai peut-être commis une erreur à propos de cette image. Un certain User:Accipiter, d'outre-Rhin, a modifié, sans autre signalement auprès de moi, l'identification (et la catégorie), indiquant qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un bison européen (Bison bonasus), mais plutôt d'un buffle d'Afrique (Syncerus caffer). Si je me suis trompé, c'est grave pour la crédibilité du bazar (même si je crois bien avoir fait en ce cas comme je fais toujours: photographier le cartel), d'autant que la photo a été distinguée comme image de valeur d'un crâne de bison européen...(ça, on rectifiera en temps utile, de même qu'il faudra renommer le fichier)

Peux-tu soumettre le cas à un sachant du Muséum de Toulouse ? De mon côté, j'irai vérifier dans la galerie d'anatomie comparée si l'erreur est juste, et est de mon fait. Si tu n'as pas de mes nouvelles, préviens les secours, c'est que je me serai pendu de déshonneur au balcon de ladite galerie. Je te lègue ma carte de la Société des Amis du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (entrée gratos dans toutes les collections, quand même...)

Merci !--Jebulon (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Je ne connais pas bien le bison même européen. Mais le buffle oui car j'ai un crâne dans mon bureau. Hélas notre ami à raison s'est un crâne de buffle caffre. Les cornes ne sont pas très développées se qui peut entretenir une certaine confusion mais la bosse frontale avec ces rugosités est très typique. Je pense que tu n'y es pour rien et que l'étiquetage est parfois défaillant, même au MNHT. J'espère que dans un moment d’égarement se n'est pas moi qui est promu en VI sinon nous nous pendons de concert... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Merci de ta prompte réponse. Il faut donc vite la dé-labelliser en VI (et dans les archives !), comment fait-on, s'agissant d'une erreur matérielle essentielle ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• D'abord il n'y a pas d'urgence, ce n'est pas contagieux. Je pense que La bonne fée Myrabella doit savoir, c'est elle qu'il faut interroger pour la procédure. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:JosephHuddartZh.jpeg

Merci pour votre soutien à Commons:Valued image candidates/File:JosephHuddartZh.jpeg. Pensez-vous que cette image être de la niveau de une image remarquable ? --Xijky (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2011 (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:
Tetrastes bonasia (Hazel Grouse), eggs.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vautour africain MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Llez 21:18, 12 November 2011 (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:
San Giovanni Grisostomo (Venice), exterior..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in category at the moment.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment ... but there are many and many churches in the world (even in Italy) dedicated to this saint. IMO the scope is not precise enough. Maybe "San Giovanni Grisostomo, Venice, exterior", should be better. Only the two cents of Jebulon Golden Mouthed...--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Is obvious. The scope is changed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Obviously, I confirm my support after changing scope name.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2011 (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:
Delias descombesi, male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Heliconius melpomene penelope.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Heliconius melpomene penelope.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:43, 18 November 2011 (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:
Eudyptes chrysolophus (Goldschopfpinguin), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Fails criterion 3. พ.s. 11:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support fails no criteria --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- 320td (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 18 November 2011 (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:
Noctua janthina, (Lesser Broad-bordered Yellow Underwing).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria satisfied. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:15, 18 November 2011 (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:
Palazzo Bembo (Venice).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support meets all criteria. And wow. --Simone 17:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:09, 18 November 2011 (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:
Fulmarus glacialoides, (Southern Fulmar) egg..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support -- 320td (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- M 93 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

VI question

I'd like to make a VI candidate of this set. How do you think, is it worth doing? Do I need to make a gallery of those images? Thank you for the advice.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust. For me a SET must be a maximum of 4 images. But being a naturalist, and not an architect, I am not very competent to advise you. user:Slaunger who created the label VI, should be. Best regard --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2011 (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:
Aphrissa statira (Statira Sulphur), female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:28, 20 November 2011 (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:
Aquila spilogaster (African Hawk-Eagle), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria met --Llez (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aracynthus sanguineus MHNT dos vol.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 quality --Llez 09:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ca'Loredan Venice.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--Jebulon 22:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! OMMATOPTERA PICTIFOLIA MHNT.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  CommentThe images looks very bright, but I'm not sure.--ArildV 01:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)* Effectively background is white.--Archaeodontosaurus 06:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC) It's indeed a bit hard to see the subject due to the brigness, don't know how it looks like with a bit less bright/white background? Mvg, Basvb 10:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC) It's a good point I changed the background.--Archaeodontosaurus 13:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --PierreSelim 11:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

VI ?

Je vois que t'as vu que chui rev'nu !--Jebulon (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tu es toujours le bienvenu!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dorisiana bicolor MHNT vol.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Fandecaisses 17:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Senecio viravira en VI

En application des règles, ceci est pour t'informer, mon cher, que j'ai changé le scope en rajoutant "leaves". Pour l'autre plante (paspalum), j'ai la photo de la plaque, mais elle ne prouve rien, hélas. Je n'ai pas le temps (ni l'envie) de solliciter un herbologue au JdP, mais j'ai posé la question à l'atelier d'identification de wp. Je crois que je ne me suis pas trompé, mais que je suis tombé pendant la courte période d'inflorescence de la bestiole, qui peut-être n'a pas encore été photographiée... On va savoir. Si ça se trouve, je suis un grand précurseur.--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ariasa colombiae MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and useful. Nice to me--Lmbuga 19:56, 26 November 2011 (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:
Emmelia trabealis, (Spotted Sulphur).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Most detailed, high EV --Llez (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:52, 26 November 2011 (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:
Columba oenas (Stock Dove), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria met --Llez (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose พ.s. 15:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:12, 29 November 2011 (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:
Euphaedra (Xypetana) xypete, Female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope Exceptional. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:57, 26 November 2011 (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:
Lophura diardi (Siamese Fireback), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aigle fascié MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 08:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Phyllacanthus imperialis (Pencil urchins).

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Phyllacanthus imperialis (Pencil urchins).
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Boucher de Perthes de données

Je suis enthousiasmé par ton dernier (?) caillou, historique à plusieurs titres, de Boucher de Perthes - Lartet. C'est tout à fait remarquable, très intéressant et émouvant, j'ai passé de longues minutes à lire plusieurs articles liés les uns aux autres, et j'ai appris beaucoup de choses, ça m'a mené jusqu'à Darwin, (sujet d'une émission de télé sur Arte hier soir, vue avec mon fils de 9 ans que le voyage du Beagle a passionné), via Charles Lyell, ami commun des deux. La boucle était bouclée. Bravo et merci encore pour tout ton travail si minutieux et si passionnant, au profit de tous. Tu nous offres des richesses incomparables.

Peut-être auras-tu été autrement occupé qu'à "Commons" aujourd'hui à Toulouse, mais (détail) il faut quand même que tu revoies la description en français de ta photo, il y a une interruption que tu n'as sûrement pas souhaitée.

Amitiés.--Jebulon (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

PS, laisse tomber, c'est corrigé !

Merci pour tes encouragements. Puisque tu es maintenant bien au point il faut corriger deux points qui n'apparaissent pas encore à leur juste place dans les articles que tu as pu lire. Si Boucher de Perthes est celui qui a eu la vision de l'homme fossile, il ne l'a pas prouvé. Car les bifaces et les ossements n'étaient pas sur le même site bien qu'ils aient été sur le même étage. Celui qui a prouvé le lien est Noulet qui lui a trouvé les bifaces et les ossements d'éléphants dans le même "trou" en 1853, deux ans avant que Darwin ne publie. L'émission d'hier soir sur Darwin est un peu truquée. Elle laisse penser que Darwin à vu émerger la théorie de l'évolution au fur et à mesure de son voyage. Rien n'est plus faux. En 1805 Jean Baptiste Lamarck a décrit, sans aucune preuve que son intuition, la théorie de l'évolution. Le génie c'est lui. Darwin n'a jamais caché qu'il avait lu Larmack. Son mérite est d'avoir prouvé que Lamarck avait vu Juste. Quant à l'age de la terre qui ne cadrait pas avec les 4000ans des theologiens, la preuve scientifique avait été faite par Buffon dans sa forge près d'un siècle auparavant. Bref je ne rate jamais une occasion de rabaisser Darwin et de promouvoir Mr de Lamarck, dont le buste bienveillant me regarde...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oui, j'avais bien compris tout ça, y compris le rôle de Noulet évoqué dans l'article de WP, lequel est désormais mieux illustré ;). Quant à Lamarck, il n'est pas très loin de moi non plus. Sur le socle de cette statue, il est bien écrit que la théorie de l'évolution, c'est lui. Mais mon petit garçon a été fort intéressé, et n'empêche que ton biface, c'est quelque chose, moi je te le dis !--Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (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:
Palazzo Loredan (Venice), Exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Yes, the best of 'Commons'. Deserves the label.--Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:28, 1 December 2011 (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:
Dynastes hercules (Hercules beetle), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support. Very interesting image.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Melete leucadia MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Llez 11:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biface de Boucher de Perthes MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 18:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Archaeoprepona amphimachus MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Haneburger 13:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Quercus suber JPG1.jpg

Bonjour Archaeodontosaurus,

Merci pour tes bons conseils. Puis-je te demander ce qu’est “ VI” et quel serait le meilleur moyen pour parvenir à “sortir” le tronc avec GIMP.

Amicalement

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eupatorus gracilicornis Vol.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 07:46, 7 December 2011 (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:
Aphrissa fluminensis (Rio de Janeiro Sulphur), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:21, 7 December 2011 (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:
Palazzo Podestarile (Mestre) Exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Support - best in scope. --Claritas (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:26, 7 December 2011 (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:
Alectoris rufa ( Red-legged Partridge), Eggs.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Strong support - great image, best in scope, highly used. --Claritas (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Support. All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Museum Toulouse

Bonjour Didier I am working on this page.See [1] Do you have a contact in the museum? I look for your photos every week.Superbe! Best regards Robert akaNotafly (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eupatorus gracilicornis global.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 As you know I don't believe every picture need be of this cataloguing nature but there is no denying the technical quality of this one. --Saffron Blaze 14:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Muséum de Toulouse

Bonjour Didier et merci bien. I have done some work on the page-(translation and notably Ornithology). Now I need details of the collections and collectors in the other sections starting with entomology and botany.In the meantime I will write an account of the galleries. My e-mail is robertnash1945@yahoo.co.uk PS Are the figures for ornithology correct? Best regards from Irland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goliathus goliatus vol.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 17:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Perdrix rouge MHNT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Meets the criteria, imo.--MrPanyGoff 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palazzo Cavalli.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit noisy, but good.--Jebulon 12:42, 11 December 2011 (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:
Gallus sonneratii (Grey Junglefowl), egg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quod non. When in doubt... พ.s. 01:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support As in my previous comments --Llez (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment The id is wrong, this is Gallus gallus!! พ.s. 23:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Confirmation of identification.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You still don't get it, don't you? How can you confirm an id of something that is visually indistinctive? I'm happy to take your word for it, but it cannot be a VI as you can never satisfy all criteria. The eggs in my fridge, e.g., look exactly like this one and I could make exactly the same image. An image is per definition a visual thing and not an accredited document. And unless you want to ignore the basis of this project (criterion 3), you should not nominate this kind of imagery here. พ.s. 07:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• The image gives: the shape, size, surface texture, color. I understand that a biologist submarine failing to recognize an egg, I am not able myself but ornithologists can do. The oologie is a recognized science. We are fortunate that we can share knowledge in a free, based on clearly identified specimens deposited in a public collection, which were used for work published identifications.

"Microscopic examination of the surface of the eggshells of birds" - Jacques Perrin de Brichambaut - Alauda - 1982

For me there are many things I can not control. On this page I have no competence to judge an airplane or boat, and when in doubt I refrain.

But I do not deny the existence of what I can not judge. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly! You just invalidated your own nomination with the above publication. Commons concerns media that are identifiable on sight (or hearing as it may be). Distinctiveness in eggs is often determined on a microscopic level. I don't see a macro photo of the shell structure here. How can it be a VI when you can't visually separate one species from another. I have a whole series of Bathyporeia species on my gallery, which I know are correctly identified but for which it is not possible to see the distinctive features on the photo (File:Bathyporeia elegans.jpg, File:Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana.jpg, File:Bathyporeia pelagica.jpg, File:Bathyporeia pilosa.jpg, File:Bathyporeia sarsi.jpg, File:Bathyporeia tenuipes.jpg). Therefore I can not nominate them here, though they are the best (only even) that Commons can provide. And please don't judge my expertise as a biologist, it is offensive. พ.s. 12:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm sorry that you have found my term offensive because I bothered to check they are not.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• discussion is not finished พ.s. 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Claritas (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2011 (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:
Aracynthus sanguineus, female..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Llez (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Claritas (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Some Danish Christmas sweets for you!

Havregrynskugler, a Danish christmas sweet with oatmeal as its main ingredient.

Dear Archaeodontosaurus,

Here are some christmas sweets for you, which my daughter and I just made. You will find the recipe in the file page. They are easy to make and they taste in my opinion very good. Seasonal greetings from Denmark, --Slaunger (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goliathus goliatus dos.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality and EV --Llez 18:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Alba Iulia National Museum of the Union 2011 - Rider from Lupu Dacian Silver Hoard.JPG

Hi! Thanks for the feedback. The category I suggested for the valued image was Category:Dacian mythology, which I though was narrow enough. The category Category:Dacian culture is indeed much broader, but I wasn't suggesting it. Regarding the size, I am still looking for that information, as I don't have it. I added the weight though. Thanks and happy holidays! --Codrin.B (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I also found the diameter and added it.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

For Alba Iulia National Museum of the Union 2011 - Rider from Lupu Dacian Silver Hoard.JPG.

Should know what this object. By putting the name in the scope, several other objects of the Dacian culture to be promoted by the label VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I moved the conversation here so it is in one place. I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by you last comment. If it's ok with you, write me in French and I will respond in English. A tout alors. --Codrin.B (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• C’est très simple. Vous avez un très beau musée et un très beau sujet : la culture dacienne.
• Si on donne le label à cette photographie en disant quelle représente la mythologie dacienne ou la culture dacienne à elle seule, on ne pourra plus le donner pour d’autre objet.
• Si on écrit « bouclier dacien » ou «  plaque en argent de pectoral dacien », ou « épée dacienne » on va pouvoir avoir plusieurs images promues.
• La culture dacienne mérite plus qu’une seule image promue.

- It's very simple. You have a beautiful museum and a beautiful subject: Dacian culture. - If the label is given to the photograph, saying what is mythology or Dacian Dacian culture alone can no longer be given to the other object. -If you write "shield Dacian" or "silver plate of pectoral Dacian" or "Dacian sword" we will be able to have multiple images promoted. - The Dacian culture deserves more than a single image promoted.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
For : Helmet of Cotofenesti, it would be useful to a SET of 3 to 4 images.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see! I didn't know that a label for a category once given, it cannot be claimed by another object. What if we add even better pictures in a category in the future? Can't they "dethrone" the older images from VI or equally get a VI designation? I narrowed the scope from Dacian mythology to Dacian hoard of Lupu. I believe this is as narrow you can go. Please let me know if it makes sense. I will add more images for the Helmet of Cotofenesti. Thanks a lot for all the suggestions. Merci beacoup! --Codrin.B (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goliathus goliatus ventre.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality and useful. --Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 10:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:QI : Castelmagno-Santuario.jpg

Sistemata. È sufficiente? --Marco 11:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• E 'perfetto --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Metilia brunnerii MHNT male vol.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and useful --Llez 09:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)