User talk:Lycaon/Archive4

Hello - thank you for providing images to the wikimedia commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the commons should be useful to all users of wikimedia projects - this is possible only if the images can be found by other people. To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should either place the images on topic pages (galleries) or put the images directly into a category, or do both. Which of those possibilities is preferred is however a matter of debate, see here.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There is a large number of completely unsorted images on the commons right now, see Commons:Really unused. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do! Thank you. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1 (3 Jan 2006 – 8 Jan 2007)
Archive 2 (11 Jan 2007 – 30 May 2007)
Archive 3 (30 May 2007 – 2 Aug 2007)

Image:Mother and daughter.jpg

Hi Joaquim. I learned a few tricks since you were gone ;-). I tried a little noise reduction on you pretty mother and daughter (shouldn't it be big and little sister, btw?) here. Hope you like it. Lycaon 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, the background looks perfect now, thank you! How did you do that? - Alvesgaspar 18:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• A graded Gaussian blur on the background (0.75 close to the flower up to 5.0 at the furthest edges), then a one step noise removal (PSPro XI), and finally some USM on the flowers. Lycaon 06:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to learn your opinion

Hello, Hans. I'd like to learn your opinion please about picture of the head of giraffe in description section at Giraffe page. In my opinion that picture describes nothing. So I've replaced it with that wildlife image. Somebody has changed it right back. I know that the head of giraffe is sharp, and wild life image has some problems, yet I'm as Wikipedia reader will be much more interested in seeing that not sharp wild life image and I'm absolutely not interestead in seeing the head of giraffe. What would you rather see at the page? Please respond at your talk page. I'll check on your respond later. Thank you. --Mbz1 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Sorry Mila, I don't feel qualified to advice you on this case. Lycaon 09:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

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

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

Re:Bummer

Yes. Do you have any zebra pictures where a branch is not in front of the zebra? --Digon3 ^talk 16:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly not in close-up. I could crop of course, but I'm not (yet) tempted. Let's see what the rest of the regulars think. ;-) -- Lycaon 16:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, could you tell me as the black background macro master tell me what you think of this technically and wow-factor wise? --Digon3 ^talk 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

the masking of Fungia is well done. I couldn't do it better, fellow master ;-). The only thing (I fall into this trap too) is that it should have better cleaned first. There is dust and lint visible here and there. You might also give an indication of the size in the description. Lycaon 16:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg

Hi Joaquim. This is not a Locusta migratorius, but most likely an Anacridium aegyptium. De striped eyes give it away. You may want to change your description on Wikimania. Regards. Lycaon 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course. They are quite similar and at the time I didn't hve Michael Chinery's book! :-) - Alvesgaspar 19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Great Namibia Gallery!

Hi Hans, despite the sickness you crossed the first line of dunes! Great job with that panorama. I'm spending my first day at home flipping through your Namibia gallery. You make me want to be there again! --LucaG 15:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania awards

Have you noticed this? It is extraordinary! - Alvesgaspar 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather disturbing isn't it? I've added my 5 €-cents. Lycaon 09:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arctocephalus pusillus 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Adding a category

Instead of moaning you added a category to an image tonight.
Bedankt. -- Klaus with K 08:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Mail

Like it says! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of multiple accounts

Sorry, it was a sorrowful mistake. He will not use my computer more time. Thanks for attention! Best wishes --Beyond silence 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for improving "Agate de l'Esterel".It was very kind of you. Vassil 10:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

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

Panorama work

Hi Lycaon,

Sorry to hear that your hugin keeps crashing. I remember such thing from hugin 0.7beta4 on my XP laptop. My hugin 0.6.1 on XP and 0.7beta5 on Mac work fine. Why don't you send/upload the original files (JPEG I presume) and the pto file (if you have it and it can suitably be uploaded somewhere, it is a text file) and I'll run it on one of my boxes? -- Klaus with K 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you happen to have a stable hugin with vignetting but without vignetting estimation (like 0.6.1) I could provide you with the vignetting parameters and you stitch yourself...(I would still need the JPEGs) -- Klaus with K 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

False wasp

I believe in you, Lycaon. But I was so carefull, this time! That was really my first impression, when I took the shot, because of the type of flight. But I couldnt find on my book any similar hoverfly. So, I finally decided for a Celonites! I will wait for some tme before changing the file name. - Alvesgaspar 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The similarity is even more amazing with the picture of Celonites in Michael Chinery. What about my darter? Looking carefully, it looks exactely like yours, but we put different names on them. Again, I used Chinery's book - Alvesgaspar 16:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Danke

Ich habe ganz vergessen dir zu danken für die Hilfe bei der erneuten Bestimmung des Rüsselkäfers. War ein wenig genervt von der Prozedur und der frechen Mail, das ichs vergessen habe. Nochmal danke. Richie --Richard Bartz 22:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Schwebfliege

Du hattest Recht mit der Bestimmung dieser Schwebefliege. Im neuen Kosmos Insektenführer auf Seite 232 ist die C. cautum als intermedium ausgegeben. Ich werde das Bild mittags nochmal nachbearbeiten und unter dem richtigen Namen speichern. Hast du einen guten Tip für bessere Literatur ? Gruß --Richard Bartz 01:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Darters

Thank you, Lycaon, you are becoming an expert (while I remain clumsy...). It is really difficult to get a raisor sharp macro shot. When everything seems perfect (everything focused, no motion), it is the lens that is working in its limits and shows it. This time I took more than 30 shots and I'm not satisfied with the results. The green darter does not appear in my book... Alvesgaspar 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, I put on manual focus for this type of shots. I took only five shots of this one, four of them good enough for FP (but all the same posture). Lycaon 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This time I used RAW mode and manual focus. What do you think of this one? It looks like the same species but a female. - Alvesgaspar 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

no vote rigging please

"Image:Laubfrosch.jpg - three more days - no vote rigging please"

I only want to count the votes, as it is habit at the QI page. If it wasn't good idea, sorry. --Beyond silence 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arctocephalus pusillus 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

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

Image:Paul Simonon mg 6701b edit.jpg

Many thanks for your edit on this image, I'm learning lots about noise reduction with it. Cheers ! Rama 14:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

C. cautum

Cool. I saw it to late, so i erased the question ;) Thank you. Rick --Richard Bartz 23:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

FP?

• Do you think any of my macros have a shot at FP? Or do I need to work harder? --Digon3 ^talk 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Sossusvlei south view.jpg, which was nominated by Digon3 at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sossusvlei south view.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

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

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

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

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

Pixel magic

A pity you qualified your assertion about any image been made to look good, I was going to find you some terrible images as a challenge :-). As for Image_talk:Parnassius_apollo.jpeg, I'd assume the rest of the image ended up in that great bit-bucket in the sky (ie cropped), EXIF shows focal length 150mm so I'd assume he wasn't that close. I agree that deliberate down-sampling to only offer commons smaller images (as per two of our Australian friends) isn't very nice - and asking people to supply as large an image as they can is the right thing to do. But I can't equate quality with size - it's like saying those classical masterpieces that were only 4" by 6" weren't as good quality as someone elses mural. :-) --Tony Wills 13:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"size ... it is only one of the criteria. They all have to be more or less fulfilled to reach QI. And if one of them is severely lacking, the others have to be extremely good."

I agree.

"I'm sorry but for me to qualify at 800 x 600, something has to be quite a bit more exceptional on all other criteria, and the microscopical images at hand do, imho, not."

My point with microscopic images is that we don't have any QI microscopic images (though I haven't checked very carefully), which seems to indicate to me there is some problem with our criteria (or no one knows how to take good microscopic images). I will look for some hi-res microscopic images to see if I can negate my assumptions :-).

• I see a lot of microscopic images aren't categorized under Category:Microscopic images, I was thinking of creating a few sub-categories for images like yours, do you think Category:Arthropoda Microphotos would do, perhaps divide it into smaller categories as the number of images grows? --Tony Wills 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New darters

I'm stubborn and there was no reason, with all my new paraphernalia, that I couldn't take decent shots of dragonflies. What do you think of the ones I uploaded today? I prefer this, this, this and this. Alvesgaspar 20:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Andorra? But there is no snow there! Unless you are going to buy some new glass... Have a nice trip. Alvesgaspar 09:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tockus leucomelas 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aepyceros melampus petersi (female) 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

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

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Xerus inauris.jpg, which was nominated by LucaG at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Xerus inauris.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

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

CA

Hi! Can you tell me what is CA? Thank you --Beyond silence 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

re Image:Egg_shaped_mushroom-2.jpg QI comments

Hi, I couldn't find any examples of Bovistella that look like this fungi. Basically they look similar to most puffballs but quite small (some only about 5mm in diameter). Can be either spherical or slightly egg shaped. No stem/stipe, 'roots' spreading out from base. Not growing on ground, but on moss covered branch but branch appears healthy not decayed. Initially white, turning brown with age, then splitting to expel spores. Surface slightly bumpy. Quite long lived, seems to take weeks to go from white to splitting. Not listed in books of common NZ Fungi. Nearest I've found on net is Lycoperdon_nigrescens. --Tony Wills 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, the link [1] goes to a static page which doesn't seem to do anything when using the three different browsers (Firefox 1.5 from Linux and Windows, IE 6 from windows). I possibly need to use some later version of Internet Explorer with proprietry features. It is perhaps Bovistella bovistoides but I haven't decoded all the technical description (into meaningful laymans terms), and can't find any photographs - what are the features that made you suggest Bovistella, and are there any macrospcopic properties that I can look for (I don't have a microscope)?. I am reluctant to remove them from the branch as I have only found them in one place and don't want to destroy them to disect until I have a clue as to how common they are. --Tony Wills 23:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes going to the map from the other webpage works, shows Lycoperdon found in Wellington area but not Bovistella but I don't know that the small sampling used is significant - I would have expected distribution to be related to the local habitation, and the main NZ habitat not found on this side of Wellington harbour is NZ Beech forest. Unlike some Bovistella it does not have a separate outer layer and it does not detach from its base, the puffball casing dries where it is to a dark leathery shell and stays attached to its base for many months afterwards. --Tony Wills 00:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Image:View Dubrovnik-6.jpg

Image:View Dubrovnik-6.jpg: How do you think perspective correction? I can't do that. Thanks for helping. --Beyond silence 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just came along ... maybe for a start a slight rotation, most programmes can do that. In gimp (and possibly photoshop) there are some mock perspective correction options as well, but for a genuine correction I would resort to hugin and there specify some lines that should be vertical in the resulting image. For now I think that a slight rotation should be enough, you are looking downwards anyway, so lines are allowed to converge. -- Klaus with K 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Klaus, you're better in that kind of things... ;-) Lycaon 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I corrected it. What do you think? --Beyond silence 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No architectural perspective. Others might moan, but fine by me. -- Klaus with K 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wasp August 2007-3.jpg

Good morning Hans,

I'm struggling with this species. At first I thought it was another wasp-looking hoverfly but then I noticed the 2nd pair of wings. Ceramius lusitanicus is just a guess ("Lusitanicus" means "from Portugal"). Can you please help? - Alvesgaspar 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tough one! I for now, get as far as family Eumenidae (or subfamily Eumeninae) with possible genera Ancistrocerus or Odynerus , but surely not Ceramius sp.. Lycaon 11:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Dear Hans, can you please help me, specify this critter  ? Shes not in my book. Thank you in advance --Richard Bartz 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt help, what do you think, how i should label it for now? And another Question :-) Is this a female or a male ? Best, --Richard Bartz 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The green one is most probably a nymph of Palomena prasina, and even the Coreus is still a nymph (no developed wings yet). Sexing of nymphs is not possible. Regards. Lycaon 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here i found one in a more earlier stage Diptera.Info has doublechecked it ;) --Richard Bartz 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much <3 --Richard Bartz 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

a question

Hello, Hans,I wonder, if you know the name of that rock. I used to know it some time ago, but I forgot. I know it was found in Russia.. thanks.--Mbz1 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Interesting object. Didn't find anything about it, Sorry. Lycaon 09:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Equisetum sp. (answer)

I made pictures of Equisetum in a reserve and other with the botanical garden of Meise this one is with the botanical garden. Afflicted to induce you in error! --Luc Viatour 05:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 07:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

CA and CW

What is CA and CW? Thanks --Beyond silence 10:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wasp August 2007-13.jpg

That is the same insect as this one (I'm sure of that, I took both photos one after the other). If not a hornet, what is it? - Alvesgaspar 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, Hans, I doubt I could arrive at the ID myself. Yes, that was a great luck! I was quite close to the creature and have no idea what kind of sting they have... Alvesgaspar 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I saw another bee-killer, it is gorgeous! - Image:Wasp August 2007-15.jpg - Alvesgaspar 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Help again!

Dear Hans, could this be a female Coeloides bostrichorum ? What do you think ? T.i.a .. --Richard Bartz 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, maybe you want to follow this. This species could be very important because it is the natural antagonist of the family of Scolytidae, where forresters have huge problems to deal with it. I would like to write my first article in the german Wikipedia, because i find this very interesting, so Iam preparing ;) --Richard Bartz 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Now i have more pictures, where it shows some wasps with orange legs laying eggs, could this be Coeloides bostrichorum? T.i.a. --Richard Bartz 18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

48 hrs QIC

Butterfly on a Lantana> Why isn't there the 48 hours? Date of first vote at me is: --Beyond silence 00:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) The result: --Beyond silence 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC). Where am I make mistake? --Beyond silence 08:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is that rule the 48 hrs counted from the last vote? --Beyond silence 09:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I looking for it but at the top of the page. --Beyond silence 09:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

French yellow jacket

Thanks again, Hans, for the identification of the french paper wasp. The problem is my book doesn't have a picture with the face of this one. I intend to go over all my wasp images and verify if there are any exceptions - Alvesgaspar 11:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Meet our photographers

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as a Wikimedian with at least 10 Featured Pictures to your name, you are cordially invited to add a profile of youself and your work to the Commons:Meet our photographers page. --Digon3 ^talk 16:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hibiscus

Hi again! I tried to identify the flower in QIC "Bee-landing-on-flower-0a.jpg". I thought you didn't have any objection other than the lack of ID. Am I missing something? Regards, Adamantios 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

please help id a bug

hello, Hans. Here's the . Do you know what it is? Thank you.--Mbz1 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Hi Mila, a location would be helpful, although I'm not a specialist in insects by far. The fly is in the family Tachinidae, at least that is sure. Lycaon 09:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the picture in San Francisco.--Mbz1 16:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

FP

I think like you, the whole thing stinks. There are two clear cases (Tratoberk and Ddenkel, created for the vote) and all the others are highly suspect. Is there a way to compare the IP addresses? I don't sympathize at all with nationalistic manipulations! If the picture gets featured I'll nominate it right away for deslisting. - Alvesgaspar 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Put in a request for Checkuser. --Digon3 ^talk 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

FP

Hmm, very suspicious. It's interesting that Ddenkel, Alperx and KIZILSUNGUR all appear to be Turkish, and all have accounts under the same names on tr.WP. The proposer, White Cat, as well as the uploader of the image Vikimach also have accounts on that Wiki. White Cat is of course well known here, and several of the others appear to have established accounts so I don't think all four voters are likely to be sockpuppets. However, if you look at the user page of Uannis on the Turkish Wikipedia ([2]) you will see what I think may be be a 'Blocked as sockpuppet' notice (though that needs to be checked as I don't speak Turkish). It seems probable we have a least one sockpuppet and at least several others who are supporting for nationalistic reasons rather than voting for the image on its merits. We have seen that before - but I'm not sure what we can realistically do about it. We could ask for Checkuser on Uannis, though. --MichaelMaggs 20:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you agree

.. that this is Dolichomitus imperator of Family Ichneumonidae ? Best regards --Richard Bartz 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok then i will reupload the whole picture set (10 pics) under Dolichomitus cf. imperator, should this be ok then ? --Richard Bartz 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose on name issues if that's what you're asking ;-). But seriously, I think it is better than assigning a name which is not 100% certain. For all you know it might be a species new to science!. Lycaon 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)