User talk:Lycaon/Archive12

Coincidence?

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

Toeval niet echt natuurlijk. Ik had je foto wel niet uitgeprint, dus de compo was op het geheugen. Ik passeer de Koninklijk Baan daar wel tweemaal daags, dus had ik wel een idee van waar het was. Echter, met de huidige sfeer op FPC (de restaurateurskliek die zich zo onterecht verongelijkt voelt) voel ik me niet geroepen QI's of FP's te nomineren. Ik wacht wel tot ik deze zomer terug ben van Madagascar, daar moeten wel pareltjes te schieten zijn :-). Met vriendelijke groet, Hans. Lycaon (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar is ondertussen Costa Rica geworden. Antananarivo lijkt me een beetje te link tegenwoordig, vooral met een dochter van zeven... Lycaon (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

VI galleries: Spermatophyta

Hi, I've added a conifer subgallery in the Spermatophyta gallery, but I think you had suggestions for Magnoliophytes. Feel free to create the galleries you deem justified, transclude them and add them in MediaWiki:VIhelper.js. You can also, if you will, have a look at Commons:Valued images by topic/Life forms and check the tree for mistakes (I have not added the VIs yet). --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, will check. Lycaon (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Small question: is there a particular reason why subdivisions of animals are alphabetically ordered? Lycaon (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "alphabetic order" :-) Actually I don't think I have reordered them. If there is a better order, help yourself. --Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I just have one question

Hi, I had uploaded, File:Punjab map pa.svg, which was a modification of File:Punjab map.svg, so I was not sure if I supposed to use the RetouchedPicture template for picture whose writing was translated or some other template. Also it also keep saying "Template loop detected" but can't find what it is. So could you please check if I entered the correct information when uploading? Thank You. --Gman124 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The {{RetouchedPicture}} template was fine. the problem apparently was with the Licensing template. Removing the self clause solved the problem. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you. --Gman124 (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Menara gardens

Hi, I have changed the scope, the pavillion is the landmark of the garden. -- Bgag (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

Dear Lycaon. I am sincerely impressed by your photos. Great. I wanted to use two of your photos on the webpage for my company (legal services). Do you mind it? How would i do it in comliance with licensing rights? Can i attribute it to you, by placing your name in the corner of the images?

Thank you.

You are welcome to use the pictures with attribution. You can contact me by mail here. A link on this page (or by mail) to your website would be appreciated. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow up question. Please answer

Thank you for response. And thank you for your courtesy. I was trying to send you an e-mail, but was unable to do so. This entire webpage is complicating in navigation for non-professional:-)

I think the photo Pont de Brooklyn was taken by Martin St-Amant, correct? Then, would you mind if i attribute it to you by writing: " Photo by Martin St-Amant, edited by Lycaon" ?

It is my pleasure to send you the link. However, i want to send it to your e-mail if possible. How can i do so? My e-mail is sell2010@gmail.com

Thank you.

Hi again. You don't need to credit this picture to me. It is Martin's photograph and I just did a slight modification. Thanks anyway.
BTW, you should sign your message with ~~~~ (four tildes), then your username and the date will automatically appear. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I would have preferred a good illustration of such a subject, but the best illustration alternative there is, File:IALA specjal mark.png is of such inferior resolution (even for VI) that it is not a serious competitor. So this image wins. --Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fulfills all criterias based on a real life application. --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Basically the same remarks as Slaunger's, but I regret that the different shapes could not be shown on a single picture/illustration. There is no light signal on a special mark buoy, right? --Eusebius (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• They have an orange light and they can be all sorts of forms (they just have to float) as long as they have the cross on top and are yellow. The small illustration only show a few possible configurations. Lycaon (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Hi

you have to rename all daughter categories inside Anura ! but good work ! Poleta33 (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I will. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Will have to wait a few days though, but I get on it as soon as I have Internet connection again... ;-). Lycaon (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

it remains Ranidae bye Poleta33 (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question In the image page you identify it to the subspecies level as Rhoptropus bradfieldi diporus. How did you figure out it was the diporus subspecies (and not the bradfieldi subspecies)? --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment On page 214 of Branch, B. & W. P. Koella, (1988). A Field Guide to the Snakes and Other Reptiles of Southern Africa. C. Struik. 328 pp. ISBN 9780869776414, two subspecies are mentioned. R. b. bradfieldi is stated as only ocurring south of Brandberg. This specimen was photographed at Twyfelfontein, about 60 km North of Brandberg. R. bradfieldi is endemic to Namibia and the two subspecies occur in only a small area in two virtually disjunct zones (the map is in the book). BTW, my identification literature list can be consulted at this spot. Lycaon (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your thorough explanation. The reason I asked was because I wondered if subspecies characteristics could be seen in the image. I think it would be relevant to mention in the image page that the subspecies identification is based on the location with the reference just given. --Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  per request. Lycaon (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Meets all criteria. --Slaunger (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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:
Ameiva fuscata (Dominica Ground Lizard).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK for me. I wouldn't be shocked by a flower subscope for the other picture. --Eusebius (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Permission to use Moringa Image

We are a small company looking into developing a Moringa brand. In researching for images, we came across yours and we would like to use it with your permission.

Would it be possible to make an arrangement for us to have exclusive rights to use it for our marketing pieces? If it can’t be exclusive, we would be interested in just having permission to use your photo.

Is this the highest resolution available? If you have this photo available with a higher resolution, please let us know. Also, we would be interested if you have any additional images with Moringa.

We would plan on using your image for web, brochures, presentations, and educational/promotional materials. We’re not sure how long we would be using the image for, perhaps a couple years.

Please give us a price you have in mind for us to use your photo. We would also give you a photo credit if/when we use your image(s).

You can reach me at earce@alchemicalcourtyard.com.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Elizabeth Arce Marketing Communications Coordinator earce@alchemicalcourtyard.com

---

the Alchemical Courtyard 2875 NE 191 Street, Suite 400A Aventura, FL 33180 T. 305 .695 .9380 x. 1804 F. 305 .695 .9381 www.alchemicalcourtyard.com

Large unknown beetle

Hi Hans, I'm having trouble with the id of this fellow. I first thought it was a Stag Beetle (Lucanus cervus) but the body shape doesn't match and the antennae are different from those of the Lucanidae family, which are supposed to be elbowed and clubed. Quite large, about 4 cm long, found in the dunes near the sea. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe a Scaritas sp., from the Carabidae family? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Most likely a Scarites species. Maybe this page may be of any help. Thare are a few species and they all tend to live in dunes. They dig in the ground during daytime and they hunt at night. I found a similar one in Sardinia last year but haven't come up with a definitive species name so far. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing permission for File:Cyclamen_repandum_siver.jpg?

Dear Lycaon,

Attached please find the message I have sent to Wayne:

Hi Wayne,

Herewith the written confirmation of Francine Riez that I could use this picture for uploading it to Commons.

PS: I guess she has not to do the same for all her other photos I have uploaded (e.g., pictures of other cyclamens, Trillium, etc).

Best regards,

Réginald.

Translation of the attached letter:

Francine Riez

Rue de la Neuve Cour, 1

1421 Ophain-Bois-Seigneur-Isaac

Belgium

Tel. and fax +32 (0)2 384 50 87

EMAIL tvcn13776@tvcablenet.be

18/04/2009

I confirm that I have granted Mr Hulhoven to upload the picture of Cyclamen repandum on Wikipedia.

File:Cyclamen_repandum_siver.jpg,

F. Riez

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 19:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is now OK.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

VI galleries

Hi. If you create entries in VIHelper, please do create the corresponding galleries, or tell me what you've modified! I've taken your latest edits into accounts. Also, I've moved all the Spermatophyta in Magnoliophyta, but there could be some exceptions, if you could be kind enough to have a quick look some time... Anyway, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure I will. Unfortunately I'm not having too much time at the moment. I'm just back from an internet incommunicado holiday in Mallorca (two weeks) and am now on a one week meeting on a small island (Askö) in Sweden. As soon as I find some time I promise I will help you out. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's not a request, I only wanted to remind you that the JS and the gallery scheme were linked... and that I'm not sure what EuseBot would actually do if a categorization template pointed to a non-existing gallery :-) --Eusebius (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Plant ID again

Hey Hans, I found this bee on a flower, app 2-3mm in size. Could you provide any id? Sorry to bother you again. --Muhammad (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Muhammad, I'm currently on a meeting on a small uninhabited (but for the marine biological station) island in Sweden and don't have access to my literature. It 'll have to wait until I'm back next week. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no probs --Muhammad (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback tool

This [1] is an inappropriate use of the rollback tool, which is intended pretty much solely to revert vandalism very quickly when it is obvious vandalism and no edit summary or explanation is needed, or sometimes it is okay also to use it to revert one's own edits if they made a mistake and want to revert their own edit quickly. I am giving this notice to the other admin as well that also used the rollback tool inappropriately. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not monitor all uses of the rollback tool. I happen to have the page Commons:Featured picture candidates watchlisted and noticed the inappropriate use of rollback. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My Moves

I'm guessing that the move button works now. The list at User talk:Lycaon/Move requests is still outstanding. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in, but what is the 'move' button? I thought the only way files could be shifted was by using MediaMoveBot? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'move' button was implemented for a short period a couple of months ago (admin only). Something went wrong however and that functionality has been disabled since. I am eagerly waiting a restart. Lycaon (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hans, I appreciate the concern.

Well, we´ll see what happens. Hard to say what will occur, but I am taking all the precautions that are reasonable.

I am about 400 kms from Mexico City, but the stuff is spreading fast.

I do not overlook the reports, but life has to go on. Tomorrow I travel by plane, but have my masks and hand sanitizer with me!!!

Anyway, I hope it stops soon. It reminds me of Stephen King´s novel The Stand.

Cheers,

Tomas --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Exif for Microwaved disks-cover fractal trees-scann Δ0050.jpg

This image was created with a scanner and not with a camera. May you know a programm or some tricks how I can add the exif data to that image. Please let me know if you have an idea.
--D-Kuru (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many Magnoliophytae

[2] Thanks a lot. --Eusebius (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:-)) Just coincidence. Lycaon (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Teach me something!

Hi Lycaon, I noticed some changes you made at Arthropods. Just wondering if you could help me understand why you moved the firebugs to "other Neoptera"? There is probably something abstruse about the naming structures of these things, but I checked the scientific classification of Pyrrhocoris apterus and it doesn't mention Neoptera at all. What am I missing here? Thanks! :-) Maedin\^talk 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch ;-). Systematics is not for the faint hearted. en:Neoptera has an order called en:Hemiptera where the true bugs belong. They don't have a separate subsection (yet) so they go with the other Neoptera. Maybe we should have a kind of holding pen for promoted animals, where specialists can sort them afterwards. I'd be willing to do the sorting.

In the case of P. apterus e.g. you'd have to know that they are Hemiptera to start with and then that Hemiptera is an order of the Infraclass Neoptera. Systematics are complex and large parts of it are in a constant flux, governed by new discoveries and directed by splitters and lumpers. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Kind of, ;-). It's a further distinction which isn't included in the short and sweet taxonomy boxes . . . fair enough!

Considering how long some things hang around on here without getting attended to, I think that having a holding pen would probably be more trouble than it's worth. Not all of the bugs I've put in Arthropods have been done incorrectly anyway (I hope!), and where there is uncertainty and I do make a mistake, it's probably easier for a specialist like yourself to have a little tidy from time to time.

By the way, I hope you didn't mind that I undid your edit at Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds‎, on account of the image stating that the chilensis isn't a positive identification. If you know better, you can undo me, too. Out of interest, should this have been picked up in order for it to be FP, or is having Phoenicopterus enough? Thanks for your help and the interesting answer about the bugs, :-) Maedin\^talk 06:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

response

hi, i appreciate you trying to cool things down, 2 points however:

1. i'm not the one who made it personal, i don't like being accused of cheating

2. i did not "puppet" anyone. masterasbian is a friend & college who does occasional work on wikim, nathan is another friend who i convinced to join wmc in order to contribute pics, for use on articles i'm editing on wikip. nathan wanted to try noming some of his work for FP (i did warn him of what to expect). i asked asbian to have a look @ the pics nathan chose to nom for FP, & vote his conscience. i in no way manipulated the vote. pls don't try & convince me that you never have interactions with colleges on wmc, where you discuss pic noms; this is not a sequestered jury. given the large number of "ditto" votes that my accuser seems to collect, i'd say that sockpupetting is a question better put in the other direct. if he doesn't retract, i might consider pursuing it, too.

sorry, but i don't like being called a cheater, & i don't like rudeness or excessive arrogance.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding pursuing. Here is a list of another 28 sockpuppets of mine. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Because there are only few self nominators. When opposing there is no discussion about oppose votes because that discussions comes mostly from the nominator/creator (like it is here often). So there is a nice and serious working atmosphere with freedom of opinion, that's why everybody likes to be part of. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Rooster crowing close-up.jpg

Hey Lycaon, this picture I took show's the inside of the rooster's mouth. I was informed that the teethlike structures projecting from the palate aid in mechanical digestion. Is this accurate? BTW, thanks for the welcome :) --Muhammad (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans? --Muhammad (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, lost track of this. Those projections are called papillae. They help birds hold and move food around. They are generally pointed backwards and are keratinized tubercles. Mechanical digestion mostly occurs in the stomach with the help of stones (grit) that the chicken swallows with its food. Lycaon (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Geotagging

I have seen your command:  Comment please add geolocation. Lycaon 19:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC) at Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list

Do you know the Template:location possible ? I hope for more use of this template in Commons. It would be nice I like, to make a translation of the template in vls and nl. Best Regards HBR (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys speculum (flower & buds).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments beautiful and strange flower --Ianare 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Allium roseum (inflorescense).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks great :-) -- Pro2 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:World Health Organisation building south face.jpg

Hello,

Could you please explain me what do you mean by "over-processed (also over-sharpened yielding halos)"? Also Dschwen reverted to an earlier version of the image, so on which version did you vote? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I followed Carol's suggestion, and added a separate edited version. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thnx. I'll check. Lycaon (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nachgefragt

Hi Hans, why you have removed your profile at Meet our photographers ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is out for maintenance ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In which garage is it parked ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope change

I have altered the scope of Commons:Valued image candidates/Fort Belvoir DLA building.jpg. MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Review to your vote by the Volvox

Hi Lycaon,

English: I have seen your comment to Volvox and I don't understand it (linguisticly/contently). What do you mean with 'Doesn't show depth properly'? I will try to make it better. Can you explain or show me what you mean?

best regards

--Sundance Raphael (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Deutsch: Ich habe deinen Kommentar zu Volvox meinen Bild, gesehen und verstehe ihn nicht. Was meinst du mit "Zeigt die Tiefenschärfe nicht genau"? Ich möchte das Bild besser machen. Kannst du mir erklären wie?

MfG

-Sundance Raphael (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You can answer me in English or German. (German preferred) P.P.S. Sorry for my bad English, i had only 10 yaers schoolenglish.

File:Porto Covo May 2009-6a.jpg

Hi Hans, could you please take a look at this flower? No leaves are shown and I don't have any more details near the ground. Could it be a cactus? Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bom dia, Joaquim. Your plant is an Aloe and the leaves are the spiny ones at the bottom. Lycaon (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Muito obrigado, Hans. I should have looked more carefully to the cactus-looking leaves... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Veronica prostrata subsp. scheereri (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good -- Pro2 15:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salvia verbenaca (flower spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments quality image --Ianare 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Globularia punctata (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice -- Pro2 15:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)  Neutral not bad, but a bit flat light and a disturbing linear structure in the background.--Böhringer 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

13 is unlucky!

I've counted three more times now! What support did I miss? Thanks, :-) Maedin\^talk 10:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, I finally found it! Sorry, ;-) Maedin\^talk 10:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

;-)) Lycaon (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to keep QI and FP separate for your images. If you give me a reason, I will be less likely to forget. Maedin\^talk 10:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Veronica prostrata subsp. scheereri (inflorescense).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Mathias Bigge 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

File:Receding glacier-nl.svg

Beste Lycaon, Mijn excuses dat mijn aanpassing aan het bestand enigszins prutserig was. Helaas ben ik nog niet heel vertrouwd met het bewerken van svg-bestanden. Zou U anders de spelling van bestand willen verbeteren door sander in sandr te wijzigen? Zie: nl:sandr. Met vriendelijke groet, Wenkbrauwalbatros (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Komt in orde. Lycaon (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orchis conica (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Mbdortmund 21:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support The blue of the blossom is slightly overexposed and the background is a bit distracting, but it is a good illustration, the most valued in its scope, and satisfies the six criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Weak support Although I think this classic Sturm scheme from 1796 better illustrates the leaves. The lightning is excellent in the candidate though. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Correctie bij File:Brachyura on rocks.jpg

Ik zag dat je een correctie toepaste bij het bestand File:Brachyura on rocks.jpg. In plaats dit manueel te doen is het misschien beter de NL template aan te passen. Is dit juist gezien? Wouter (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lijkt mij inderdaad opportuun. {{Own}} zou automatisch moeten vertalen. Is dat zo, ik zie dat niet aangezien ik met een engelse locale werk? mvg. Lycaon (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Only one there, and fulfills requirements. Would have been nice to see a little more of the plant for a species scope, but OK for me. --Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

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

review

•  Support Fulfills all criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Polistes bischoffi.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 --Mbdortmund 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Lotus cytisoides (Grey Bird's-Foot Trefoil).

review

•  Info Nominated as an alternative to Commons:Valued image candidates/Lotus cytisoides.jpg. --Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support because it shows the leaves as well as the flowers. The leaves seem to help distinguish it from Lotus creticus. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Lotus cytisoides.jpg: 0
3. Lotus cytisoides (habitus).jpg: +1 
=>
File:Lotus cytisoides.jpg: Declined.
File:Lotus cytisoides (habitus).jpg: Promoted.

--Eusebius (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From my talk page, one month ago. you probably already knew, but just for the record... --Slaunger (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Xerus inauris (Cape Ground Squirrel).

review

•  Support Agree with Slaunger's comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 2009-04-07 21:06 (UTC) (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Xerus inauris 1.jpg: 0
2. Xerus inauris.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Xerus inauris 1.jpg: Declined
File:Xerus inauris.jpg: Promoteded.

--Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And another one. My daughter loves this one . --Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). Lycaon (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

126 of them, and counting (18.6 % of all VIs). Impressive... -Slaunger (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Merci

Dank je voor je welwillendheid, het verwijderen van een foto op mijn verzoek :). Er zijn trouwens nog meer foto's, waarbij ik mij, in mijn enthousiasme (in het begin) heb vergis, door deze up te loaden. Daar heb ik spijt van, blijkt nu. Maar wie durft te zeggen dat hij zich nooit eens vergist? Ik laat deze, met pijn in mijn hart overigens, maar staan. groetjes --Aelske (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon, waarom verwijder je de foto zonder een gewone DR, terwijl vrij duidelijk andere gebruikers het niet eens zijn met de verwijdering? Groet, Ciell (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoi Lycaon, ik ben haast bang dat je over mijn vraag heengelezen hebt? Groetjes, Ciell (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Misschien omdat als Aelske de licentie formeel toch wel kan intrekken als ze het echt wil ([3]), en een afbeelding zonder vrije licentie valt niet meer onder de COM:SCOPE, en zal dus verwijderd moeten worden. --Wimmel (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

@Ciell. Sorry, inderdaad het oorpronkelijk bericht over het hoofd gezien. Er waren in deze verschillende opties. Eén ervan was een DR, waar zoals het er nu naar uitzag, flink op elkaars tenen zou worden getrapt. Ik heb een andere weg gekozen, die van de administrator's discretion. Het bestand werd niet gebruikt en er bestaat een valabel, zij het kleiner, alternatief. Het resultaat → geen ruzie en een bijdraagster die het project niet verlaat. Ik wil dit geval echter niet als precedent gebruiken maar als een eenmalige goodwill actie. Met vriendelijke groet. Lycaon (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Het bestand werd niet gebruikt, omdat Aelske het op de projecten al vervangen heeft ;-). Maar goed, eenmalige goodwil kan ik me wel in vinden, maar voor de andere afbeeldingen, die zij eigenlijk ook verwijderd wil hebben, hoop ik dat het inderdaad niet als precedent gelden gaat. Groetjes, Ciell (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Primula veris (inflorescense).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very nice --Ianare 15:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Beetle ID

Hi Hans,

Could you please help identifying this beetle (also here)? First I thought it was a Cantharid (Rhagonycha sp.), but the shape of the pronotum doesn't match. Could it be a Oedemera (Ocomera) femorata ? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Will check. Lycaon (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably Nacerdes melanura (Linnaeus, 1758), indeed Oedomeridae. Lycaon (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Hans! There were plenty of them last week near my house, in Lisbon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice on procuring entry level DSLR + lens for macro photography (primarily flora)

Hi Hans,

I think the time has finally come for a much needed upgrade of my equipment, which so far has been just a Canon IXUS 800 IS. My budget is not that big though, about 700 €, so I do not have much degree of freedom for getting good stuff. My basic idea is to acquire an entry level DSLR, perhaps with entry level lens kit such that I can also do "normal" photography of buildings, landscapes and so forth, and then buy a reasonable f2.8 macro lens, such that I can do some better macro shots of plants, and the occasional critter. I could be a 50 mm, 60 mm, or 100 mm (the latter is probably too expensive)

One of the paths of investment I am pursuing is the Sony Alpha series, preferably the Apha 350 (530 € including 18-70mm Lens Kit), which has this cool live-view system and tiltable LDC, alternatively "just" the no-nonsense alpha 200 (350 € w. 18-70mm Lens Kit). It seesm for me that with the Sony alpha series you get a lok of technical performance considering the price tag. It will probably be the latter as it seems unrealistic to acquire a real macro lens for 170 €, 250 € is hard too ;-(.

Anyway, I am much in doubt what kind of entry level macro lens would be suitable for such a camera. I know you are using the Sony alpha series.

I could also go the second-hand path, and step back a technology generation or two, I do not mind that, if that is what it takes to meet the budget.

Do you have any advice for me?

--Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Took a decision and ordered an alpha 300 w. std lens kit today for 470€. Realizing I cannot get decent macro within my budget I've decided to postpone the investment in a dedicated macro lens until I have acquinted myself with the new camera, which I should get in a few days. Advise concerning lenses would still be appreciated, but I am in no hurry. --Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops! You are a fast decider. I was still pondering my 'advice' ;-). Did you know the α330 model is out soon? Anyway, I think any of the three larger brands (Nikon, Sony or Canon) would be a good buy. The only small caveat with Sony (too late now I realise) is the smaller choice of glass (e.g. Sigma doesn't make its 150 mm Macro for this fitting). I originally started with Sony because I had some good old Minolta lenses, and I haven't regretted it (yet). I currently shoot with α700 and also still have my old α100. For macro I used until a few months ago a Minolta AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro. Since I bought the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro, the Minolta lens is only used for studio photography. What is also important is a good tripod. I only acquired one a few months ago and I don't understand how I ever lived without now ;-) (especially with 105 mm). Before travelling to Costa Rica this summer, I still want to get the Sigma APO 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM. To be continued... Lycaon (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not thaat fast, I have had the alpha on my wishlist for a loong time, I have looked at it in stores, I have read about it. I realize I may be restricting my future options regarding lenses, but then again I do not think I am as ambituous as the top-notch FP photographers here. I just want to do better macros in the foreseable future. I just suddenly had the money, and I could not wait one more day. A very sudden urge to consume just had to be released I got some positive feedback on the alpha, from a Danish nature site as well and that made me hit the "Order" button. --Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck. I'm looking forward to the results. Lycaon (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I got it, and here is a sample ;-) So much to learn... --Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a fast learner ;-). Now the trick is how to avoid the CA, that could be an issue with the kit lens at wide angles with strong light... Lycaon (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the kit lens probably has not the best CA properties. A while ago I read a procedure for how to correct that in postprocessing. I think I should start going to raw mode such that I have better possibilities for doing postprocessing and correcting such issues (until I get better glas). --Slaunger (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/T-37 solo student pilot.jpg

Redone scope. 174.50.24.223 02:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Polygonatum odoratum (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Well done -- Pro2 20:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Shows flowers, leaves and fruit, all important features of this species, the quality is fine, and satisfies the other criteria as well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Papillae

Hi Hans, Regarding the rooster's mouth,

"Those projections are called papillae. They help birds hold and move food around."

I have nominated the image at en FPC and have been asked to provide reference for the function of the papillae. Could you please provide any? Sorry to bother once again and thanks for the help. --Muhammad (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the licencing

I uploaded five files that were a derivative of this file (this had the {{GFDL}} permission template), the derivatives I uploaded were:

1. File:Gurmukhi kakka.png
2. File:Gurmukhi khukha.png
3. File:Gurmukhi gugga.png
4. Gurmukhi ghugga.png
5. Gurmukhi ungga.png

currently the files I uploaded have the {{self|GFDL}} permission template. But I was wondering if this should have the {{pd-ineligible}} template instead. Since the files I uploaded were of the Gurmukhi script alphabets, so would they need {{pd-ineligible}} template instead of {{self|GFDL}}. Gman124 (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a licensing specialist; so may I refer you to Licensing, where I have copied your question? Cheers Lycaon (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. --Gman124 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ajuga reptans (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Podarcis siculus cropped.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 Bit shallow DOF & posterised but enough for QI. --kallerna 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Milvus milvus (portrait).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 09:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neotinea ustulata (spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please assess. Lycaon 08:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Bit noisy & not sharp, but enough for QI IMO. --kallerna 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why restore?

Hi. Why did you do this restore? I'm a new admin here and don't understand. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 12:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This was a copy of the .2 version which was queued in Commonsdelinker already. No big deal here, but better check where all versions of a duplicate reside before deleting. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did check. I deleted at 11:50 UTC when it was not used. You changed a nl.wp page at 12:11 UTC so that it was used - after restoring it. But I did not check the Commons Delinker area - I will check that in the future. Wknight94 ^talk 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neotinea ustulata (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice, better than the first two --Ianare 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Entomophthora muscae on Scathophaga stercoraria (lateral 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  Support Very nice. Yann 09:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Oh, you have Pedicularis as well. What your camera hasn't seen?!? Anyway, very nice image. For the Pedicularis palustris, I think you can actually identify to subspecies level. For instance, in Denmark, we have two visually distinct subspecies, ssp. palustris and ssp. opsiantha. I do not know which subspecies are known in Belgium, but from the shape of the inflorescence and the upper/lower lip flower size I would say ssp. palustris. So I am wondering if a subspecies scope would be more relevant? I am on thin ice tough, as my feedback is solely based on this comprehensive Nordic flora book "Den Nye Nordiske Flora", which I just got today, which is the flora reference for the Scandinavian countries. I am not yet very familiar with it and its terminology. What do you think? --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of subspecies (for P. palustris) seems to be a Scandinavian issue. Apparently P. p. ssp. opsiantha and P. p. ssp. borealis are northern forms. We only have Pedicularis palustris ssp. palustris, the subspecies level is not even mentioned in any of my floras. Maybe a species scope would be sufficient until quality pictures of the different subspecies turn up? Lycaon (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the three subspecies you mention are quite different in their visual appearance, they even have distinct vernacular names in Danish. The ssp. palustris (this one) is called Eng-Troldurt (Meadow...) 15-40 cm has this relatively compact inflorescence, where the leaves and flowers become increasingly more dense at the top. The ssp. opsiantha is called Høst-Troldurt (Harvest...) and that one is taller, 30-80 cm and has a more cone-shaped inflorescence and not so dense. Finally, ssp. borealis is called Nordlig Troldurt (Northern...) which refers to the borelean climate region in which it is distributed. The inflorescense of that one is much more thinly populated with leaves and flowers, and look overall more "fragile". So, I tend to believe that a subspecies scope is warranted in this case, irrespective of whether the subspecies are irrelevant in countries other than the Scandinavian ones. --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Pedicularis palustris (Marsh Lousewort) to Pedicularis palustris subsp. palustris (Marsh Lousewort) Lycaon (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

---

•  Support Scope issue resolved. --Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support That was an easy review. No competition. Actually no competition nowhere near in the taxonomic tree. Excellent image. I am not capable of checking the ID, but i trust you on this one. --Slaunger (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Andreas Waldherr Lavanttal Rallye 2009 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Andreas Waldherr Lavanttal Rallye 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Tel-Aviv-100

Regarding my Image Media:Tel-Aviv-100.JPG, Do you belive that I should nominate it for Quility Images? Rastaman3000 (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why have you reverted Orbah1's edit? Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion. Lycaon (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a sockpupput. Check the IP to find out. We are even not on the same ISP. I find your accusation very offensive. Rastaman3000 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad, but can you blame me? Two new Israelis out of the blue, straight to FP, no contributions on any wiki to speak off and voting for the same files in a same way. Suspicion warranted. I haven't asked for a CU (yet) but will be keeping an eye. for now I will AGF. BTW, My link was to meatpuppetry, not sockpuppets. Lycaon (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ingelborchtoren.jpg

Thank you for your help. I like this version very much.--Szilas (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cetonia aurata on Crataegus monogyna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good composition and details --Ianare 00:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the Quility-Image rules

I shall quote the relevant parts: " If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section." "To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day." "Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined."

You have opposed to the nomination of my picture Tel-Aviv-100.JPG . I've had an objection, and then, according to the rules, I have change the /Decline to /Discuss

However, you have decided to break the rules, and to change it back to /Decline, before it was moved to Consensual review. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=21834839)

I see that very seriously, and consider it as breaking the rules. Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how much time Lycaon has at the moment and whether he has seen your concern. I can not see that this has been dealt with elsewhere, so I will add my 2 cents worth :-). Looking at the edit log comments it appears Lycaon thought he had accidentally entered /Discuss instead on /Decline when he reviewed it, and so "corrected" it back to /Decline. I expect that if you had added a comment as to why you disputed his review then he would have realised that he had not just mistyped the entry. I am happy to extract your nomination from the archive and put it back into Consensual Review if you like, but I think that you will find that you will have to de-noise the sky and sharpen the image to meet QI requirements :-). I would have suggested that you need a smaller aperature (higher "f" number), but maybe the camera is not capable of that. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. I shall try to fix the image a bit, and then I'll nominate it again. Rastaman3000 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys apifera (pale form).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 --Mbdortmund 19:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sunset - Oostende.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 composition and atmosphere --Mbdortmund 15:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bellardia trixago (spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments clear composition and nice Bukeh --Mbdortmund 17:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys incubacea (flower spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Mbdortmund 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys neglecta (hypochrome flower).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good colours and composition --Mbdortmund 01:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider your vote

The image is now geocoded, and the scope has changed. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/IDF_camouflaged_APC.JPG Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrrhosoma nymphula (closeup).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 details and colours, it's a pity that DOF is a little bit shallow e.g. the tail of the insect isn't in focus, else would be FP-material --Mbdortmund 10:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smilax aspera (fruits).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 10:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys fuciflora (plant).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 sharp, good DOF --Ianare 06:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys lutea (flower).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Cleaned. Ok now. Maedin 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nuphar lutea (flower).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. Maedin 13:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Himantoglossum robertianum (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good detail shot --Ianare 06:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dactylorhiza majalis (spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice colors --Ianare 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dactylorhiza praetermissa (plants).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A little close on top but otherwise very good --Ianare 06:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Coupure

Hallo Hans! Dank voor je erg leuke reactie op mijn foto van "Dwars door Brugge"! Inderdaad: de Coupeure... Ik was die dag toevallig op familiebezoek aan de Coupure, waar ik heel mijn jeugd heb doorgebracht. Ik had helemaal geen rekening gehouden met de stratenloop, en had ook alleen maar mijn 'oude' Canon-cameraatje mee voor wat familiekiekjes. Maar ik mocht de kans niet laten liggen om dat vrij ongewone beeld vanuit een bevoorrecht standpunt vast te leggen. Hartelijke groet, Marc (MJJR).

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thomisus onustus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK For me. --ComputerHotline 08:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paeonia mascula subsp. rusii 5.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. Maedin 08:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Polygonatum odoratum (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment the white floral parts are IMHO a bit overexposured, can't you provide an exposure which is a bit darker in these parts? --Mbdortmund 10:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)  Done Lycaon 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I think it's OK --Mbdortmund 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reseda alba (flower spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good enough for QI. --Romanceor 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sanguisorba minor (female flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok now. Maedin 08:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anemone nemorosa (flower).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like the contrast --Ianare 09:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Antidorcas marsupialis 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 nice --Mbdortmund 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Papaver hybridum (inflorescense).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Lovely. Maedin 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

HELP! :-)

Ahoi Hans, I have problems in identifying this species. File:Podarcis sicula rb.jpg. I assume it's Podarcis sicula as the picture in the german de:Ruineneidechse article looks very similar and a google search shows many similar pictures as well. But there are many variations in the drawing which confuses me. Any idea or literature ? Thank you in advance. Richie   • Richard • [®] • 00:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No ID(ea) ?   • Richard • [®] • 14:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops sorry, got lost in the QI's ;-). I'll check. Lycaon (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

:-B   • Richard • [®] • 14:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Done ! My reclaimed ID skills was successful :-)   • Richard • [®] • 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Windmill D1 (Thornton Bank).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --Mbdortmund 01:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Agama planiceps (female head) - Kunene.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. --Romanceor 09:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Antidorcas marsupialis (laying).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. --Romanceor 09:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orchis mascula (trio).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 --Ianare 10:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys speculum (flower profile).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --Mbdortmund 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Colaptes auratus MP2 NR.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colaptes auratus MP2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neotinea lactea (plant).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 Ugh, unfortunate background! But the plant is clear. You get bonus points for it being a touch off-centre, too, :-) Maedin 19:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Muscari comosum (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice one! Maedin 19:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Filipendula ulmaria (flower spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Focus isn't perfect, but overall quality is good. Maedin 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dactylorhiza fuchsii (plants).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 Focus isn't perfect, but overall quality is good. Maedin 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Sari.jpg

Hi Hans, have you any further to add to this, or is the lack of geolocation a showstopper for you? --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. Lack of geolocation is a showstopper but that doesn't mean Yann should provide coordinates. A mentioning that this is not in Asia and that the location is not given for privacy (or other compelling) reasons would suffice for me. Lycaon (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Schoolhouse

Thank you for the helpful critique of the one-room schoolhouse image: File:OldChaskaMNschoolhouse.JPG. I have uploaded a new version with what I hope is a better white balance. Jonathunder (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

published

Hi Lycaon,
I've put the published-template on the first six of your images from User:Lycaon/Usage. In case you had permitted to the re-users not the mention the license, you might correct the "missing" notes that I have included. --Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-). Lycaon (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orchis italica (flower spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Ianare 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orobanche crenata 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  Support Cool photo --George Chernilevsky 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophrys fusca (flower spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A flower with hairy tongue? Image is good --Ianare 12:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question I am a little confused about the geolocation. I had expected water there. The resolution is rather bad in the area though. And a supplementary ignorant question: This is a sea water fish, isn't it? --Slaunger (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I quote Fishbase: "Inhabits hard bottoms (under stones) in streams, rivers and lakes, rarely in brackish coastal waters.". It was photographed in a small river (Viroin). The resolution of Google earth is not that good there but if you use the map option of Google Maps, it will show more details. Lycaon (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks you for explaining me that. I have no further reservations. Fulfills all criteria. Technically not on par with what you can do, but this is not FP nor QI. Good enough for VI. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anthyllis tetraphylla (plant).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 Nice photo --George Chernilevsky 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Belgian Police boat SPN-15.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 --George Chernilevsky 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrgus malvae.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 --Mbdortmund 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anguis fragilis (curled up).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 photo of this lizard --George Chernilevsky 19:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Veronica prostrata subsp. scheereri (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. Maedin 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orchis morio (flower spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments tilted ? --Ianare 10:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Not tilted that I can tell. Seems good to me. Maedin 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hans, thank for ther correct id... believe it or not, I appreciate it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lagis koreni 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good photo of little worm --George Chernilevsky 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anagallis monelli (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice colours and composition --Mbdortmund 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clavella adunca.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 Nice photo of uncommon and tiny biological parasite. QI --George Chernilevsky 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)