User talk:Lycaon/Archive8

Archive 1 (3 Jan 2006 – 8 Jan 2007)
Archive 2 (11 Jan 2007 – 30 May 2007)
Archive 3 (30 May 2007 – 2 Aug 2007)
Archive 4 (2 Aug 2007 – 24 Aug 2007)
Archive 5 (25 Aug 2007 – 16 Dec 2007)
Archive 6 (17 Dec 2007 – 27 Apr 2008)
Archive 7 (27 Apr 2008 – 30 Jun 2008)

Category:Brachyura

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

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

Rana what ? :-)

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

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

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

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

Flora/ plants of categories and species association

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

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

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

Forgive me

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

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

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

Image:Babesia life cycle human en.svg

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

• 
• 

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

Commons:Valued image candidates/Earthworm faeces.jpg

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

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

OK, I am wondering how important the taxonomy is for the scope of "Earthworm feces". I considered supporting it, but on the other I guess (this is not something I know of) that the way the feces look would depend somehow on the taxonomy, so I do not think I will vote either. You do not have to reply on the mail, as things are now..., but of course, if you choose to, that will be welcome too. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

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

Result: 1 support
=> Promoted

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

the Prins

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

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

Delete Image

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

 Done Lycaon (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Lycaon, Now I have 10 FPs. Can I join Commons:Meet our photographers ? -- Laitche (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

15,000 edits

This one, actually ;-). Lycaon (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007/Results/Round 1/Gallery

Hi, Hans, I remember for sure that my turtle image got fifth place and that there was a night image of something above it. Could you please explain to me how the turtle moved up to the third place now and where is the night image? An error? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Something weird going on there. I just woke up and will look into this later today. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is something terrible going to happen

I just wasted about 10 to 15 minutes looking for a category so that I would not just leave it. If you could wait until I have finished before deleting.... -- carol (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Viaduc du Vaulx01 1988.jpg (noise reduction)

Hello Lycaon, I noticed that you uploaded a new version of this image. While I see that you gave it a fair try of improving it, I wonder whether with slide photos at the image base, it is the done thing to blur away the photographic grain. I somehow feel that the image grain is part of the character.

And if I look into the top right corner of the image at 100 percent resolution, I see that the processing has led to artifacts or patterns similar to a JPEG overcompression (which it is not). Different areas of the photo are affected differently by the processing you applied as the slides where somewhat bulging when being scanned so some parts are full in focus and some slightly out of focus.

Retaking the photos would incur a delay of 20 years... ;-) -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've noticed. The grain is a bit too course to get rid of I'm afraid. I'll revert. Maybe the slides would have to be 'treated' before applying panorama software. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying anyway. I found it instructive nevertheless to see what the processing did and did not achieve. As for the slides, it was film that I could buy at a reasonable price in these days, and hence it was not the top-of-the-range material, and this even more holds for the processing that was included in the price. You may see some marks which I think happened during film drying, although most of them I have cloned out. Still the 50mm lense I used apparently was not that bad. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Brachyura

Hello,
This modification is not very scientific. When you reference someone or something, you are not supposed to change its words.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you are right. Would this do for now? Lycaon (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained edit

Hi, Hans. I am not sure I understood what wat this edit by benh about. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed and I understood it as the removal of a withdrawn image. Lycaon (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, even a withdrawn image should get result line and be placed to archive, but I've never withdrawn the first image only the second one. So IMO the first image has passed. I believe benh should have known better. Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

He did put it to archive, just a litlle bit too soon.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hans. I really do not think benh could bring nominations up and down in the list as he wants. The nomination was clossed. It was out only for 30 minutes or so. If you believe that my withdrawn note applied to both images, please do not promote either, if you believe it applied only to the second image, please promote the original, which passed, but I really do not think the nomination should be put for the voting at the beginning of the list once again. For now I removed it from the list. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Request

Hi Lycaon,

Who better to ask this than a marine biologist and frequent contributor to the Wikimedia Commons? I was hoping I could talk you into photographing s ome red algae. I need it for a book chapter I'm working on over at Wikibooks. I have been searching for red algae pictures for a long time, and I have not had much luck. It would be best (for me) if you could find some really common red algae - the more common and widespread, the better.

Thanks! --Jomegat (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If I get could get some images of these, I would be most grateful:

• Laminaria digitata
• Prionitis lyallii
• Neorhodemela larix (Black Larch)
• Mazzaella affinis
• Endocladia muricata (Nail-brush Seaweed)
• Osmundea spectabilis (Sea Fern)
• Hymenena flabelligera

--Jomegat (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Hans. The best specimens for my purposes would be any that are globally distributed (or at least widespread), but I'll take anything I can get. I know I posted my request shortly after you indicated you would be away for a while, so I thought you might have missed it. Wikipedia - great as it is - has very little info on algae, and especially red algae. I will probably end up making stubs there for any images you can provide. Thanks again. --Jomegat (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Hans, Maybe you can help me figure out what species this is? Image:Algae bladder 4290.jpg I took the picture in January when I was in San Diego, California. --Jomegat (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Loligo vulgaris.jpg, which was nominated by Adam Cuerden at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Loligo vulgaris.jpg/2 has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Widely-used image with appropriate descriptions, categorization, and geocoding on the image description page. A Featured Image and Quality Image to boot. --jonny-mt 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Fits all the criteria. --jonny-mt 01:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support All OK. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Linum usitatissimum (seedpods).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 Bokeh sucks, but nice colors and composition, DOF isolates a few plants and prevents clutter. --Dschwen 00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Asterias.svg

Hi! I just wanted to ask: Shouldn't some of the starfish's water vascular system be included in this, or some note clearly stating the scope? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Only photo of fan spikemoss on Commons, scope is relevant, although the flash lightning with all the reflections is unfortunate, I still think it illustrates the subject well, it is geocoded (exotic and hard to get to place I must say). With the revised TOL guidelines being rolled out these days, some users would perhaps have preferred that a species category was created, the gallery associated to this species category and, the category on the image page pointing to the species category. However, the image is in a nicely created image gallery which is OK for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

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:
Anatomy of Asteroidea.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose I thought this diagram was the best of what was available but the good people at wikispecies thought that a photograph was the proper way to illustrate this branch of the taxonomy tree. I wouldn't mind knowing the opinion of the nominator about this. -- carol (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  I happen to respect/trust the opinion that was expressed about this at wikispecies and I am very curious about the nominators thoughts about this. -- carol (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Question Do you have a reference to the opinion that was expressed about this at wikispecies? I see you replaced the nominated image with a (good) photograph there, but I do not see any discussion about it there? I agree with you though, that this illustration is not well suited for illustrating starfish on Wikispecies. Especially the numbers on the illustration are confusing in the Wikispecies article The photo you replaced it with on Wikispecies is probably better for that purpose. However, the scope of the Wikispecies page is Asteroidea and not Anatomy of Asteroidea, so I fail to see why the use/non-use of this illustration of Asteroidea on Wikispecies has any relevance. Do you feel the other image is better at illustrating the anatomy? -- Slaunger (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I put this image there; it was replaced and the reason given was that a photograph was the optimal/preferred way to illustrate the subject. I actually agree with what your support statement said, but I was told differently when my edit at wikispecies was changed back to the photograph. It is one of the reasons that I would like to know from the nominator the reason it qualifies as the best image the commons has to offer for illustrating the subject. -- carol (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I think a generic illustration as this one is the best way to illustrate the anatomy of a starfish. Also, I think it is the best one available, the scope is relevant, the illustration illustrates the scope well, there is a nice multilingual legend, so the image page is OK and so is the categprization. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support as Slaunger. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Satisfies the five criteria (geocoding is not relevant), in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be honest. It was Lycaon himself who removed the image from wikispecies claiming that a photograph was the best way to represent a genus (or whatever it was in the taxonomy tree that I put it on). I am very interested to know or see the nominator of this image explain or clarify the change of opinion that is implied by its nomination here. -- carol (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing up two different things. The scope here is Anatomy of Asteroidea, not Asteroidea. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You might very well be correct with this guess -- until Lycaon explains it though, it is a guess. I suspect that the answer will be interesting at least. -- carol (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Banksia acanthopoda

Yep wrong ID it was Banksia nobilis, I'll re reuploading under the correct name had to remove them as soon as I was aware I'd hate someone to end up with the wrong information. Had it been reviewed at QI I didnt even check. Gnangarra 11:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

they are all back see them at User:Gnangarra/gallery#Fri_Aug_01_21:28:18_GMT.2B08:00_2008....Gnangarra 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Banksia genus have dramatic flower and leaf shapes, if you ever get down this way let me know I find some flowering specimens for you to photograph. Gnangarra 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a deal!! Thanks a lot :-). Lycaon (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

European boy

Maybe keep an eye here for related activity? Let me know if you want more. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The Balkan is a touchy area. For some user actions CU is not necessary though: some people can be very transparent ;-). Lycaon (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Paldiski Lighthouse

Hi Lycaon, I now provided an edited version of my Paldiski Lighthouse photograph, if you'd like to reconsider your QI vote. Thanks! –Dilaudid 21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Paste?

That first image was paste wasn't it?

It was still superior. I can't read focal length information and make sense of it -- it has been too long and I wasn't good at that before either.

You should consider allowing me to paste these things for you; I am not that bad at it (as whoever pasted it was). -- carol (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That first image was paste indeed. I was convinced it was crop only, until I uploaded the 'new' crop :-(. The pasted section came from the cropped area. I have that many images to process that I forget what was done to some a few months ago. I still have the 1200 from Switzerland from two weeks ago and Spain (Ebro delta) and Sardinia of a couple of months ago are not yet 100% handled. Then there are all the local early summer orchid trips, and my job... I've taken almost 5000 pictures since I bought the Alpha 700 half April this year. I'll get to it, eventually. Lycaon ( ) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect request

Hi, could you please unprotect Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png as to more countries have to be coloured, see w:Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence for verification or at least colour Columbia and Belize yourself, thank you --Cradel (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! El Perelló - Windmill.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 good to me. --Bdesham 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beware of warthog.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 technical quality. (Also a rare sight in the U.S. ;-)) --Bdesham 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ranunculus glacialis (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 very detailed Ianare 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Slavkovský štít–panorama.jpg

Hi, could you please tell me a little more about what did you mean when writing: I don't like the crop. The foreground confuses the background or visa versa. How a better crop would look like? It happens often in pictures take in the mountains, that the scale is lost. --Sfu (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have uploaded new version of Image:Místek, Kostel svatého Jakuba, zákoutí.jpg - I tried to reduce the noise. Is it OK, now? If not, could you help me and tell me, what should I do better? Post-processing or camera settings? Thanks a lot :) --Daniel Baránek (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crossing the Kafue (Zambia).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 Surprisingly sharp and a crop which is typical for africa. --Ikiwaner 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cuscuta europaea (on Urtica dioica).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI, probably they all are. One at a time into the QI Gallery though.... -- carol 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cray-fish August 2008-1.jpg

Hi Hans,

This one is all yours! Found in the port of Porto Covo, in a rocky beach, walking towards the sea. Looks like a small lobster (about 10cm long) or a fresh water crayfish, but I have no idea of the species. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch Joaquim, missed this one. It is most likely a European crayfish (Astacus astacus). It probably took a wrong turn as it is a fresh water species ;-). Lycaon (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Hans. I hope the poor thing has realized in time it was making a fatal mistake! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Acacia pictures

As I've said it's not possible. I would need to cut down the other trees just to get a photo of the whole tree which I'm sure the Government Departments wouldn't like as it's Crown Land. Bidgee (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bummer. But as you have been making plenty pictures of this tree already, one will eventually make it to VI I'm sure. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats all I'm taking of it. Other photos here was taken with my old camera which has since been replaced so I thought I'll do the same with the photos. A photo of the whole tree would just look like all of the other Wattles (Acacia) out there anyway if it is to become possible in the future (which I highly doubt ATM) so I worked out that a photo of a leaf and flowers would be the best to show on how it's different to the other Acacias in the wild. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paronychia argentea (flowers)-cloned.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 DOF. --Lestath 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated Information on Beetle with slug

Hi Lycaon, thank you for your comments on Commons:Valued image candidates/Beetle with snail body! I just recently received new information about the species and have updated the pictures. Thank you for reviewing it! -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons Scope - Pdf and Djvu files

I have added some text dealing with these based on the discussion on the talk page. Users are by no means unanimous about which files should be allowed, and I have tried to follow the majority opinion. Thus, the suggestion is that if a Pdf or Djvu file is educationally useful even to a single other Wiki it should be kept. Would you like to comment before this page goes live? Please do so at the bottom of the talk page. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a weenie but one sometimes

You are not a weenie because you allow a real name (which is probably yours) online and it is really easy to find. But you step over that line into weeniedom when you disregard and ignore dust spots in your images and the adequate and thoughtful repair of them. This is paragraph is simply my opinion, so whatever.

My question for you today is what is more important? That QI green spot on an image or a nice (and professional in looks and presentation) place for it to be at while hosted here? -- carol (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to enlighten me on the 'dust spot' ? Lycaon (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Eight days ago is a long while, but yours was one of the first images I saw the dust spots in the sky of. You did something with that image which triggered an ire in me that brought forth the word "weenie" -- do you remember what you did with that image? -- carol (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I remember the issue vaguely, but not the image itself (I need my RAM for stuff like this). These days I remove dust spots with the Blemish Fixer of the Makeover Tool from Corel Paintshop Pro X2. At the other hand I bought a different camera about four months ago as the Sony alpha 100 got bumped (and has recent been repaired under guarantee!!), and I try to keep it dust free ;-). Lycaon (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The xls file gave me options and I opted for no. I apologize and perhaps I am the weenie for having even brought this all up. -- the weenie today, carol (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very confused that Microsoft Office would be delivering xls files as binaries. I looked into the whole xml thing for the site I was involved in redesigning -- I even attempted to work with some of it (the computer I was designing for did not have modern enough software to continue with that whole suite of organizational fare). Can you tell me what I could not see here that is in that file? I expected to see style rules for documents. -- carol (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hemidactylus mabouia (Dominica).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 would recommend cropping, perhaps to 6:4 --Bdesham 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)  Comment I wouldn't, but I'd like to see the vignette weakened. –Dilaudid 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)  Done. Lycaon 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC) A decent shot. --Bdesham 14:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about that with the jellyfish, i am too slow to realise somethings sometimes :P, oh and thanks for leting me know by mail -LadyofHats (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ensis ensis (Baix Ebre).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 details --Mbdortmund 22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Equus quagga burchellii (group).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 21:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ranunculus glacialis (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good detail Ianare 06:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support It's the most illustrative of the scope because of better composition. Geocoded, categorised and described. --Sfu (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria are satisfied. Especially I like that the type of habitat of this plant is pictured here. --Sfu (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

declined. -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smilax aspera (leaf).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 Technically there is nothing wrong with it. --Massimo Catarinella 10:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Polistes dominulus nest 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 photo which meets QI requirements. Bidgee 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Satifies all criteria. Superior to the second best image Image:Campanula thyrsoides.jpg as it better shows the whole plant, the habitat (and the overall image quality is better too). -- Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

Promoted. --Sfu (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider

Labeled SVG rendering

Hi Hans,

I would like you to reconsider this edit. The closure has been done in full accordance with Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules, it has been open for more than a week and close to the top of the stack, such that other reviewers have had their chance to give other opinions. It has also been discussed before if it is OK that closures are done by reviewers and it was agreed that it is OK as long as we wait two days after the last comment. You do not agree with my review, I am sorry, but it is my opinion, that I cannot see the whole plant, thus my repeated request to narrow the scope. Evaluating images is not an exact science and subject to subjectivity. I urge you to undo your reopening as it is against the rules. Thank you. The image can be renominated if one or more of the issues leading to a decline is adressed. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hans, I think Slaunger is right on this one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The rules say can and not should. Especially when a discussion is ongoing without outside involvement. Lycaon (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

More than two days had gone from my latest comment, I was sure you were aware of my latest comment since you were active in the period, which I interpreted as if you a. either agreed in my view (where I had explained that I has introduced some confusion by using the term stem, when I really meant stalk), b. still disagreed but had no further to add. The reason we have the can clause is because closure requires human intervention, and there is no guarantee that I (or another closer) is around every day. Another reason is that we do not want to discard reviews just because they come in late. I will gladly admit, that this particular candidate is close to being a good illustration of the scope and good for making a principal discussion about species scopes and VI such that it can make precedence for future reviews. However, instead of making a point by reopening a closed candidate, I would suggest to raise this as an issue on Commons talk:Valued image candidates to seek wider community consensus on what is considered a good illustration of a species scope, and whether we need to change or modify existing procedures and guidelines. We have had quite a few plant VICs now, and I think we have enough to make a comparative study of the reviews and see if they are consistent. I still urge you to reconsider your reopening. Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was unable to further the discussion as I had no access to commons on 18/08 ([1] and [2]). Lycaon (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are they pushing you to make a set? This is the flower that is never seen with its leaves? Heh. -- carol (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But you were active on VIC the day after my last comment. Pretty hard not to interprete that as presence... -- Slaunger (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim, have look at this picture, as I don't think you've understood the photograph as yet. Lycaon (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed correct. Until now, it has appeared to me, when I saw the photo that the small, out of focus twig(?) of the right hand side was the stalk! It never ocurred to me, that the stalk was so short. Now that you have shown me in your figure and pointed out the plant structural elements it is as if it is a completely different picture. Now, I see what you mean, and now that I see it, I agree it shows the whole plant and is a good illustration of the subject. That of course makes me regret the rant I just wrote on the VIC page, but I wrote that having the twig in mind as the stalk. So, sorry about that. I was wondering if the twig could be cloned out as I really find it distracting? Others may be detoured as I was when inspecting the image. The figure you made now is very helpful. Thank you. Communication is hard... -- Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sorry I was so hard-headed and insistent. I had been thinking on making that image a couple of days ago, but I only today downloaded a test version of CorelDraw X4, with which it was a breeze. Where do we go from here? Lycaon (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggest we just move on;-) As you may have noticed I have refactored my stance on the review, as I had completely misunderstood the composition. I just feel embarrassed by what I wrote, but I hope you can see what I saw, and understand that with that view my comments made sense? For me, the plant almost looked like the wild daffodil on the main page today, only with a a fraction of the stalk being visible - until you enlightened me... -- Slaunger (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jellyfish

Thank you, i was already thinking you would hate me for the rest of eternity and would never ever again correct my typos , and i was so unsensible and so... SSSOOORRRYYYYY :P.

I honestly had not realised how the whole thing was working even before making the first image. in many sences you can say i am like an elephant in a porcelan store. I hope you dont feel bad about this for far too long i really really didnt do it on propose,^_^. Ok but talking seriously, i do not agree with your about not being able to do it in the same quality. your svgs are quite good and so full of details. one can really see you improve with each new one you do. I could garantee that if you dont give them up you will one day be much better than me ( since i am so lazy and you arent :P)... oh yeah thanks for the support with the buging biologist, it is funny thanks to him i learned the meaning of a new word...Querulent). i will not let that bring me down is a bit like my husband said, the bigger the dog the more fleas you can expect :P.-LadyofHats (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

About Sensl

Hi Hans!

Just a question about our deer Sensl.

I really dislike his comments that are not courteous (I also saw the comment he left on your discussion page... really nice!!!).

I think that his opposes or supports cannot be counted in the results because they are biased by a revenge.

I know who this person is (you probably know too). I've no formal proof but there are too much coincidences (same spelling mistakes, history comparisons...).

So what can we do????

Thank you.

Nicolas.

QI Weak support

In one of your tallies, you counted a weak support as a zero and in another it was counted as a full vote. Which will it be? -- carol (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I? Support should be a + and oppose a –, disregarding the weaks. I'll check. Lycaon (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the "weak" thing there, btw. It starts to add "feelings" to image review and QI is supposed to be about technical aspects and I personally have enjoyed that. It is a world filled with shades of gray and in the few instances where the answers are somewhat black and white, it seems kind of sad to make that yet another shade of gray. Then there is the problem with peoples gray matter working instead of other body parts doing the thinking for them -- but, another time for that :) -- carol (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, sorry about your Campanula glomerata, by the standards you use it fails. Very pretty picture however. -- carol (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after checking, I didn't count the weak as an oppose. I asked Ikiwaner on his stance ([3]), and he adjusted his vote without updating the tally ([4]). Lycaon (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am back here (glad for the reply but not the purpose of the return) just to say that when I get my camera, I intend to photograph for the standards that you set for other people and not the way they get flexed for your photographs. It is a good standard you have for others, in my opinion and one that your photographs often meet. -- carol (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I will help more there soonish -- I am learning about the different circumscriptions of the Euasterids II, past and present. It is also interesting how far I can go learning something long after it occurs to me that people are basically not sane. All of the different "snapshots" of living things and then the next "snapshot" of them with technology that sees smaller details. One of the more interesting not sane endeavors I have seen.... -- carol (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cuscuta europaea (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cuscuta europaea (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 {{{3}}}

Poefen

Dit van een sporadische bijdrager. Ziet er goed uit, kan het ergens genomineerd worden om wat leven en nieuw bloed in de brouwerij te brengen. (Ik zal proberen meer dergelijke jachtbuit te vinden en hier te poeffen indien er geen bezwaar is). --Foroa (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Zeker geen bezwaar, poef maar ;-). 'k Zal eerst 'ns op QI checken wat ze ervan denken. Lycaon (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PH-3

Hallo Hans. Toevallig merk ik vandaag dat je mij in september vorig jaar al toegevoegd hebt aan de gebruikerscategorie "PH-3". Het was mij niet eerder opgevallen... Ik wil je - weliswaar met bijna een jaar vertraging - bedanken hiervoor: ik stel deze blijk van waardering zeer op prijs, zeker als die komt van een straffe Common-ist als jij. Ik ben nu al ruim anderhalf jaar actief op Commons, en beleef er veel genoegen aan. Ik durf mijzelf evenwel niet echt beschouwen als een 'goed Commons-fotograaf', ook al omdat ik nog steeds met mijn eerste, bescheiden digitale camera werk. Die Canon PowerShot A620 is best een goed ding in zijn soort, en erg handig bovendien. Maar na vele jaren dia's genomen te hebben met een Leica R6 met 28mm shiftlens, ervaar ik maar al te best de kwalitatieve beperkingen van die Canon. Ik zal ooit toch eens werk moeten maken van de aanschaf van een digitale reflex... Ondertussen: een hartelijke groet vanuit Brugge. -- Marc (MJJR (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! L'Ametlla.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}}}

Please unprotect Image:CountriesRecognizingKosovo.png or update it yourself :)

Greetingss. Malta recognized Kosovo today, and therefore its grayness on the map needs to be updated to a dark green dot. Please do it yourself, if you insist on keeping this rather unproblematic asset protected. Unlike otherKosovo recogniton maps, it only depicts factual data, agreed on by all sane observers, so I really see no point in protecting this. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Latania lontaroides young foliage (detail).JPG

Thanks for the improving. Don't be so sad about Belgium. I have from there some ancestors too and some good moments of happiness. Thanks for Campanula thyrsoides, I love this flower. Do you know a new Campanulaceae species has been recently discovered in Réunion [5]. Cheers. --B.navez (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Satisfies five criteria; camera location is not applicable (lab photograph). It appears to be the only photograph of a Category:Amphilochidae on Commons. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info All of the Caribbean islands have one or more endemic anoles. Dominica has only one, but the four subspecies have a strikingly different appearance. This is the interior uplands subspecies. Lycaon (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Satisfies all six criteria and it is from a roadless area of a Caribbean island. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

It's rather late for this, but I wanted to thank you for nominating two of my uploadings. As far as I can see usually users nominate just their own works. Thanks! Gidip (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Campanula thyrsoides (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 One of my first botanical great emotions, decades ago. Quality of the picture gave it me back. --B.navez 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Campanula thyrsoides (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 Very fine and interesting details. --B.navez 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment I realize, that this plant flowers before the leaves appear, but to properly illustrate the species as the scope it should really still show the whole plant (to illustrate the subject well) and not just the flower. I would support though, if the scope was changed to Costus spectabilis, flower. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Flowers and leaves are not simultaneously. I take a few week in between normally. You get one or the other and taxonomically the reproductive part is (arguably) the most important one. Lycaon (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think we misunderstand each other. I am aware I can not get an image with both leaves and flower. My reason for proposing the scope change is that I cannot see where the stem ends. That is, I do not see the whole plant and IMO that should be visible in an image to illustrate the species. And concerning the importance of the flower - well if it were not for the leaves, I guess it would not be able to make the productive organ at some other time anyway;-) Since the flower is really the only completely visible phytotomic(?) structural element of the plant, I am really of the opinion that a change in scope is in order in this case. Do you follow my reasoning in this? -- Slaunger (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  I follow, then, yet again... this is a cryptophyte. In Eastern Zambia, where I used to live and where the picture was taken in my 'garden', most of the year you see nothing, then all of a sudden the flowers appear from fleshy leafless rhizomes. Then a few weeks later four fleshy leaves come up, the flowers by then being gone. Actually, what you see is what you get and quite typical for C. spectabilis appearing after its period of dormancy (winter/dry season). So I still think the scope is appropriate. Lycaon (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose OK, I think I can conclude that we simply have slightly different views of whether the image illustrates the subject well. For me the image has to show all structural elements of the plant normally visible in its habitat at the given state in its life cycle. The problem is that I see a part of the (very unfocussed) stem, but not the plant in entirety. I would happily support the image if the scope was narrowed to "Costus spectabilis, flower", which is also a relevant scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's weird. Would you also oppose a picture of a banana plant because the stem is not (never) visible? Or a picture of a dodder because you can't see the leaves (it doesn't have any). In this case C. spectabilis, which is a ginger, btw, has a rhizome from which the flowers and leaves come up. The trigger for the flowers to appear has to do with a combination of raising temperatures and air humidity. You will never see a 'stem'. Similarly, you don't see a stem on e.g. Colchicum (a stalk, yes) or even on a Dandelion?! The only way to show a complete plant would be to dig it out. Would that be the most valuable image? Or is a valuable image the in situ picture of a plant in its natural environment? In other (or your) words: all structural elements of the plant normally visible in its habitat at the given state in its life cycle are visible. It is furthermore not as if there is a great choice of pictures of this species on Commons or even on the internet (the only one in natural surroundings I found was this, and that one is from wet tropical forrest, where leaves appear earlier on, and not from a seasonal dry area as Eastern Province in Zambia, where leaves don't show up until the rains arrive.). Lycaon (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have confused you by using the word stem. I really meant "stalk" - I am not so familiar with the English phytotomic terms as with the Danish ones, and I was too lazy to look it up as I thought I had it right. And the flower sits on a stalk, right(?), and the stalk connects the plants with its roots and the soil. The stalk is only half visible and out of focus, and I cannot really see where it ends. Thus, I do not see the visible structural elements of the plant in its given state. Therefor I reason that it does not illustrate the whole plant well. And, no I do not want you to dig it up, nor to remove other naturally occurring plants next to it as it is part of its natural habitat, and it is also acceptable if other plants partially hide structural elements of the plant. The problem here is that the image is cropped such that I cannot see where the stalk ends, and I have no feeling of how elevated the flower is. I would not oppose an image of a banana plant because the stem is not visible as it is not a structural element which is visible. A valued image of this species would have shown the observer where the stalk ends (be it disappearing in weeds). Even though that is not the case it is still valued, but for only for illustrating the flower of this species. I do not think that is weird, but rather reasonable. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with your swift decline and request some other knowledgable person commenting. All structural parts of the plant are shown and nothing has been cropped but by the soil the plant arises from. Lycaon (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment As I have mentioned on User talk:Lycaon I find it problematic that VICs, which has been closed according to unambiguous procedures are reopened by a nominator, because the nominator disagrees with the outcome of the review. In my opinion, there has been ample of time for other reviewers to voice their opinion on this candidate, and the nominator has been active doing VIC reviews after my latest comment on the review prior to closure and has had a fair chance to add further comments/arguments.

It is not that I have anything in particular against hearing the opinions of others, it is the opening up of a fuzzy pathway, where it is legalized to revert a closed candidate, if you do not like the result, and where the line between an open and closed nomination becomes fuzzy. That is a mess, which we should avoid.

Secondly, just because an image is declined it does not mean it is "dead" from a VI point of view, as it can be renominated at any time as long as one or more of the concerns raised during the review is addressed, i.e., in this case a slight modification of the scope.

In case the disagreement reflects a general distrust in my judgement as a reviewer or VI closer I suggest discussing that at my talk page. In case the dislike of the result represents a disagreement with how current guidelines are written or interpreted, I suggest initiating a discussion about that on Commons talk:Valued image candidates, such that needed improvements can be agreed upon and implemented.

In lieu of my general high respect for the nominator as an editor and administrator, I have not reverted the reopening of this candidate, although I really think that would have been justified. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Support I realize I have misunderstood where the stalk was. It is very short and yellow. I saw the out of focus twig as the stalk, which was the reason for my previous oppose. Did others see that as the stalk as well? Could it be cloned out?-- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted.

Image:Jarsy DentDePleuven.JPG

Hi Hans,
Thanks for your critics. You're right. I tried to improve this picture I find rather fine for a compact camera shot. But I think it would be difficult to meet minimal QI requirements. Original details of the canopy were just a very little bit finer. These are also my first steps with noise reduction and I am not skilled yet. By the way, this was the place (on the crest in the rear) where I met my first Campanula thyrsoides when I was 10 ! --B.navez (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

PS : I have allowed myself to identify the seaweed you've been asked above.--B.navez (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Churche in Kvam.jpg

Hello - it's good, thank you :) --Pudelek (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

For undo your edit. But i am not understand: a thousend images a noisy too... Канопус Киля (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Канопус Киля (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Colleague, I moved starred in another photo. Here, with focus, in my opinion, no problems. Rate it. This Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, as seen from the Neva. Thank you! :) Канопус Киля (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry, we edit conflicted. I'd added my nomination and a ~~~~ lower down on the page was converted into my signature diff. I went back and removed that, but I must have edited a previous version and conflicted with your change. Sorry about that! TimVickers (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem resolved. No probs. Lycaon (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Crystal King.jpg

Hello, you reviewed this candidate a few days ago, you said that it didn't meet criteria 5 & 6 (which you were correct it did not). Once I saw this I immediately geotagged the Image and added any categorize that I saw the image may have fallen into. I was just wondering if you'd be willing to look at the image again and possibly re-review. If you still believe the image to not be VI quality you can, of course, maintain your previous statement and maybe even a new one. Either way thank you for your time. --IvanTortuga (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Species categorisation

Hi, If you could cast your eye over the category the {{query species}} template puts images which don't currently have a binomial categorisation, or which need reviewing, it would be much appreciated.

In some cases the issue isn't so much the actual image/media, but the fact that intermediate layers of the classification/categorisation don't yet seem to exist as commons cats.... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about a review

Hi. First, thanks for your reviewing work. It might be an unrewarding task, but it is essential to the notion of quality or featured image on Commons, so thank you for that. About this review, what do you mean by "And this is QI, not FP"? I don't get you. Are you refering to the previous comment? -- Eusebius (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was referring to the 'wow' factor. This is an important part of FP assessments but does not come into play at QIC.

Oh, OK. Actually I remember now having the same reaction when the remark was first made. Eusebius (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, reviewing is not unrewarding, though often frustrating ;-). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is my personal opinion of reviewing in other domains :-) Eusebius (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I stop following this page. EOT. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know that in the last six or seven years, I am the only person I know of who has been able to say "I was wrong" about something or anything? The last person I heard who had the balls, gumption or strength of character that apparently is needed to articulate such a universally shared fact was McNamara (one of the people involved in the United States Government and our lovely invasion in Viet Nam) who said 20 years later that they had done something wrong and that they had not understood when they did that little war that the Vietnamese were not anyones enemy -- they just wanted to be left alone. While reviewing images can be frustrating; what kind of super-strength does it take to admit that individuals or groups of individuals had made mistakes? When an individual or group of individuals never makes mistakes, are they human? Lycaon, have you ever made a mistake? -- carol (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You want diffs? And please do not use my talk page for blogging. Lycaon (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I will take this into account and never start to do that. Please allow continuity; if the User:Lycaon did not like an image to represent a genera at wikispecies, then the User:Lycaon should be able to address that inconsistency when putting it into a review for VI. Consistency among user decrees and communication attempts are not "blogging" and where I come from, a fairly computer savvy group, it is called web logging and it occurs via software dedicated to that. Communication via wiki talk pages, the request for consistency and continuity is more like a check for reality and intelligent life than it is like "blogging". Consistency and continuity is beyond the abilities of current wikicommoners? -- carol (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

http://carol.gimp.org/bikeshed/golden-rule.html a reference to assist you in knowing the difference. -- carol (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sea of Galilee 2008.JPG

Hello. How can I add that image, that I took, to the vote-page (Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list)? I have tried to do it, but - as you saw - i have failed...thanking you in advance, Pacman (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Noise

Hi! Since you already once told me that you don't like noise and I have a few new concert pics of which I think that they are quite promising I wanted to ask what software and/or filter you are using so that I can try to remove the problems from the images where the camera included noise reducer was not good enough. -- Cecil (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FPX to FPX contested

Hi Lycaon. I changed FPX to FPX contested[6] because the template was once again used against its purpose. The template is to be used when there's a clear guideline violation. This isn't the case here, so the usage of the template is not legitimate. So I don't see any reasons why I have to support the picture just to be able to change FPX to FPX contested in this very case. --norro 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Campanula barbata (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 Why have this wonderful bells waited so long before they've been noticed ? --B.navez 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Rename Image

Can you rename Image:Yellow-crested Cockatoo-Biblical Zoo.JPG to Image:Umbrella Cockatoo-Biblical Zoo.jpg please, as I made a mistake when I uploaded it? Thanx in advance, --SuperJew (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Lycaon (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

FPC Closing

Hi Hans, i will be in Switzerland for a couple of days. Can you go on with the closing process? I will be back next wednesday. --Simonizer (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• You work enough on Commons, let me take care of that, now that I'm back from vacation. Benh (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks ;-), I'm trying to do my bit. But I will be less active soon as I'm going at sea for five weeks (less the weekends) from next Monday and ships and internet are still not too compatible... Lycaon (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

QICR

I am leaving that current hoard of images and those votes so you can "take your victory run" and see what goodness has been done there. Me biting it and counting up the votes of stupid and double standard people is a very boring show. The sweeping of crap and putting it into where good reviews used to go is a task better left for the taskmanager who accomplished it. -- carol (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rosa canina (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 Very nice colours Ianare 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Question On the image page it says the length is +-4 mm? I do not understand what is meant by that. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Same remark as with A. swammerdami. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Support Good, now even a physicist finds the notation unambiguous. All criteria met. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Question On the image page it says "Length: ±4 mm". What does that mean? -- Slaunger (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I changed ±4 mm to ~4 mm. That is probably a more accurate notation. I'm just too used to those fast writing scribbles, where this one (+/-) is much clearer to read afterwards than (~). Lycaon (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

   Support Ah, you meant approximately. Well you could also just write "Length: Approx. 4 mm". No further objections, all criteria fulfilled. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Polygonum viviparum (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 and sharp enough. --LC-de 06:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erodium ciconium (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 Excellent detail, could do with a bit more DOF, but a quality image. TimVickers 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Commons:Valued image candidates/Passiflora foetida 1.JPG

Grrrr, I've changed my scope, kept flower cause fruit could be another one.
I hope the wine warehouse keeper wouldn't mind cause I've geolocated his fence.
So you may reconsider your votation, if you want so.
Cheers.
--B.navez (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower

• Jeśli masz zastrzeżenia do perspektywy mojej fotografii to porównaj ją proszę ze zdjęciem Transamerica Pyramid. Pozdrawiam.
• If you have objections to the perspective of my photographs to compare it with a photo, please Transamerica Pyramid. Yours. Albertus teolog (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do you want me to have objections? Lycaon (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria. Interesting plant and image. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coccoloba uvifera (leaves).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, composition so-so. What camera is this Hans?... -- Alvesgaspar 20:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boscia foetida.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 DoF is a bit shallow, but it is surely sufficiently illustrative of its subject in high detail. Ram-Man 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Belgium

For much more than half a year now I have been considering the environmental conditions that exist in different areas of the world. Not by my own choice I have recently been required to consider politics and infrastructure of the different areas of the world and I am having some questions about Belgium in particular. There is public education with a certain set of requirements and an academic standard that is at least attempted to maintain? Electricity and indoor plumbing and what a citizen of the United States might consider to be post-modern conveniences. Is it the year 2008 there? -- carol (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You should have opened the excel file after all: you would have learned something about the level of education in Europe and Belgium in particular. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If there needs to be particular software installed to acquire this information, I will probably be needing to lower my expectations. I imagine now that one in every five children obtain education and that they are required to study from borrowed books by whale oil lamps. If I have offended anyone due to too great a standard, pass along my apologies. -- carol (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

Hi, I processed the closes you made this morning. So here you go:

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

Thanks! naerii 16:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)