User talk:Lycaon/Archive 17

Giraffes

Bonjour,

Je vois que tu as retouché quelque peu mon début de catégorisation des girafes. Ne penses-tu pas comme moi qu'il serait bien de séparer en deux catégories distinctes les images de girafes en zoo et les images de girafes en liberté comme j'avais fait pour les ours blancs ? Teofilo (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think this would be appropriate for categories. In a category structure, users want to find animals not whether they are photographed in a zoo or elsewhere. This is however possible, and often OK to do in a gallery, as you have a much higher control there on how you sort your images and moreover you can add an informative caption. I'm not opposed to having redirects of the most common species names (within reasonable limits) to the relevant scientific category. Lycaon (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is your view, I think it would be better that you start a talk at Commons:Categories for discussion about all similar categories under Category:Animals in zoos. And perhaps about Category:Animals by condition, where the "captive" / "in zoos" partition is starting. You might be interested in reading Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/06/Category:Animals at the Philadelphia Zoo too. Teofilo (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into this. Lycaon (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo series

Excellent photo series and obviously very valuable to wikipedia. The current file name of the Afrotis is a bit problematic as you may have noticed. JMK (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the mongoose seems to be G. flavescens, or Galerella (sanguinea) flavescens. Contrary to Helogale parvula, it has a long tuft on the tail tip, which is black, but hidden by shade here. Also one tone to the pelt, rather than two, and the horizontal slit in the pupil. Maybe you want to change the file name also. It may be the first photo of the Angolan species for wikipedia. I assume this one to be too far north to be G. sanguinea of central Namibia, while G. flavescens is said to occur in open habitats of northern Namibia and Angola. JMK (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for noticing. I have a few more pictures of this one (not commons quality though). I'll have a look and then change the name. Thanks again :-). Lycaon (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that File:Slender Mongoose Etosha National Park Namibia.jpg This specimen (probably the same species) was also taken in Etosha but identified as G. sanguinea. Lycaon (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bruges, Rozenhoedkaai in QI

As Nominator, I think that I've not the right to put my own pic in CR (I know I'm quite alone with this opinion, it's my stupid personal rule...). Nevertheless, I've tried to fix the tilt of this image red-framed by you. Would you please have another look and maybe change your vote ? Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jebulon, I still think the quality isn't up to par. But you do have the right to ask for a second opinion and refer the picture to CR. Lycaon (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Then the problem was not the tilt... Maybe another reviewer will disagree with you... But I still think it's not up to me to refer it in CR... Anyway, thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The original problem was mainly tilt. That is better now, but not yet perfect. There are, IMO, a few other issues as sharpness and CA. I've switched to 'discuss' to ask for other users' opinions. Amicalement. Lycaon (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sacred Lotos, QI-candidate

Hallo, I have overworked the picture "Nelumbo nucifera". Would you please be so kind once again to have a look on it. I'is in the consensual review. Thanks --Llez (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll check. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Gargoyle at the tower of St. Nicholas Church.jpg

Hi Lycaon! You seem to be qualified in judging photos. And as I want to learn how to improve my photographs, I want to ask you if could tell me what you meant with poor lighting regarding File:Gargoyle at the tower of St. Nicholas Church.jpg? Another user recommended me to lighten the shadows which I in fact did. So are the shadows problematic? Or what else? … And why is it needed to take pictures of gargoyles just from the top side? That gargoyle looks IMO also interesting from the bottom side, independent from the impracticality of taking the photo from the top side. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I too find gargoyles difficult to photograph. It is obvious, from their nature, that their underside will often be in shade. That's not necessarily a problem for the use as illustration in an article, but may render them less likely to become a QI, IMO. Not every good (and usable) image has to aim for a QI stamp (or FP, or VI for that matter). I've also dabbled in gargoyles, which I don't consider myself good enough for QI, but which are nevertheless useful for articles in English and Dutch wikis. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

One little thing I forgot: when you can get that close that you can use a wide angle lens (18 mm according to EXIF), you may be able to use some fill-in flash to alleviate the shadows. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your hints! —DerHexer (Talk) 22:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Pompidou2_Metz.jpg

Bonjour Lycaon, vous m'avez laissé ce message: Désolé to have to disappoint you at your first uploads, but there is no Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in France, so those images had to be deleted. Est ce que celà signifie que je n'ai pas le droit d'importer des images de ce bulding sur COMMONS ? Ou est ce que je me suis trompé de licence ? Je suis novice dans ce domaine. Merci d'avance. Salutations. Feunnn 15:02, 25 Juin 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, the building is regarded as a work of art for which the artist (the architect) is still alive and thus his work is copyrighted, so unfortunately no pictures allowed of this building. The license was fine BTW. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudu

Hans, la photo est un peu sombre... Amicalement--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The image was taken rather early, which accounts for the darkish colours. I've lightened it up a bit now. Better? Lycaon (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Prafait! mais je n'ai pas eu le temps de voter favorablement, c'était déjà fait! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tragelaphus strepsiceros (male - head).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good --Pudelek 07:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alitta succinea.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 & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg

It's geocoded now.

Cody escadron delta (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed. ;-) Lycaon (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2010 (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:
Chalcophora mariana (Flatheaded pine borer).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria meet --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates rules

I am not a lone supporter. I linked to the vote which showed that a majority were in favour of thios being a test period. Alvesgaspar is trying his damn best to destroy the links, but the majority said it should be a test period, and so it is going to be. I'm not going to sit by and see the votes selectively applied, where only the votes which Alvesgaspar likes the result of get implemented, particularly given his manipulation of the vote. See COM:AN/UP#Alvesgaspar, where I set out the details in full. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't revert again, but you will see that you will find yourself the lone supporter in the end. Sorry Adam. Lycaon (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thank You for File:Calocoris affinis.jpg BG nr. Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lierse stadion

Bylbyl (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Hallo. Het bestand File:Lierse_lisp_-_tribune_III_leeg.png was, net als enkele andere foto's van het lierse stadion reeds getagd vandaag. Verzoek om toestemming voor gebruik en vrijgave van de betreffende bestanden is verstuurd naar Lierse, met goede hoop op psitief resultaat. Ik zie dat jij nu een "request for immidiate delation hebt toegevoegd. Ik heb deze er terug afgehaald. Kan je dit even laten rusten tot (officieel) antwoord van Lierse ontvangen is aub. Dank. Bylbyl.

Ik hou dit in de gaten. Je hebt een week de tijd. Groet. Lycaon (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect QI closure

Sorry but your closure of Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2010#File:16 Ostfriesische Landschaft.jpg still appears as not correct. High Contrast voted at 10:31 and you closed at 10:40. Voting appears to have been open when he voted. --Elekhh (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if you are correct. The word 'minimum' is the clue here. I will restore ASAP. Lycaon (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I guess i need a better camera to do it better. regards--Ankara (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently your camera is fine, as just a little tweaking did the job ;-). Regards. Lycaon (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Watermark tag removal

Hi Lycaon, I noticed you just removed the {{Watermark}} tag from File:Goodyera-repens-mgk6.jpg - however this image does have a watermark in the lower-left corner that still needs to be removed. It is a bit difficult to see - is this an error? Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It was getting late ;-). I searched but didn't find. I'll remove it right away. They can be quite tough little buggers at times can't they? Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job :-) Thank you. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Squirrels

Hi, Where did you find the information regarding the Indian squirrel? (not that I object to your classification, I am quite a newbie about biology, but I might be able to do it myself next time ;o) ). Do I rename the image now, or do I wait for the end of the VI review? Yann (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Salut Yann. I noticed that User:Shyamal changed the ID for your images. I then checked with available resources and indeed, your squirrels have five lines instead of three. Another name for F. pennantii is the five-lined squirrel. I can confirm the rename. Maybe best to let the VI run its course. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2010 (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:
Afrotis afraoides (Northern Black Bustard), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria meet --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 Support Agree with Archaeodontosaurus. Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

QI File:Black iPod Nano 4G.jpg candidate

Hiho, I've uploaded newer version of photo which you opposed, can you take a look at the new one? Read my info: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Black_iPod_Nano_4G.jpg. Greetings, Jackzor (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (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:
Kurtiella bidentata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

No geocoding is a stutio shoot.  Support Best in scope! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orchis × angusticruris (inflorescence).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 subject and very good pic IMO. --Jebulon 22:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image set "Tobacco"

Hallo Lycaon, according your suggestion I removed the last picture of the set. As I was absent several days, I couldn't react earlier. Sorry! Would you please review it again? Many thanks --Llez (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Those two pistols

Hello,

I am sorry to disturb you with this, but I wanted you to know that I have edited the two photographs of pistols on which you've commented (File:SIG P220 IMG 3089.jpg and File:SIG P210 2nd series IMG 3085.jpg). I would be grateful for your comments should you have any. I value your comments very much as they help me improve the quality of my images. Thank you in any case for those that you have already given me. Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not think the edit is sufficient. The soft edge is now inconsistent with the sharp details on the guns. It looks wrong. May i ask where you took the images and if they are reproducible? If so I might have a few suggestions on how to retake the images so that this crude cutting out is not necessary. --Dschwen (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

They were taken in a museum, behing a display glass. Rama (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So you removed the dust on your computer ;-). That's nicely done, but the white background and cutting out leaves them with a lack of 3D feeling. I will remove my oppose and reset to nomination as the images have clearly improved. Any chance of uploading an original into the file history? Just upload it over the current version and then revert so that the original is accessible for us purists :-). Lycaon (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tried improving the edges on File:SIG P210 2nd series IMG 3085.jpg, what do you think of this version? Thank you and cheers! Rama (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost there I think. The edges look fine. I would do a 25% desaturation to remove the reddish and greenish shine (glass or background reflection?). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Darn, it's a hard life on Quality Pictures for a colour-blind. Thank you so much for your advices, it'll really have beena co-production. Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine (or not really) but there is hope. :-)). Lycaon (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Traduction

MMerci pour ton aide sur mes traductions en anglais, j’ai modifié les photos où il y avait plusieurs vues du même objet. Je regrette de ne pas avoir appris l’anglais, ce qui me prive de nombreuses discussions intéressantes dans Commons… --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Anytime ;-). Lycaon (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Permission

Hello! My name is Mary Trainor and I am currently interning with the University of California Santa Barbara’s Marine Science Institute. I came across the photograph of Pliace found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pleuronectes_platessa.jpg and was interested in speaking with you regarding obtaining permission to use this photograph in an educational booklet on marine reserves. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Mary

Commons:Valued image candidates/Stutz Blackhawk automobile.jpg

Hello!

You have voted this VI-request as oppose with the comment that there would be no scope. Can you explain where exactly the problem is in this case? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You...

...know only the words "decline" or  Oppose?! I haven't seen till now any [[support}} of you. Sorry, but that are the quality image candidatures, not the excellent one. Best, ☼alofok☼ 07:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the rules/guidelines and look up the word quality sometime... Lycaon (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the answer to my question. I haven't seen till now any [[support}} of you. Do you knows what  Support means? ☼alofok☼ 07:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk again when you have 30000+ posts, shall we? Lycaon (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care how many posts you have. But if you don't like the photos, maybe you should try to take better photos instead of voting against photos which are definitely good enough for QI status. -- Felix König ✉ 12:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this won't do: come back in 2011? Lycaon (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally im not against hard critics, but perspective corrections are an illness, since it is impossible to correct an image with an higher angle then 90° at all. If you remove this "distortion" you distort the reality, since every real perspective projection has three distance points. --Niabot (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

VIC scope changed

Hi Hans!
Look, please, Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Juglans_regia_2009_G2.jpg
With best regards, George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Acknowledged. Lycaon (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Valued image candidates/Pseudacris regilla Tree Frog.jpg

Sorry, I thought you could do that when the issue was addressed. I am still fairly new to VIC. Thanks for warning me! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Biodiversity Photo - route

Hello Hans Hillewaert,

My name is Rita Neves. I work in Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, that is a Public Organism in Portugal. Actually, we are working on a road book of Biodiversity of Lisbon, for which we are going to produce a panel and a brochure. We found your photos on Wikimedia Commons and liked specially one of them very much, so we would like to know if you could allow us to use your photos, for free, to publish on this project, knowing that the brochure of will be for free distribution to everyone. The photo we are considering to use are the following:

800px-Sepia_officinalis http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sepia_officinalis_%28aquarium%29.jpg

The brochure will have four brackets. - Broochura a pocket to take the route - A brochure to present the day of inauguration

- Schedules for species identification
- Panels that will be fixed in the Land

As i said the Free Access will be everything :)

If you are the author and provide us that photo, we will refer your name in the bibliografy and we need to know what´s the name you want on the bibliography? Hans Hillewaert ? If it´s possible please respond to ritasoraia2001@hotmail.com or rita.neves@cm-lisboa.pt or here on Wikimedia.

Thank you very much. Our best regards

TseTse Fly?

Hi Lycaon, If you are around, could you help us to confirm the ID of this fly Commons:Valued image candidates/TseTse Fly? Or elsewhere indicate a contributor knowing theses kinds of insects? Thanks in advance, --Myrabella (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Myrabella, I seem to have missed this one. After reading the threads in history, I couldn't apparently have contributed much more. For this type of identifications, research and contacting relevant specialists will always be the best way to go. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2010 (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:
Ploceus cucullatus nigriceps (Layard's Weaver), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope but "Ploceus cucullatus nigriceps (male hanging).jpg" is a great shoot! Congratulation --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:24, 9 September 2010 (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:
Ploceus cucullatus nigriceps (Layard's Weaver), female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All crietria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 9 September 2010 (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:
Pycnopsis brachyptera, female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:26, 9 September 2010 (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:
Uraeginthus angolensis (Blue Waxbill), female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria met ---Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2010 (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:
Tragelaphus scriptus (Bushbuck), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2010 (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:
Chlorocebus cynosuros (Malbrouck).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Criteria satisfied; best in scope. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (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:
Parinari curatellifolia (Mupundu), fruit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Equus quagga burchellii (Black-on-white or white-on-black).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 QI & useful Archaeodontosaurus 17:09, 7 September 2010 (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:
Nuraghe Ardasái, Sardinia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Is the location correct? The object is hardly recognizable on the imagery. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good call! The EXIF GPS coordinates were indeed not entirely correct. I have shifted them to the right place and added a heading. Lycaon (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Demande d'aide

Peux-tu relire la traduction anglaise de cette photo; je ne suis pas très sûr de mon travail de traduction, Merci.

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Lycaon (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Scarlet Ibis (2).JPG

Salut Lycaon, je me suis permis d'enlever la demande de permission sur cette image, qui m'a été cédée par son auteur sans conditions. Il y a plus de deux ans que je n'ai pas été en contact avec cette personne, donc je me vois mal la recontacter uniquement pour lui dire : "tu sais les dizaines d'images que tu m'as données, il me faut un mail d'autorisation, etc." J'assume la pleine et entière responsabilité juridique de leur téléchargement en cas de litige, ce qui a fort peu de chances de se produire. En tous cas merci pour ta vigilance. Pour info, au cas où tu serais plus souvent sur Commons que sur Wikipédia en français, je suis administrateur là-bas depuis un bon moment et ai justement pris en charge la gestion des images problématiques il y a environ trois ans. Je ne te demande pas forcément de me croire sur parole, mais disons que mon ancienneté et mon implication sur le projet sauront peut-être te convaincre de ma bonne foi. Cordialement, Alchemica (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci mille fois d'être allé m'enfoncer dans une page de suppression plutôt que de me faire part de ton désaccord ici ou sur ma page de discussion, très aimable et vraiment très révélateur de l'esprit de merde qui règne sur ce projet. C'est bien la dernière fois que je m'embarrasse à faire la moindre demande de suppression de copyvio, à donner mes photos ou à servir d'intermédiaire pour ce projet. Pas cordialement, Alchemica (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2010 (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:
Malaconotus sulfureopectus (Sulphur-breasted Bushshrike).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose Branch is blocking part of bird, thus fails criterion 3. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment This is the best (only) we have. Not the best conceivable. All identifying parts are visible, no other bird can be identified as this one with this image. Lycaon (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The mark VI is not given a definitive. It can be reviewed at any time if the best candidate. The bird seems to me very identifiable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I ageree with Archaeodontosaurus and Lycaon. Rare and criteria met for VI IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met. --Quartl (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Valued image candidates

Hi, you voted oppose this photo with reason: Scope too narrow. I changed the scope form “Grandmaster's Palace Corridor Frescos” to “Grandmaster's Palace Interior”. Do you think that is OK?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arnoglossus laterna 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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 09:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

VIC

Hello
According to the rules, this is to inform you that I added the word "branch" in the scope of this candidate. Thanks for reviewing anyway !--Jebulon (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Sansibar_Dhau1.jpg

Lieber Hans, danke für dein Review dieses Bildes. Ich habe es wie gewünscht gedreht und etwas anders geschärft (vorher war das Wasser ganz ungeschärft, jetzt leicht nachgeschärft). Ich stimme dir zu, dass es bei voller Auflösung nicht perfekt scharf ist, denke aber, dass es bei normalem Betrachtungsabstand (1-1.5x Diagonale) schon scharf ist. Nominiert habe ich es, weil ich es von der Bildkomposition her dem bereits als QI eingestuften Dhau-Bild überlegen finde. Was meinst du? --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ikiwaner, I'm normally not very fond of resizing to obtain a sharper image, but the colours and composition of your image are that good that I will remove my opposition to your photograph so that the next reviewer can (will) promote it. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the full resolution version is also available for those who know how to handle it. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured video

Hello Lycaon,
May I ask you why you have removed the FP tag of that file Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 720p.ogv? It had been reviewed and featured, see the discussion about the higher resolution version : Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:STS-132- Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis.ogv... --Myrabella (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops sorry, that was a mistake. I thought this was the lowres version. Lycaon (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Belgica (Lissewege).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 --Kae 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Solar windpower (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 Nice. --kallerna 10:05, 17 September 2010 (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:
Tripneustes ventricosus (West Indian Sea Egg).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boletus parasiticus on Scleroderma citrinum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2010 (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:
Boletus parasiticus (Parasitic bolete).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2010 (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:
Phyllorhiza punctata (White-spotted jellyfish).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support all criteria met. Only natural color photography of this scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Question We don't see the tentacles here; they are apparent in File:Phyllorhiza-punctata-1.jpg. Are they a significant feature? --Myrabella (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment The (8) stout feeding appendages together with the typically bluish-brown bell with many evenly distributed opaque white spots are most characteristic for this species, and also its size. Each feeding appendage also sports a retractile ribbon-like tentacle which is not always apparent (here two are visible). Lycaon (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Shows distinguishing features well and is likely to enhance and increase interest in an article on this species.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chroicocephalus ridibundus (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 Ok. --kallerna 20:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Liocarcinus vernalis 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 good --Mbdortmund 19:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Somaticus aeneus 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 Very good for the small size. --Quartl 07:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Xerus inauris 0.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 Wow! Surely hard to take such a picture. Very good.--Jebulon 09:51, 21 September 2010 (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:
Malacoctenus boehlkei (Diamond Blenny).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met, rare and nice photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2010 (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:
Aplysina archeri (Stove-pipe Sponge).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very good, all criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Purple Darter

Hi Hans,

Please take a look at this darter. Looks like a male Crocothemis sp. (body shape, wing venation, etc.) but the color is really weird. Any idea? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a vagrant African species. I'll check. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was found in the interior of Portugal, near the border with Spain. Plenty of them around. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Could also be a Orthemis sp., File:Dragonfly on a lilly.jpg. But what about the yellow patches in the base of the wings? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Trithemis spp.? I.e. Trithemis annulata? Lycaon (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right, thanks! T. annulata it is ([2]). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Masking of Pompey the Great

Hi Lycaon.
Many thanks for your review, and for your help with comments. I think you are right and will try to improve following your advices.--Jebulon (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ô grand-Master, where is the way of the Middle ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a tough and arduous road to perfection :-). I've been practising for five years now and not nearly satisfied yet... Lycaon (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Hans!
Many thanks, you have put things in order in categories of mushrooms.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Equus burchelli 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 It is pity that illumination is from left and head is oriented to right so it is little bit dark, however QI standards anyway. --Chmee2 11:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

narrow roundabout

in Commons:Valued image candidates/Koszalin roundabout Gdanska JPII 2010-08.jpg you said that photo is too narrow. Have You meant height or width? Thx. JDavid (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Answered on VIC. Lycaon (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Remerciements

• Ces félicitations me sont d’autant plus sensibles venant de toi, qui a un jugement toujours aussi strict que juste.
• Congratulations to me even more sensitive from you, which judgment always as strict as fair.

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you stop, please?

Posts like this one really are not helpful. Please disengage rather than bandy about accusations. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Twee maten en twee gewichten", I don't know the expression in English. Just look it up. Lycaon (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Deux poids, deux mesures ?" It is an idiomatic expression. "Double standards" is not perfect. "Two sets of rules", maybe. I prefer latin, remembering the Io story: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. (But in this case, I don't know who is Jupiter, and who is the cow) LOL ! --Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I get "Two sizes and two weights" which I guess could be "double standards"... but I'm not sure I know what you mean to imply here. My request is simple, that you disengage from doing things that cause conflict. The request applies to Mbz1 as well. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you will get it now? Compare this to this. Though I admit there are worse offenders. Lycaon (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are a good contributor, but also I think some of your edits could have been better designed to calm potential conflict.[3] Subsequently, other reviewers made many of the same points, in a kinder manner, and the image was not promoted. But, your edit unnecessarily angered Mbz1 and by questioning her judgment, it was arguably a personal attack. This is admittedly old history, but it occurred after several people, including myself, suggested that you might refrain from commenting on Mbz1's work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I very much respect your judgement, Walter, but I don't think you can compare a rather rash assessment of a nomination with all the insults I've had to endure (without reciprocating, mind you) the last few years. It is not fair that some users should be exempted of critics by some other users. Furthermore, I'm not judging her noms any different than those of other contributors, including my own. If I'm not mistaken, I supported one of hers recently. That's why I feel that Lar is applying double standards. Lycaon (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lycaon, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I am talking about your behavior, not anyone else's. The post I cited in the opening post of this thread is unacceptable. Please do not do that again. That's it, a very simple request. You can't justify it so do not do it again. ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed? I'm talking about your behaviour: the double standards. Please desist. The post you are referring to, whether you like it or not was to the point (don't ask what you refuse to know or acknowledge), not to prove a point. I don't need your insinuations. Lycaon (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk about my behavior. However it IS a place to talk about yours. Do not post a post like that one again. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop you threats. Do not post a post like this one again. Lycaon (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chalice Pizino MBA Lyon L689.jpg

Please come back and have a look at the alternates I added, thank you! --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FPC

Hello.

Question : why do you have reverted my modification here ? --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You are a bit in a hurry aren't you? At the time of your new nomination there were still two active ones. Best thing is to renominate. The timing is there for a reason. Lycaon (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All fine now. Merci. Lycaon (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Featured Picture Candidate Barnstar
		For helping to keep the FPC standards high, great job! The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about a world-around unanimity here ... --Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boletus parasiticus on Scleroderma citrinum (HDR 4).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 Better light, sharpness not perfect but enough, interesting phenomenon. QI IMO--Jebulon 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mullus surmuletus.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 Why so tight crop on left hand side? --kallerna 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC) It's only black, it can be easily extended if necessary. Lycaon 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Crop fixed --George Chernilevsky 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus 19:05, 30 September 2010 (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:
Leccinum aurantiacum (Red-capped scaber stalk).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Well done, all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Aleuria aurantia (Orange Peel Fungus).JPG

Hi Lycaon. Yes, it is still there, and I took your suggestion. I opened a MVR for the new one. Cheers, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not around. The new one looks much better indeed (and will be duly promoted). Lycaon (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification

You voted on page Commons:Valued image candidates/Stagmomantis dimidiata.jpg. Scope was changed from Stagmomantis dimidiata to Stagmomantis carolina. Please review again. --Butko (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Equus quagga boehmi (couple).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'd be happier if both zebras were in focus, but since this is a wildlife shot I'll settle with one. --Quartl 16:39, 4 October 2010 (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:
Owenia fusiformis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support single image in this scope, and very good one --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:48, 7 October 2010 (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:
Phyllodoce mucosa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support single image in this scope, and very good one ----Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:49, 7 October 2010 (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:
Acanthochondria cornuta.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Codophila

Hi Hans,

Who identified your image of "Codophila varia"? I'm no expert but still quite sure it is a Carpocoris - most probably even C. purpureipennis but these are a bit iffy to identify from photo. I'll place a remark to the effect in the file description page. Cheers, Arp.

Thanks Arp, looks like a Carpocoris indeed. I'll have another check. Lycaon (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Brioche aux pépites de chocolat.jpg

Many thanks for wb improvements !--Jebulon (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Anytime :-). Lycaon (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Touché !" ;)) --Jebulon (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support single image in scope but very representative of the species --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope

Subject is File:StuetingsMuehle 1.jpg I'm a newby in VI/QI. I don't understand your request for "scope", I tryed both, typing the category and the file description in this field. The picture is the (technical) best of this building in Commons, all other pictures of this building are my work as well. Which description of scope is needed, since the building himself having no article as its own? -- THWZ (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As it is now it is not suitable. Please first read Scope. If you still have problems you can always ask again, Kein Problem. Grüße. Lycaon (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the short answer, I'm a bit short of time at the moment, will be back tomorrow early. Lycaon (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2010 (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:
Antalis vulgaris (Common tusk shell).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope. Too bad he lacks the size. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Indeed, I'll measure 'em and put it on the description. Lycaon (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Lycaon (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)