User talk:Sarefo

Image:Pachycondyla.harpax.larvae.-.wheeler.svg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to add license, fixed. --Sarefo 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:World.distribution.sauria.1.png

Hi Sarefo, I was wondering about this picture. According to the map, lizards are found almost anywhere except in the coldest regions, but not in large parts of North America. More specifically, the distribution of Sauria seems to stop with the Canadian border. Is this correct? It seems like a mistake... Steinbach 12:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

huh, good question. i have no idea whatsoever about lizards, so i blindly copied the map from the book. however, consulting wikipedia ;) on Lizards in Canada, it says that there are five species present there, all present in southern regions. i can't say exactly how much north they reach, but i guess the map is more or less accurate. if you want to see really bad maps i drew, check some of the spider family pages, especially in the central asian region. actually, i stopped doing maps afterwards, because i saw i'm not very good at it. thanks for pointing this out! --Sarefo 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phyllium.bioculatum.male.jpg shows another species

Hi Sarefo, im sure that the image "Phyllium.bioculatum.male.jpg" with the description "male Phyllium bioculatum from Cologne Zoo, Germany." on Phyllium bioculatum shows not a Phyllium bioculatum male. It is a picture of a Phyllium celebicum male. The differences are seen in the image of the preserved male of Phyllium bioculatum. I'm sure the name in Cologne Zoo may even be wrong. It's typicaly for naming insects in zoos. Can you move the image to the correct place (Phyllium celebicum). greetings --Drägüs 10:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for noticing, i moved the image. btw, is this a P. celebicum male? i can see a brown spot on it. --Sarefo 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akio Tanikawa photos

Do you have something to support the CC license on the spider photos that you've just uploaded (Image:Micrathena.clypeata.-.tanikawa.jpg etc)? I looked at the source page, and I don't see any mention of a license. Other photo pages there say "All rights reserved" [1]. --dave pape 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i do. thanks for noticing, i forgot to add the otrs ticket to these pictures, will do this now. cheers Sarefo 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pheidole side view.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Pheidole side view.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Waldir ^talk 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sharpened californica head.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Sharpened californica head.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

--Waldir ^talk 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Tachina grossa

Your flies are Calliphora sp. Did you know you acn post fly images to Paul Beuk,s Diptera.info. You have to join but that is free All the best Notafly 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calliphora

Wing venation, build, pattern on abdomen- but really I just know.I see a lot of flies.I will get back to you on this. Have you seen [2] BUG GUIDE very useful info and you can post pics.I'll try and identify your pics when I have some time.Notafly 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tegenaria.atrica.creating.eggsac.3.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 13:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

license added. --Sarefo 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tegenaria.agrestis.spiderling.jpg

Hi, you stated on this page that this was a bad name. Could you replace the {{Speedy}} template by {{badname|Image:the_good_name.extension}} please?
Thanks in advance and best regards from France.
P.S. May I also encourage you to add categories to your images? This would enable them to be much easier to find :)
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 12:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found the good one by myself and could safely delete the bad named one. :)

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot! i don't really like adding cats to pictures myself, i think they're nicely at home in gallery pages, and adding taxo-cats only clutters category pages. i've had many discussions about this, and am now at the point where i don't delete them from other pictures, so maybe with time, i'll get there ;) --Sarefo 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

That's very nice work on the butterfly collections at Museum Koenig.Please keep up the good work.Can i send you a most wanted list? Robert Notafly 14:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, go ahead :) if i get the chance to get my hands onto the collection again, i'll probably try to get everything anyway, but if you have such a list, i'll take a look at it. --Sarefo (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

picture of chimaera

Hello! Very nice work and pictures! As a passionate ornithoptera-collector, i can say you this specimen is not ORNITHOPTERA CHIMAERA but ORNITHOPTERA ROTHSCHILDI if you type this in google or so, you 'll find i am right about this! Many nice butterfly-greetings, Bart Laurijssens Belgium

you're probably right. i have no detailed knowledge on lepidoptera, just photographed the specimens and tried to update the species labels to today's taxonomy. the label says O. chimaera, maybe this is an old synonym? --Sarefo 12:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avondale spider.jpg

A friend on flickr who is up with spiders tells me this pic is actually Dolomedes minor, and not the Avondale Spider at all. Any comment? We can get the image renamed if its incorrect. 203.144.32.165 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What fly was that?

Calliphora vicina Calliphoridae Quite a mouthful.Very nice pic. Any chance of more photos from Koenig Museum? over the Winter? Very best regards Robert Notafly (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, i'd really like to, but there's a quite complicated and a bit sad story behind these pictures, and why i can't continue at the moment. i'll try my best to get access sometime this year. cheers :) --Sarefo (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes O.rothschildi not chimaera

Bart (Laurijssens) Note above is quite right.Not a synonym though. Either this is a museum error or the label refers to the female specimen above. Robert Notafly (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undetermined.fly.080616.2.jpg

More difficult than your last photo but almost certainly Anthomyiidae (100% nice pic) I will look again tomorrow Cheers Robert Notafly (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undetermined.fly.080616.2.jpg More comment

Diptera are very difficult to do from photographs and it is also difficult to suggest a book that will really help.Chinery (Collins Guide to the insects of Britain and Europe is useful and so is Colyer and Hammond's Wayside and Woodland series book (also Collins).These will help with some very common and distinctive flies and the families, but identifying most Diptera is very technical relying on details of bristle arrangement and number (chaetotaxy), pinned flies and the microscope.Very similar looking flies can be in different families only separable by these tiny details.Getting to know the families first is the best approach.For this use the picture gallery at http://www.diptera.info/photogallery.php. I took a look at this site for your fly and came across a picture of Eginia in Muscidae. From the photo I would have identified this fly as Anthomyiidae, a mistake I would have not made with a pinned fly under the microscope. It is possible Undetermined.fly.080616.2.jpg is Muscidae, I cannot see all the features I need to be 100% sure and I have changed certainly to almost certainly.I still think Anthomyiidae though. Keep sending the pics Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undetermined.fly.080616.2.jpg Best guess

May be Pegomyia species. Just maybe. Notafly (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx so far :) i'll make a page for the genus anyway. do you know if Pegomyia or Pegomya is correct? googlefight finds 10,000 hits for the former, but also 7,000 for the latter. i'd say Pegomyia is correct, judging from the name of the subfamily (Pegomyinae), but ITIS uses Pegomya. --Sarefo (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Pegomya is the correct spelling Notafly (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i found that it used to be Pegomyia, but got changed to Pegomya. --Sarefo (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micropezidae

This is Tanypezidae Thicker femora, legs shorter. A very nice photo indeed. None on the web except one from Cedar Creek. Do you know this site? Another useful one is http://delta-intkey.com/britin/dip/index.htm (better than any single book) I wiil try for an id when I get time to look in the collection here.Keep taking the photos. This is great work. Robert Notafly (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empis pennipes

Correct.A specialist may differ (I only know the British Isles species) but if so I doubt an id could be done from a photo. Answer rest later Notafly (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanypezidae

Tachypora arrogans labelled cf arrogans in another photo on the very useful insektenfotos.de (cf means uncertain but very close)Very cloe I would say but I don't know the German species.Predataory fly No photos on BugGuide I'm sure they would like one Best wishes RobertNotafly (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted user

You have been added as trusted user for mediamoves: Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage as per your request. Thanks for contributing, Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please link images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello Sarefo!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichill (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Diptera

Fly structure Terrific Three different flies.Now mssiing fron the WP Diptera Page Best regards Robert Notafly (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gembloux Gallery

Do you know this excellent site Gembloux Gallery Best regards Robert Notafly (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Good

Try this [3] atb Robert Notafly (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calwer

I wasted some time on him too.A few words on Calwer and Gustav Jäger only.Look forward to your pics.Cheers Robert No luck with the synonyms yet.Liked your pic of insect wing venation. I am going to Rome for all of August. Mostly offf the net.

Image:Mating.flies.080514.2.jpg

You uploaded this image which you claim to be your own work. On the upload page you agreed to place it under a Free license but did not specify which one. Please do so by replacing the {{OwnWork}} tag with a suitable copyright tag. Sdrtirs (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mating.flies.080514.1.jpg

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello Sarefo!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Geranium.columbinum.flower.jpg and Image:Geranium.columbinum.flower.cropped.jpg

Dear Sarefo,

I corrected and moved your obviously misidentified images of Geranium columbinum (wrong!) to Geranium dissectum. The reasons for this can be found on the discussion pages of the respective image pages. I hope that everything is alright now - except for your personal index page Sarefo/Plants which I do not want to edit because it is your personal page. So you might do this and also check my changes because I only rarely contribute to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia pages - or complain (here or by mail, see http://www.flogaus-faust.de/mail.htm) if you think that moving your images was a bad thing to do. Robert Flogaus-Faust 149.225.36.158 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

thanks a lot robert! i corrected the mistake on my user page. cheers --Sarefo (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:World.distribution.serpentes.1.png

Image deletion warning

Image:World.distribution.serpentes.1.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Jwinius (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

map for ctenidae

It seems you're up to speed on maps, and as I don't have the capabilities I'd follow your comment below the map and forward the info instead. Basically, in South America, the members of the family Ctenidae are found as far south as northern Argentina. So, where the range border on this map stops in northern Brazil, it should actually extend as far south as northernmost Argentina (see this map of South America). So, the range basically includes all of South America, except entire Chile, the southern 2/3 of Argentina, and parts of the Andes (the regions marked as central, central-sur, meridional, and extremo-sur on this map). Among others, the old map excluded the range of most of the Brazilian wandering spiders, which probably are the most famous members of the family. I hope you will find the time to look into it at some point. Thanks 212.10.69.156 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related issue, the members of this family are also found on the Bismarck Archipelago (e.g. Ctenus rufisternis), Fiji and the Solomon Islands (Ctenus marginatus). This map perhaps shows the region best (the family is not found on Norfolk, New Caledonia, and Loyautés [Loyalty Islands], but are found on all other islands within the purple lines on that map). Anyhow, these islands may be so small that it barely is worth correcting them on the map, but just in case, as I can see they are grey on the current map.212.10.69.156 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macro picture

On Image:Nuctenea.umbratica.edof.2.jpg you wrote : « Combined from 8 pictures with CombineZM (do_stack) ». What is that ? Yug (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found en:CombineZM, do you know one working on linux ? Yug (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, i don't know of a *nix program do to this. actually i use windows for this; iirc there are mainly two programs, combinezm and its siblings, and the commercial helicon focus. i just googled for 'extended depth of field', and found this site that provides a free java applet, but i don't know if it's working four your/our purpose. maybe combinez* works with wine? all the best! :) -- Sarefo (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Greetings. I was just uploading Pseudacraea bosduvali taken using your lighting system when I saw your bot upload of Kaferbuch.Terrific work.Have you seen Hymis forum? Great for difficult Hymenoptera.Warm regards from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, good to see you back! :) i have quite some more dipteres in the queue, will upload them soon (i hope). actually not sure what you are referring to with my lighting system, i'm not sure i have one ;) --Sarefo (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you send me details of the lighting arrangement you used with your Ricoh by e-mail? Surely you did.Now a request If it easy could you fix this damged plate [4]for me please. I stupidly caught it in a drawer. It is one of the best plates in Seitz.

nope, that wasn't me ;) i use an olympus, and am actually in need of some good lighting technique myself. --Sarefo (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Book

Many thanks.I would do it myself but I am slowly scanning Seitz Macroleopidoptera and taking butterfly photos while I am still at the museum.You are right.It was Siga who sent me the lighting info.This was for studio I will have to ask if I can pass it on atb Robert

Koenig Museum

That is very good news. I will think about what is most needed and then send a list. I just used two of your pics. One here [5].Very best regards and many thanks for your offer Robert aka Notafly (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of images.No copyright

I just got this from Shyamal[6] but you will be busy at Koenig.Enjoy.RobertNotafly (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needed

I need a pic of Ptinus tectus Any chance? Best regards Robert

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Sarefo!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Centipede.protecting.eggmass.-.marshal.hedin.jpg is uncategorized since 10 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this occurred due to vandalism, somebody deleted the text body. reverted. --Sarefo (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koenig Museum

That is sad news and hard to see why.I'll think on this and perhaps there will be a way. Happy Christmas anyway Robert Notafly (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Can I post some id'd small insects for macrophotography in the New Year?[reply]

James Lindsey pics

Greetings and a happy new year.Excellent additions indeed. Bravo maestro. Are you planning to arrange uploads of Commanster Hymenoptera pics. The Ichneumonidae would be very useful indeed. Robert Notafly (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, yes, i'm thinking of going over jim's pictures again some time. unfortunately, i had no system to check which i already did, but i'll try to build one soon, promise :) i just finished some stupid redundant task in wiktionary, so i'm free to do this ;) cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megistomela punctatissima

Very nice pic RobertNotafly (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx :) it's from one of the cologne zoo specimens, before they went into the museum koenig vault. --Sarefo (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Sarefo!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bakelite letter opener.jpg is uncategorized since 25 January 2009. BotMultichillT 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you bot :) strangely, i *did* cat this picture, but seems like that wasn't registered by the upload form. (need to stop talking to bots...) --Sarefo (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably forgot to press the hotcat "OK" before you pressed "upload" (seems to happen quite often). Multichill (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 74c28009e3f2f55ebb2e0b4571f195df

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Calwer Image

Used one here [7] Very many thanks and best wishes RobertNotafly (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove categories

Hi Sarefo, i noticed you removed categories several times. Please don't do this. Every image should be in a category. For more information see Commons:Categories. Multichill (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please take some time to see what i really did. in most cases i removed categories that were to broad to be useful. in several cases the files were overcategorized. yes, i think the categorization of taxa is messed up at this point. while there seems to be a "consensus" on this, i'm not sure it extends to species pages. the problem with a "consensus" is people are voting on a broad topic, and the mass is smothering the individual differing needs of smaller projects within the big one. if you're really interested in categorizing species, leave me a note, and i can tell you in detail what the problems are. the bottom line is that categorization of individual pictures, as it is done now, renders species cats next to useless. a new system is needed, and when this is in place, it can get the new cats easily from the gallery pages. cheers --Sarefo (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you really did, you removed relevant categories. I'm pretty sure categorization also extends to the species pages. We even had a vote on that a while back. You should have put the images in Category:Unidentified spiders. Multichill (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i can tell you what is the effect of putting everything into the cats: the new pictures will drown in the mess, and nobody will work on it any more. that's what happened. hooray to principle. please leave me a link to the discussion about species pages, i'm not sure i'm up to date on this. look what i'm doing: i'm sorting the unidentified spiders into family galleries. there they can be annotated, so that specialists have a way to identify them. please, do tell me how on earth i shall now sieve out the new pictures, and give them a chance to be seen. --Sarefo (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories vs Galleries is a good place to start searching. Multichill (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link. i missed the policy change from july. i think the less bad way, apart from the way i was doing it, is to create subcategories in Unidentified spiders etc. this will lead to lots of redundant work, and nobody will know what to find where, but i guess that's the way it's gonna be for now. hell, isn't anybody working on a system that actually *works* for taxa? for example, create an extra tagging system, apart from the categories, which are at the moment being abused for stuff they are not made for. cheers --Sarefo (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: of course it's easier to just undo other's work, but it would be more helpful to put the files into the correct cats instead.

It was not a change of policy, just a confirmation. Multichill (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Latridius.minutus.-.calwer.46.08.jpg

This image may be correctly identified (although if so, somewhat inaccurate as is to be expected in a historic drawing). However, the color is radically wrong. Latridius minutus is not green! I have some under my microscope at this moment and they are light yellowish brown. According to descriptions this varies to very dark brown in some specimens - but not green!

---Rod Crawford My home page

File:Dorcadion.fuliginator.-.calwer.39.06.jpg

This species is nowadays placed in the gebus Iberodorcadion, see Fauna Europaea]. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! --Sarefo (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hymenoptera

Syrphoctonus sp. Ichneumonidae:Diplazontinae A parasite of Syrphidae Thats good news about James Lindsay.Many thanks. atb Robert Notafly (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i asked at hymis.de (iirc you suggested this to me), it's a Rhyssa persuasoria male (Pimplinae). cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cecidomyiidae

You are on the wrong track. These are chalcidoid wasps Hymenoptera:Chalcidoidea).This genus with the odd curved structure is illustrated but I have never seen a photo.I cannot remember the name and have no books here (I am in Uppsala)but I will id it for sure soon (it is in one of my own monographs. Excellent pic.Warm regards Robert¨Notafly (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Congratulations[reply]

Commanster

We must have thought communication. I just logged on (16.00) at the library and saw your uploads a few minutes back.Very many thanks.It's a great picture library.Not all the ids are correct but neither are mine (I got the Rhyssa wrong. It's a male. I hadn't thought of that) All the best from Ireland Robert akaNotafly (talk) PS I have a memory blank with the Chalcidoid .Try posting the "Cecidomyiidae" pic to Hymis.forum (It is sending me crazy).I just got back from Upssala where I got some pics of the museum in Carl Linnaeus house which I will post soon.Keep in touch

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Sarefo!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Candelariella.xanthostigma.-.lindsey.jpg is uncategorized since 5 July 2009.
Image:Rana.temporaria4.jpg is uncategorized since 5 July 2009.
Image:Inonotus.radiatus2.-.lindsey.jpg is uncategorized since 5 July 2009.
Image:Heterobasidion.annosum3.-.lindsey.jpg is uncategorized since 5 July 2009.
Image:Elymus.repens.3.jpg is uncategorized since 5 July 2009.
Image:Opsibotys.fuscalis.jpg is uncategorized since 5 July 2009.
Image:Emil.von.Zelewski.jpg is uncategorized since 6 July 2009.
Image:Saitis.barbipes.male.from.above.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Saitis.barbipes.female.from.the.side.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Elephant.tooth.replica.1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Grammostola.rosea.on.book.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Saitis.barbipes.female.from.above.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Megabunus.diadema.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Dicranopalpus.ramosus.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Saitis.barbipes.female.from.behind.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Saitis.barbipes.male.stretching.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Saitis.barbipes.male.from.behind.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Hypochilus sp. male and female (Marshal Hedin).jpg was uncategorized on 9 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rudder.web.spider.new.guinea.-.tanikawa.jpg was uncategorized on 10 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Rudder.web.new.guinea.-.tanikawa.jpg was uncategorized on 10 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplia argentea

I don't think that the Image Hoplia.argentea.-.calwer.19.17.jpg really shows a Hoplia argentea (= Hoplia farinosa), please check the other images of this beetle in Wiki Commons! --$Mathe94$ (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, the color is a bit strange. it could be a colorization error (these are hand-colored pictures). cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthaxia hungarica

In my book, it is said that males are emerald green, and the females have ruby red underparts. So, I suppose that an inversion occured between File:Anthaxia.hungarica.male.-.calwer.24.02.jpg and File:Anthaxia.hungarica.female.-.calwer.24.03.jpg. Crdt, VonTasha

No head

I lost my head Can you borrow one for me? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Morphothamyris.JPG Robert would like me to look better but doesn't know how .Many thanks Morpho Thamyris co Notafly (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AntWeb images

Since images on AntWeb are compatible licenses with Commons, I created a permission template for AntWeb images and a script to generate upload form from a CASENT number.

http://www.raeky.com/AntWeb.php

If your intrested try it out, put in a CASENT number and it will pull all data about that and images in AntWeb and generate upload links for Commons, very much how the Flickr uploader Flinfo does. Let me know if this is useful to you. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mycena_cyanorrhiza_-_lindsey.jpg#file

File:Mycena_cyanorrhiza_-_lindsey.jpg File:Mycena cyanorrhiza2 - lindsey.jpg

These two pictures need a revision. They are pictures of Galerina calyptrata. Lindsey also confirms that. I am not too familiar with the wiki editor, so You may wnat to do this?

thanks for the notice, i added a renaming request and put them into the correct category. the files will probably renamed in the next few days. cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calwer

Hello Sarefo. You created the Category:Pictures by C.G. Calwer. Alas none of the drawings is by Calwer himself as I stated on the talk page there. Renaming the category would be an option. What do you think about it? --Gereon K. (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ephestia.kuehniella.jpg

Hi Sarefo, we are interested in on of your pictures on wikimedia commons: Ephestia.kuehniella.jpg We need it for a design. Contact me please.

Thanks --Grutzer (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyphydrus.ovatus.-.calwer.08.14.jpg

Hi Sarefo,

you asked for comments and feedback about the identification of insects in Calwers Käferbuch. According to de:Benutzer:Regiomontanus and de:Benutzer::Prianteltix (two very active animalia editors in the German WP) the image shows clearly not a Hyphydrus ovatus, for a correct identification the resolution is way too low. In en.WP the caption in en:Hyphydrus says Laccophilus poecilus but this looks more like a copy&paste failure.

Greetings, Rbrausse (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Credit for Academic Use

Hi Sarefo,

I am a scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying leaf-cutter ants and came across your picture of Atta cephalotes castes. We would like to modify this picture and use it as part of a figure for a manuscript we are currently preparing for submission. I understand that under GNU Free Document License that this possible, given that it is properly credited with GFDL; however, I would like to provide you with full credit for the image should you desire it (or whoever took the picture). Please feel free to contact me at: gsuen (at) wisc (dot) edu. Thanks! Currielab (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diaperis.boleti.-.calwer.46.31.jpg

File:Diaperis.boleti.-.calwer.46.31.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mantius russatus

Hello, Sarefo, for these two files that you enter, you wonder if it determines the allocation of the species in the design, as Mantius russatus has never been found to the Nicobar Islands, the sources I consulted. Thank, --Eumolpo (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi Eumolpo; i just took the information from the original paper by Workman, according to Proszynski. maybe contact him about details? cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:World.distribution.serpentes.1.png

Hi Sarefo, wow, you put a lot of work into this. I just came across your map on serpents, and I think it doesn't account for Garter snakes. They are way further up in North America than that line would make me think. For example, I will visit the Narcisse Snake Pits soon to see them come out for the summer, but according to their own article they can be as far north as Alaska. I don't want to mess with your well referenced map, especially since I don't have a good book reference, but I would not want anyone to miss out on Narcisse. 74.216.64.63 13:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not an expert at all on reptiles, so i drew this map in kind of blind trust; please feel free to update the map :) --Sarefo 22:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

file:Uroctea sp., Israel - 20100719.jpg

hello
thank you for adding classification. i have some more spiders. would you pls look here https://picasaweb.google.com/EITAN.F.700/UnderTheStoneAbominableTinyMonsters# . advice me if there is anything worthwhile, i shalll gladly upload to commons.
Eitan f (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entoloma queletii

Entoloma queletii has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ju Ta 00:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entoloma pseudoturci

Entoloma pseudoturci has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ju Ta 00:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bombus pictures from James K Lindsey

Hi, thanks for making so many fotos available on Wikimedia. I noted some misidentifications of bumblebees among them. Bombus.distinguendus.-.lindsey.jpg --> This is definitely not B. distinguendus - compare to http://www.wildbienen.de/b-distin.htm; maybe B. lucorum? Bombus.soroeensis.-.lindsey.jpg‎ --> the colour form / subspecies occurring in Belgium should be "proteus", which is black with a red abdomen tip; might be B. lucorum, but I'm not sure Bombus.pratorum.-.lindsey.jpg‎ --> more likely a cuckoo bumble bee, Bombus (Psithyrus) sp. [white abdomen tip], probably B. vestalis

Lecanora conizaeoides

Lecanora conizaeoides has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Density (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maskenbienen

Hallo Sarefo, deine folgenden Bilder zeigen den auf Korbblütler spezialisierten Hylaeus nigritus, nicht Hylaeus signatus: File:Hylaeus.signatus.male.1.jpg, File:Hylaeus.signatus.male.2.jpg, File:Hylaeus.signatus.male.3.jpg, File:Hylaeus.signatus.male.4.jpg. Beste Grüße --DocNöck (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permission for figure

Dear Sarefo, for our student textbook about Charles Darwin (Die Entstehung der Arten, illustrated and commented by Paul Wrede and Saskia Wrede) we kindly ask you for permission to use the figure of the Goliath beetle (Goliathus goliatus).

Our book will be published in German by VCH-Wiley. It is addressed to beginners in biology like students or highly educated laymen. Publication will be December 2012.

With best regards

Paul Wrede

Prof. Paul Wrede Charite-Universitätsmedizin Berlin Institut für Molekularbiologie und Bioinformatik Arnimallee 22 14195 Berlin (Germany) Email: paul.wrede@charite.de --Paul wrede (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Distribution.anura.1.png

Dear Sarefo, from this image it can be inferred that there are no anuran species in the south island of New Zealand, which is not trivial. Is that really the case? Can you, please, provide me with the source? The article featuring this image (en:frog) was nominated lately FAC, so we try to verify as much information as possible. Thank you very much, Sir Shurf (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the description of the picture says, the source is Cogger, H.G & Zweifel, R.G. (1998). Reptiles & Amphibians". ISBN 0121785602. Yes, the white spots on south island and the Atacama Desert appear on the original map, too, I just re-checked. I must say that the purported lack of anurans in southern NZ is indeed strange! The book is not a scientific work, but I think the spots in question were done on purpose. If you want I can provide you with a scan of the original map. Cheers! -- Sarefo (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarefo, we dug into it. As far as we were able to check, southern NZ indeed doesn't host nowadays any local Anurans. There are however two introduced species and possibly some extinct species. Thanks for the help. Sir Shurf (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ephippigerinae Eugaster.spinulosa

Dear Sarefo:

I am quite confident that your picture posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eugaster.spinulosa.1.jpg is incorrectly identified, as I know Eugaster spinulosa from morocco and it is quite different, but I am not sure of what species it is either.

Did you had any new data on it since it was made?

If the picture was made in the Cologne Zoo, wasn't there a species identification on the terrarium?

Best regards Sérgio

Hi Sergio, when I took the picture from the terrarium, I also took the name from the identification tag, so that is what the person putting the species up for display thought was its name. I'll add that the ID is dubious, thank you :) --Sarefo (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution question

Hi Sarefo, User:Drewdclifton posted a message on my talkpage in relation to what way you want attribution for an image (File:Plecoptera - exuvia.jpg) you uploaded. Can you let them know? Thanks! -- Deadstar (msg) 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use some of your photos

Hello Sarefo!

I have use a photo of Ocypus olens, Chiasognathus granti and some of Nuctenea umbratica from wikimedia in my free software educational proyect "Animalandia" (http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia)

You can see directly in the follow links and click over "Siguiente" ("Next") several times:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=24496

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=36758

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/imagen.php?id=36737

If you wish, you can send me (via fernando.lison@educa.madrid.org) some letters or/and a photo for your "contributor profile" in Animalandia (In your profile there is a link to your flickr gallery):

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Sarefo

I want show to my students (and so everybody) that Animalandia is make for "real person", and I can tell them about "generosity", "share" and other similar words that they use very few...

This is my "contributor profile" and others, for example:

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Fernando%20Lis%F3n%20Mart%EDn

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Mamen%20Jim%E9nez

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=David%20P%E9rez

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Boris%20Loboda

http://herramientas.educa.madrid.org/animalandia/autor.php?nombre=Steve%20Garvie%20%28Rainbirder%29

In the future, I use more of your photos, I sure!

Thank you for the licence and, of course, for your splendid photos!! Regards! Fernando Lisón

--Fernando.lison (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fernando, I'm glad to be of help for your project :) Just credit me as "Sarefo", I'm not much about giving away my identity :P --Sarefo (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK! Fernando.lison (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A picture you uploaded

Reaction of en:Urticating hairs of a theraphosid spider in Argentina on a male human belly.

Hello. Did you take the picture to the right? If so, I'll edit the page to show you as the author.--Rockfang (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the author is some guy I met (and can't get in contact again), he allowed me to do with the picture whatever I wanted, explicitly including it in Commons. However, I don't have written evidence for it, so you'll have to take my word :) --Sarefo (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lasioderma serricorne

Hello Sarefo,

That picture File:Lasioderma.serricorne.-.calwer.29.12.jpg is not Lasioderma serricorne, maybe a Dermestidae, but I am not an entomologist ! Have a look to fr:Stegobium paniceum and fr:Lasioderma serricorne.

Regards, Cymbella (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linyphiidae range map

Thank you for your splendid work on Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to update a map that you uploaded:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution.linyphiidae.1.png

It appears to indicate that Linyphiidea is not found on Svalbard. I have found references that indicate that Linyphiidea are represented on Svalbard. This paper for instance indicates the presence of 16 species of Linyphiidea on the archipelago, including at least one representative of the genus Collinsia as far north as Sjuøyane:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Coulson/publication/253651441_A_review_of_the_terrestrial_and_freshwater_invertebrate_fauna_of_the_High_Arctic_archipelago_of_Svalbard/file/60b7d51fa717411ee4.pdf

Thank you

Ordinary Person (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi, maybe you can update the map? I don't have the workflow in place anymore, and not much time at the moment :( cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sebacina.incrustans2.-.lindsey.jpg

File:Sebacina.incrustans2.-.lindsey.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Kvdr56 (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaetopelma gracile

Chaetopelma gracile has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Danny lost (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. ~ Nahid ^Talk 01:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No" source, please help

Hiya! I found a whole pile of your images here please scroll down to see the Omorgus nodosus sjh.cropped.jpg and following files. Would you be so kind as to add the proper source to these images? This isn't a judgement, merely the template has lost some information and it would be best if you added it, than were I to guess. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unidentified fungus Commanster.jpg

File:Unidentified fungus Commanster.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ju Ta 21:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo

Used without the required attribution, here, if it should interest you.

They do link to Wikipedia. Nice butterfly :) --Sarefo (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking license for specific use of image

Hello!

My organization is interested in licensing the use of your photograph of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ypsolopha.dentella.mounted.jpg in a publication. I understand and respect you desire for privacy, so if you would be interested in additional details and discussing further, please contact me at email: WMcClure [at] ETS.org . Thanks!

Calwer's Cantharis pallida

Betrifft File:Cantharis.pallida.-.calwer.27.16.jpg Stutzig weil das gar nicht nach pallida aussieht hab ich mal kurz nachgeblättert. Das Teil ist tatsächlich im Buch als pallida benamst, aber die Quellen geben das nur unvollständig her: Aus Seite 358 geht hervor das hier Cantharis pallida Fabr. angesprochen ist (womit wohl Fabricius, 1787 gemeint ist), und das ist eben nicht der heutige pallida Goeze, 1777, sondern wenn es nach FE geht sollte das der heutige Rhagonycha lignosa (Muller, 1764) sein. Das passt zwar auch nicht wirklich zur Zeichnung (sogar die eigene Beschreibung im Calwer stimmt nich mit der Zeichnung überein - "Halsschild schwarz"), aber immerhin passt zumindest die Beschreibung dann. Möglich sind im Calwer selbst die Verweise auf Bild 15 und 16 von Tafel 27 durcheinander gekommen (dann würden bede Bilder etwas besser zu den eigenen Beschreibungen passen)? Das Bild muss aber sowieso jedenfalls nicht mit dem heutigen pallida Goeze gleich gestellt werden. Gruss, Arp

Chesias.legatella.dead.caterpillar.with.parasitoid.pupae.jpg => "Pseudoterpna pruinata (caterpillar)"

Hello, I changed the category of the image Chesias.legatella.dead.caterpillar.with.parasitoid.pupae.jpg to "Pseudoterpna pruinata (caterpillar)". I have taken the same photos and lepiforum.de confirmed that it is Pseudoterpna pruinata. The images of caterpillars of Chesia legatella at lepiforum.de differ considerably. You could adjust the English description of the image.--Slimguy (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trachyzelotes pedestris image renamed to "Unidentified spider from Commanster.jpg"

Hello, your image tagged with "Trachyzelotes pedestris" was misidentified. The file was renamed to "Unidentified spider from Commanster.jpg". Trachyzelotes pedestris looks differently and has red legs (see image at Wiki Commons).--Slimguy (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Habronattus americanus.jpg

File:Habronattus americanus.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Nanae (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dysderidae distribution

Hello, sorry to bother you, I'm just speaking as you're the author of file:Distribution.dysdera.crocata.1.png. This map does not seem to be accurate anymore and it can be seen for example in BugGuide that Dysdera crocata has been reported through almost the entire United States. This would also apply to File:Distribution.dysderidae.1.png, which has the same coloring in the USA. Since I'm not very good at image editing myself (and I'm also not very experienced at editing things here in general), I thought I'd speak to you instead of trying to do it. Can you update these?

(I've also heard that D. crocata can be found in the entirety of New Zealand while the map only shows the North Island colored. The New Zealand government mentions it's found "throughout" New Zealand. I'm not sure how accurate that is, I haven't found many resources about the distribution in NZ.)

Once again, I'm sorry for bothering you. DepoisDoFim (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, I updated it. (It might take a while for the cache to show the new version) The range in southern Canada is of course not exact, and I colored the whole of the US. Anytime you notice something to update, don't hesitate to contact me :) --Sarefo (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurydema.oleracea.nymph.jpg

File:Eurydema.oleracea.nymph.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phaonia siebecki or Hydrotaea irritans

Hello Sarefo, I have a question. Not sure if you are still active. Do you know if the name of this picture is correct (Phaonia siebecki)? I ask you because you original uploaded this picture on 19 april 2007 with a different name (File:Hydrotaea.irritans.male.jpg). Rudolphous (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded these for James Lindsey. I don't remember the details, but what probably happened that somebody re-identified it, and then it got moved to its new name. So I would think the new name is correct. Cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

picture

Dear Sarefo, I am coordinationg the publication of a new textbook of zoology (in Italian) and I wonder whether it is possible to use your picture published in

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALeptopeza.flavipes.with.Lamprochernes.1.jpg

In the case, you will be credited for it. Thank you in advance for your attention.

Best regards Loriano

Loriano T. Ballarin, Associate Professor of Zoology Department of Biology, University of Padova Via U. Bassi 58/B, 35100 Padova - Italy Tel.: +39 049 827 6197 Fax: +39 049 827 6199 Email: loriano.ballarin@unipd.it Website: https://sites.google.com/site/ascidianbiologylab/our-staff/loriano-ballarin — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.162.3.230 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution map for Ochyroceratidae family

Hi Sarefo, I don't know how to change/update maps, but as of earlier this year, there are now also 4 species in this family from Madagascar. Full info is on World Spider Catalog.

Updated :) (Might have to press Shift-F5 to refresh) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution.ochyroceratidae.1.png --Sarefo (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stenostola.ferrea.-.calwer.40.03.jpg

Your upload File:Stenostola.ferrea.-.calwer.40.03.jpg does not appear to be representative of Stenostola ferrea. Please take a look at it. Abductive (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about its systematics, I'm just the messenger :) If you have any information regarding this, feel free to add it, or share it :) --Sarefo (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chrysolina.sturmi.-.calwer.44.06.jpg

Hello! I suspect this illustration probably isn't actually Chrysolina sturmi, partly because it appears the wrong color and partly because of the actual text for it in Calwer's Käferbuch: The original page in the text ([8]) refers to the illustration as Chrysomela violacea Panz. (=Panzer). The only "Chrysomela violacea" in the synonymy of Chrysolina sturmi I can find online anywhere seem to give "Weise, 1916" as the authority, which sounds like a homonym or misidentification. Calwer's Käferbuch is dated to 1876 so it couldn't possibly be Weise's sense or whatever of that species, which leads me to think Calwer's Käferbuch is actually referring to a different species.

While neither Fauna Europaea or BioLib seem to have anything helpful on Chrysomela violacea Panzer, other websites such as this one seem to indicate it is a synonym of Chrysolina coerulans. Certainly the online images of that species seem to be closer to the illustration at least.

Be warned though, I'm not an expert on any animals or any other living things at all, let alone beetles, so don't take my word as fact on the new identification! It's only by chance I happened to notice something odd with this image at all. Hope this information helps though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not active yet, may as well also note that Chrysolina.goettingensis.-.calwer.44.07.jpg has already been identified by someone else as Chrysolina sturmi. So, in summary:

File:Chrysolina.sturmi.-.calwer.44.06.jpg → given as Chrysomela violacea Panz. in the text, now known as Chrysolina coerulans
File:Chrysolina.goettingensis.-.calwer.44.07.jpg → given as Chrysomela göttingensis L. in the text, now known as Chrysolina sturmi

Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there :) You're welcome to update it, I'm a bit busy at the moment, and out of practice with wiki editing. --Sarefo (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trox amictus

Trox amictus has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trox howelli

Trox howelli has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trox rudebecki

Trox rudebecki has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adelocosa anops

Adelocosa anops has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pleurota bicostella

Pleurota bicostella has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this gallery, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JopkeB (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evarcha jucunda distribution

Hello, in the distribution map you introduced there is a big gap, as you will see on the GBIF, that makes the map obsolete because the species is widely spread through Mediterranean Basin as far as Portugal and Morocco to the west Simon Thevenin (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the map according to the GBIF data, thank you :) --00:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

ID of File:Geranium.rivulare.1.jpg

your image
Geranium rivulare
Geranium sylvaticum
Geranium pratense with white flowers

Hi Sarefo, your heavily used image File:Geranium.rivulare.1.jpg is very unusual because it is from Cologne. If you found it in a botanical garden, your ID might be o.k. However, Geranium rivulare is very unlikely to occur naturally in Cologne. Its natural habitats are in Switzerland, in France, and in Italy. If you found this in the wild, e.g. on some meadows, then this is probably a specimen of Geranium pratense with white flowers. These occur frequently. Geranium sylvaticum might also occur with white flowers, even though less frequently. And the leaf lobes of this species are usually broader. The only sure way to identify Geranium rivulare is by checking for its lack of glands on the fruit stems with a rather strong lens, which I probably did not do either. However, the plants had unusually small white flowers with liliac veins and they were found in a dark, woody area where the species is known to occur. So your photo shows Geranium pratense if this was a wildflower. What do you think about this? Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not at all an expert on these; what you're saying sounds sensible to me. If you want, you can fix what needs to be fixed so everything is in line with this. I don't have the bandwidth currently myself unfortunately :( Sarefo (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. However, it is impossible for me to identify the plant species on your photograph without further information. Therefore, it would be important to know in what kind of habitat you found the plant. Was this a cultivated plant, especially a plant growing in a garden or even a botanical garden, or did it look like a wildflower, e.g. on a meadow or a roadside? Have you got other photographs of the plant, e.g. the whole plant in its habitat? And how did you identify this as Geranium rivulare? AFAIK this alpine species is not in the usual keys for German wildflowers. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well, that was a long time ago :P it's probably in the Flora Helvetica we used to use at university. and I'm guessing it was wild, but can't remember. Sarefo (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O.k., I changed the ID to Geranium pratense and also made a rename request. Geranium sylvaticum is rare or missing in Cologne and it looks different anyway even if it happens to have white flowers. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sarefo

Image:Phyllium.bioculatum.male.jpg shows another species

Akio Tanikawa photos

Not Tachina grossa

Calliphora

Nice work

picture of chimaera

What fly was that?

Yes O.rothschildi not chimaera

Undetermined.fly.080616.2.jpg

Undetermined.fly.080616.2.jpg More comment

Undetermined.fly.080616.2.jpg Best guess

Micropezidae

Empis pennipes

Tanypezidae

Trusted user

Please link images

Structure of Diptera

Gembloux Gallery

Also Good

Calwer

Image:Geranium.columbinum.flower.jpg and Image:Geranium.columbinum.flower.cropped.jpg

map for ctenidae

Macro picture

Congratulations

Butterfly Book

Koenig Museum

A lot of images.No copyright

Image needed

Tip: Categorizing images

Koenig Museum

James Lindsey pics

Megistomela punctatissima

Tip: Categorizing images

TUSC token 74c28009e3f2f55ebb2e0b4571f195df

Calwer Image

Don't remove categories

Image Latridius.minutus.-.calwer.46.08.jpg

Hymenoptera

Cecidomyiidae

Commanster

Tip: Categorizing images

Hoplia argentea

Anthaxia hungarica

No head

AntWeb images

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mycena_cyanorrhiza_-_lindsey.jpg#file

Calwer

Ephestia.kuehniella.jpg

Photo Credit for Academic Use

Mantius russatus

File:World.distribution.serpentes.1.png

Bombus pictures from James K Lindsey

Maskenbienen

Permission for figure

File:Distribution.anura.1.png

ephippigerinae Eugaster.spinulosa

Attribution question

I use some of your photos

A picture you uploaded

Lasioderma serricorne

Linyphiidae range map

Autopatrol given

"No" source, please help

Your photo

Seeking license for specific use of image

Calwer's Cantharis pallida

Chesias.legatella.dead.caterpillar.with.parasitoid.pupae.jpg => "Pseudoterpna pruinata (caterpillar)"

Trachyzelotes pedestris image renamed to "Unidentified spider from Commanster.jpg"

Dysderidae distribution

Phaonia siebecki or Hydrotaea irritans

picture

Distribution map for Ochyroceratidae family

File:Stenostola.ferrea.-.calwer.40.03.jpg

File:Chrysolina.sturmi.-.calwer.44.06.jpg

Evarcha jucunda distribution

ID of File:Geranium.rivulare.1.jpg

Navigation menu

Search