User talk:Lycaon/Archive13

Archives Archive 1 (3 1 2006 – 8 1 2007) Archive 2 (11 1 2007 – 30 5 2007) Archive 3 (30 5 2007 – 2 8 2007) Archive 4 (2 8 2007 – 24 8 2007) Archive 5 (25 8 2007 – 16 12 2007) Archive 6 (17 12 2007 – 27 4 2008) Archive 7 (27 4 2008 – 30 6 2008) Archive 8 (01 7 2008 – 04 11 2008) Archive 9 (04 11 2008 – 25 11 2008) Archive 10 (25 11 2008 – 10 01 2009) Archive 11 (10 01 2009 – 29 03 2009) Archive 12 (29 03 2009 – 13 06 2009)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Corvus monedula (Antwerpen).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 no doubt. --Romanceor 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you're Blackbelt

		THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
		I hereby award Lycaon this Photographers Blackbelt for his outstanding and excellent pictures.           • Richard Bartz • [®] • 17:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Brick-coloured Tachinid

Hi Hans,

Maybe the ID is wrong, I made it by visual comparison with the photos in Diptera.com, but this is a a large genus ... and family. Thanks for the contact, I'll try to talk to those people. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

e-mail?

Hi Hans,

It seems like you do not have e-mail enabled(? - I thought admin users always had e-mail enabled - ?) I'd like to discuss an issue with you in private. If that is OK with you, could you please e-mail ping me at my user name dot gmail dot com. If you, for whatever reason do not want to reveal your e-mail address to me that is something I respect, and no offense will be taken. Cheers --Slaunger (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too today, it used to be. Has been rectified since ;-). Lycaon (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:FloridaGhostCrab.jpg

This is an image I moved to Commons. If you think it is a potential candidate for featured or quality images, please feel free to nominate it. Only 1 image from this guy at Wikipedia...but at least its an excellent one. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is excellent for this species, but technically it is a bit lacking (mainly noise). I see what I can do. Thanks for telling me. Lycaon (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. No problem. I wish there were more image of this quality and resolution on wikipedia sometimes. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cistus albidus (plant).jpg

Hi, Lycaon!

I have two questions:

• In what cases is correctly repeatedly to place an image nomination?
• The rumpled flower is norm for this plant?

As a whole I like this composition, only bit small DOF.

With best regards,

--George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi George.
Renomination of a QI candidate is OK when it has not been assessed. If it was turned down (declined), it has to be improved before renomination.
About the flower: the wrinkling is normal for this species.
Regards. Lycaon (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i promote this photo

--George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See your talk

At Wikispecies. :-) Maxim_(talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of QI candidate

Hello, I have replied to your objection about the ownership of the image submitted by me to COM:QIC (Suurhusen church). Is that sufficient for you? If not: do you have a Flickr account? Then I could send you a Flickr mail from my Flickr account, the very same one used to originally upload the image to Flickr. Shall I send you the original RAW/NEF files used to produce the HDR image? Thank you in advance. --Iotatau (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Killdeer on nest (Charadrius vociferus).jpg

Hi, Lycaon!

Add, please, biological defense warning about nest in description of this photo.

Regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orobanche nana.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 Centered composition would be better but it's QI. --kallerna 13:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Armeria maritima (plants).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good DOF --Ianare 06:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cistus albidus (plant).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit small DOF, but overall good composition  Support --George Chernilevsky 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Flowers identification

Hi Lycaon,

I just came back from a trip to Kilimanjaro and have a large collection of flowers without id. Could you please help out? If possible could you also point me to some flower identifying website as well? --Muhammad (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look. At a first glance, most of them come from a garden and are not wild (Dahlia, Chrysanthemum, Rose, Canna) and one is a weed (some amaranth I guess). I'll have a closer check soon. Cheers Lycaon (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the canna sp at wikipedia FPC but there is a request for more id, could you please have a look? Regarding the others, would a species id be possible? Onece you have id'd, could you please leave me a note on my talkpage? Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your page for Quercus coccifera flowers is misidentified. That plant is not even quercus.

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

review

•  Support - An easy decision. Good quality illustration and I believe it is accurate -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eristalis arbustorum 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  Comment I dislike the shadow and the reflect of the backof the bee. --Romanceor 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Neither of those seem an issue to me, and as Romanceor didn't decline (just commented), I will promote. Maedin 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Marine biologist needed

Ahoi Hans, any (id)ea onto this ? taken at Croatia -> Sveti Juraj. The picture isn't taken by me, but I think i'am the only one who knows where to ask for an species ID :-) Thanks in advance, richie

Hi Richie. It is a Palaemon elegans Rathke, 1837 - rockpool prawn (Kleine Felsengarnele). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.   • Richard • [®] • 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, check my description of this photo

Head of prussian carp male

Hi, Lycaon!

Please, check and fix my description of this photo.

My biological english is not excellent.

With best regards,

--George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Lycaon (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My QIC 48 hours error

Hi now, Lycaon!

Thanks You for correction my error.

I promote this:

• Belgian Westland Sea King Radom 2007 photo 3.jpg
• L'Oceanografic, Valencia, Spain 1 - Jan 07.jpg
• Blauschimmelkäse IMGP5469 wp.jpg

because 0 oppose votes exist. I shall be attentive further.

With best regards,

--George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gallus gallus domesticus "Blue Cochin"?

Have I named this correctly? I'm pretty sure it's a Blue Cochin, but I'm not sure how to combine it with the scientific name. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks! Maedin\^talk 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It was already OK, I just fine-tuned ;-). Lycaon (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hans! I got it right! O_o Thank you for the fine-tuning, too, I can do that in future, ;-) Maedin\^talk 06:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks …

… for creating the QI category for me! – I admire your numerous excellent biological images. Jochen --Iotatau (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and you are welcome ;-) Lycaon (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

I see that you're dealing with copyright of images, so I have two questions. 1. If we have a picture with public domain license in low resolution is it ok to replace it with the same image in better resolution which can be found on Internet, no matter who scanned it? 2. If I find an image with GNU license on Flickr, can I upload the modified version only, providing a link to original? Regards. --Lošmi (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch I seem to have overlooked this. I usually try to keep to the simple copyright issues, cause I'm not a die-hard specialist ;-). I could try to answer your questions, but to be honest I'm not certain about either. So I will instead refer you to Commons_talk:Licensing or specifically to Michael Maggs who is a real specialist in these matters. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:user categories

Hello. uch, this is several hundred photos... Pudelek (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be grateful if you help me :) --Pudelek (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) :) --Pudelek (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anthyllis vulneraria (flower 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 Nice! QI --George Chernilevsky 08:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orchis simia (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 08:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iphiclides podalirius (top).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. --kallerna 14:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oryx gazella (Gemsbok).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 picture, clear composition --Mbdortmund 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gymnadenia rhellicani (inflorescense).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Bit tighter crop would be better, but it's ok. --kallerna 14:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anacamptis fragrans (flower spike).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI. --kallerna 14:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop breaking the rules?

It is allowed to re-nominate an undecided VIC - Therfore, your revert of my renomination is concidered to be vandalism. 79.180.10.184 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious IP edits are considered vandalism. Lycaon (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vaccinium vitis-idaea (flowering).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! QI --N.Nych 06:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anagallis arvensis (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Iotatau 08:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pelagia noctiluca (group).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good shot, QI --George Chernilevsky 07:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Epupa falls 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 view --N.Nych 05:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Valencia - cathedral (Porta Almoina).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 --George Chernilevsky 07:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lanquais - castle.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 --George Chernilevsky 07:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Malus sylvestris fruits.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good quality, excellent composition --George Chernilevsky 12:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oryx gazella (Gemsbok) 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 obvious QI --Ianare 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation?

Hi Hans, seems like you are leaving soon for an extended period. Are you heading for a new exotic location, on the eternal quest for new insights and new good photos ;-). Anyway just wanted to drop a note saying that it would be interesting to hear if you have made any thoughts following the mediation proposal put forward by Durova at COM:AN/UP? --Slaunger (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Hans. I see you have been active here since my post. I do not very easily get annoyed at other users, but I must admit that I am beginning to be slightly irritated that you have chosen not to respond at all to this message on your talk page. As a minimum, you could write, that "No, I have not done any further thoughts about this", or "Well, I did think about it, but I do not think there is anything more to add.", or "I will not respond because that is the best strategy for just making this issue go away", or "I will not waste my time on this, it is a non-issue and i have better things to do" or "Other admins are taking care of this, I should stay out to not inflame further dispoutes" or whatever... For instance, one thought I have had is that you might think I am just a pain in a specific body part normally used for sitting on. It is all speculations though as I have no idea. Considering the many fruitful and interesting interactions (well for me at least) I perceive we have had in the past, I would really, really like you to put some kind of response slightly higher up on your job queue. Best wishes, --Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One question first, Kim. Did you get my 22/06/2009 mail? Lycaon (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statement "I will not waste my time on this, it is a non-issue and I have better things to do" may come closest to the reality. Commons is about trying to provide good content for other wikimedia projects and not about quarrelling, insulting and bickering. I already regret putting up that message at COM:AN/UP, where Durova is making a mountain out of an molehill. I may have exaggerated with the original two years of harassment comment, but that was my perception at that time. If you received my mail you know how I think about the whole issue and I'd rather drop it here and now. I do appreciate the concern that you and some others have shown though. Lycaon (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hans, No, I never received an e-mail from you? Would you be so kind to resend it? Anyway, thank you for giving some insights in your thoughts about this. --Slaunger (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll resend as soon as I am home. I'm surprised you didn't get as I didn't see a bounce report. Lycaon (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am surprised as well. I just double-checked my spam mails and it was not hidden there either. As you may understand the fact that I never received a reply did not help on my perception of the situation either... --Slaunger (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lysimachia vulgaris (flower).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. Maedin 07:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ter Streep.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 Decent technicals corresponding to 600 mm eff. focal length, informative. --Iotatau 19:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

withdraw

This is not as petulant as it may have seemed. I appreciate your honest review. It's just occurred to me that I might have come across as stroppy, :-) Maedin\^talk 12:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Petulant?? I'd have done the same ;-). ~~

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vincetoxicum hirundinaria (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Iotatau 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lotus cytisoides (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Iotatau 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Limodorum abortivum (flower).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Rare, good subject isolation. --Iotatau 17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Lycaon, thank you for this edit! I realy like the result. Can you tell me what you exactly dit?! Best regards --Leviathan (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Brodiaea californica buds.jpg

Dear Lycaon,

I have checked it in the meantime too on my son's PC (which is more powerful). Thanks for your appreciated help. --Réginald (To reply) 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC) PS: In a few days I will take a new pic of this Californian bulb I have in my garden (when it is fully blooming).

Werk aan de winkel

Beste Hans,

Ik zal met plezier de gevraagde bijkomende categorisering van mijn foto's doen, al zal het wellicht niet in de eerstkomende dagen zijn wegens andere bezigheden. Het zal overigens inderdaad eerder enkele uurtjes dan minuten vergen... Met vriendelijke groet, Marc. (MJJR)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Malva dendromorpha (flowers).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Pleasant composition --Ianare 08:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nectarinia mariquensis (subadult) 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good (any chance of ID'ing the plant ?) --Ianare 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Plant is an Aloe sp., I may do better, but not as yet. Lycaon 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pallieter (dredging).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 Would get my promotion with a crop like Ter Streep. --Iotatau 20:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Was not cropped because of port surroundings. The other one was taken at open sea. Lycaon 05:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Port surroundings good. I mean the top and bottom 1/5 strip (plain sky and waves) which don't contribute to ship. --Iotatau 09:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Cropped. Lycaon 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I like this "work horse" and see no significant flaws. --Iotatau 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Image rename

Good evening Lycaon (or whatever time it is that you read this). Aside from my time at FP, over the past few months I've been helping to clear the backlog over at Image Renaming. While working through the files there, I came across this picture, one of a set that had been nominated to be renamed, and rejected due to lack of trusted user status. The name seemed rather generic, so I figured that if it was going to be renamed, it should have a more descriptive title, and for that matter, a description. I went to the history, intending to ask the renamer if they knew anything else about the picture that I could add to it, or if they could contact the author (whose language I do not speak) for more information. Imagine my surprise when I saw your name! I thought that Administrators would automatically have rename rights, but that's beside the point.

As far as I can make out (due to limited access to the internet at work) the picture features Agatha of Sicily, at the Santa Gadea church; though I'm still trying to find out what (or where)'Illereichen' is. I am going to attempt to find out more so I can add to the description and give the set a more meaningful title, so, in the meantime, I hope you will not mind if I remove your rename tags. If you know anything more about the subject, or can talk to the photographer for me, I would be much obliged.

Yours,

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is part of a misnamed set. Slobot touched the file after me and before the renamebot, which stopped the process (last edit has to be by an admin or trusted). It is from a St Agatha church in Illerrieden in Baden-Würtemberg, Germany (see category). Don't worry I did my research. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Good thing I decided to wait for your response before doing anything rash. I will still add to the description when I get the chance, simply to make the pictures more useful. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

File:Merced metro.jpg

Hi, you deleted this file File:Merced metro.jpg as a copyright violation but you forgot to close the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Merced metro.jpg. Could you please do it? Sv1xv (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry, it was my one but last delete before I fell asleep ;-). Thanks for helping. Lycaon (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Amador Valley We the People.jpg

Hello, the license on the image at http://www.flickr.com/photos/woojoo/3448062173/ has been changed to CC-BY. Following this change, I request that this deleted image file, File:Amador Valley We the People.jpg, be restored. Thank you. Deltawk (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Lycaon (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

See my response. -- Ram-Man 18:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

Re:

As I mentioned, I will upload a higher res over the current version and that will address your concerns. Nonetheless, I appreciate you striking out your comment and while I do not entirely agree with you, I respect your opinion. Thanks

Any luck id'ing the flowers --Muhammad (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Scope

Hi!

I now support it after change in scope. Regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Argyroteta aquatica Paar.jpg

★ 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:
Argyroneta aquatica (Diving bell spider).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 4 (is not fully described on the image page). Please specify which of them is a male, and which is a female. I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) - fixed by Lycaon. Rastaman3000 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Info Previous comment has been addressed by Lycaon. I'm ready to support, but is it necessary to add "male and female" as a subscope? There was no subscope for this one and it looked natural to me. Just a question. --Eusebius (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment A pertinent question I guess. I will remove the male/female from the scope and see how it goes ;-). Lycaon (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral - per Eusebius. Rastaman3000 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Really best in category --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Argyroneta aquatica (Diving bell spider), male and female to Argyroneta aquatica (Diving bell spider) --Lycaon (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

---

•  Support i support it after change in scope. It is best showing this animals in this scope --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Best for this scope. Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Geocoding

Basically, two points:

• There are classes of images explicitly exempted from geocoding: Your language didn't exempt these from having to say why they were exempted, which creates an awful lot of garbage on the description pages.
• Even for things not in the automatically exempt category, a description page should contain relevant material. It's hard to see a statement about why it isn't geocoded being a useful contribution to the description page, though I could see a note on the image's talk page.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but: we're talking about VI's, not just any image but a tiny fraction of all images on Commons. This makes it easier an unambiguous. There is a geocoding statement required, whether this is in the form of coordinates (in most cases) or in the form of an exemption statement, for which we can be quite lenient as long as it is properly explained. Then there won't be long discussions any more and for a valuable image there can't be too much info on the description page. Lycaon (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but VI cannot hurt the usability of the image description page, and including off-topic discussion does that. If you want to suggest it be put on the image talk page (and preferably exclude the default categories from this requirement), then I could get behind you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree a statement of why it does not need geocoding would be appropriate on the talk page - it is not information about the image, but information about information (or lack there of) on the image page (ie meta information). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And then a link to the talk page?? You people really want to make it needlessly complicated. And then it will start all over with requests why an image has no need for geolocation and the the discussion starts again for all those borderline cases. Just do the sensible thing and put it on the description. E.g. knowing that geolocation is approximate or absent because of rarity/protection of a plant is very relevant information and not meta-sub-info stuff!! Lycaon (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Have added category:Location not applicable which seems to be the nearest we've got (maybe create a category for location withheld if there are going to be a lot of them?). There is nothing requiring a reason for non geo-location in the VI criteria, just a requirement for "coarse location". --Tony Wills (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep I noticed the recat. Made me drop my opposition. What I don't get though is the fear of extra info on the description page. Things like picture taken in the lab, or picture taken in a private home do add to the value of an image and stop people from asking irrelevant questions. This phrases are akin to giving location info. Just imagine a picture of one of my Amphipods without the lab statement. The first reviewer that comes around states oppose cause not geocoded. A simple short sentence can avoid that. So, why not? Lycaon (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A pack of misnamed and micategorized files (by a bot ?)

Hello Lycaon,
May I ask you an advice (and perhaps some help)? There are a lot of misnamed and micategorized files in Category:Olea europaea subsp. europaea, e.g. File:Starr 071224-0642 Olea europaea subsp. europaea.jpg (in fact a blurry image of a false Eiffel tower in Las Vegas...). What can be done? Thanks in advance for your answer, --Myrabella (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is not the first time that Starr images get a wrong category. I will recategorize those that don't belong. Thanks for telling. Lycaon (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your immediate answer! I bring your attention to the fact that these files contain the sub-species name in their own name so perhaps a recategorization won't be enough. Because of their name, they will continue to appear in search results, won't they? --Myrabella (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(after lunch break) Yes, I will also file a rename request for those. Lycaon (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw you did it => thanks a lot! Ou plutôt : « Merci beaucoup, Lycaon ! », comme je vois que tu peux t'exprimer avec un niveau fr-2  ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

De riens ;-) Exprimer c'est dire beaucoup. Je comprend pres ce que tout, mais écrire c'est autre chose ... Lycaon (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Error awards?

Hi, Lycaon!

Please, visit File_talk:Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg

With best regards --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK George, I will have a look. Lycaon (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Dangling swamp-lover Helophilus pendulus.jpg

Ahoi Hans, what a surprise. Doc Taxon from de:WP finaly has identified it as Helophilus intentus. Can you rename it, please ? Best regards, Richie   • Richard • [®] • 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richie. Surprise indeed ;-). I filed a rename request. Thanks a lot. Lycaon (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I was just wondering. I saw you typed in a flickrpass for this image on Asta's behalf:

• File:Threave castle.jpg

The image is by Kenny Muir. I know he licensed some of his photos as cc by 2.0 in 2006 since Sandstein typed in a flickpass for this old photo he uploaded: File:Jokulsarlon lake, Iceland.jpg I had contacted Muir about it (to see if Muir would change the license from ARR) and he never replied....to even protest that the photo was licensed with an unfree Non-commercial restriction. So, it was likely licensed freely.

My question is if Asta was a trusted user, would typing in a flickr pass for this other 2006 photo uploaded by him from Muir's account be OK...or not?

• File:Loch Talla.jpg

What do you think? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake there. Thanks for noticing. We may eventually give User Asta the benefit of the doubt but first (s)he will have to be contacted. I reversed my edit. Lycaon (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation

As a biologist I am hoping that you can translate "anteroventral seta on the mid tibia" for me. See http://www.diptera.info/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=23343 in relation to File:Undentified Fly 9820.jpg. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If found you an image and I made you an image. :-). Setae are rather stiff hairs or bristles. Lycaon (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

pd-ineligible

Hi. I was wondering if you could shed some light onto the edit you made to File:Smsi logo.png‎, as far as changing it to {{pd-ineligible}}. If you look at what I wrote on the uploader's talk page, could you explain to me how a logo such as this qualifies as pd-ineligible? I'm pretty new to Commons, so I could be wrong in my thoughts, but this is a straightforward copyrighted logo, no? Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The logo only exists of text, which makes it pd ineligible. I might also have used: {{PD-textlogo}}. regards. Lycaon (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding and giving that link, I appreciate it. I've been watcing Special:NewFiles recently, and tagging a lot of logos as copyvios. I'm glad you pointed that out to me. :-) Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon,
in case you aren't already off to wiki-break, couldn't you shortly explain your halo comment on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rainbow Falls in GGP.jpg as asked by Mila? Even in full-res I couldn't see anything what I deem a halo, but I've to admit that I know halos only from x-ray/CT images. Thanks and happy holiday. --Túrelio (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an obvious white line (halo) on the dark/light interface, especially visible on the left upper part of the falls. This artefact indicates oversharpening. Regards Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste - The Two Sisters, On the Terrace.jpg

Hello, Did you see that I upload a new version? Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste - The Two Sisters, On the Terrace.jpg Thanks for your review. Yann (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Probably best image within the scope. Meets valued image criteria. -- Tupungato (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support for the same reasons. -- H005 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Meets all of the criteria for a Valued Image.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Probably best image within the scope. Meets valued image criteria. -- Tupungato (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Meets all of the criteria for a Valued Image.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Petunia x hybrida.JPG

Hello, I uploaded new version of that file. Could you review it again at Commons:Quality images candidates? —kallerna™ 08:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —kallerna™ 15:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA which just closed as successful. I really appreciate the trust that the Commons community has placed in me and look forward to expanding my contributions to Commons. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK for me. —kallerna™ 13:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment It seems a bit sad to illustrate a glacier with so little ice. This other picture might be more "fashionable" (the glacier is more obvious), but perhaps the current candidate shows better the work of the glacier in the valley (the moraine in the foreground), if not the glacier itself. --Eusebius (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• This image shows more of the glacier than the other one. The other image was taken in winter and so has everything covered in snow. Lycaon (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The glacier might be covered in snow on the other photograph, thus making it difficult to distinguish from the landscape, but the picture clearly shows the track of the glacier, from the névé to a moraine, well-centred on the picture, whereas on the candidate, the glacier is only in the background, seen from a low point of view that makes it difficult to decide, by the subject itself, whether it is a glacier or only residual snow. --Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support This image is much better than the other one. Yann (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Great image, good overview of the place, best image in the category, although this one is also good. Yann (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Meets all criteria in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Peilican.jpg

Thank you for making the suggestion to rename the above file due to a spelling error in the filename. There is actually a different version of the file in my gallery. File:Pelican-pink-backed.jpg, so perhaps I should request a delete of the orginal [mispelled file], rather than a rename? I am still new to the commons, and am trying to familiarise myself with the way things work here.

Julielangford (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julie. Normally, different versions of images are all kept, but on user request obsolete version may be deleted. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hello, Lycaon!

I am glad that You have returned.

Please, visit Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pandinus_imperator_2009_G1.jpg. I respect any Your opinion: (+) or (-).

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks George. I'll have a look soon. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read. Thanks --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GTSY

Hans! Welcome back! Maedin\^talk 12:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• How was your trip? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

GTSY2! The trip was very fine save for a car accident (no one injured) and a stolen wallet. Beautiful country and friendly people. The images are a bit less successful because of difficult shooting circumstances (almost daily 100% humidity, high temperatures, shooting from boats and under low light conditions) so don't expect FP candidates ;-), yet some interesting snaps on their way.

@Maedin, sorry to hear about your interrupted hike. Are you OK now?

Lycaon (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So glad to hear you had a good time, though shame about the wallet and the accident. I've read some fantastic things about the Costa Rican reserves and national parks; apparently they have one of the best systems in the world and dedicate a huge portion of their land to protection. I'd certainly love to go there some day, and look forward to seeing some of your pictures. In fact, although I haven't looked, I could bet that Costa Rica is sparsely covered on Wikipedia and I'd like to write some articles on the area, so I'll keep an eye on your uploads and see if anything inspires me, ;-)

I'm getting better, definitely, though still not 100% and I have another week off work. I was gutted to have to interrupt my hike, though I did at least have eight straight days of fantastic hiking weather. I managed to travel 40km, which I suppose isn't too bad considering that it was all uphill and downhill! At least the time off work has given me the opportunity to go for adminship at Wikipedia; I don't think I'd have gone for it if I had the pressure of work to think about at the same time! Still not sure what the outcome will be, but I have my fingers crossed and am trying to be relaxed about it, ;-)

Great to have you back, so pleased that you had a great time! Maedin\^talk 07:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bildverwendung Loligo

Hallo, ist es möglich, das Foto vom Loligo als Veranschaulichung in einer Biologie-Prüfung zu verwenden? Wie genau soll dann die Quellenangabe aussehen? Danke für Ihre Antwort. MfG, Claudia Blüthner

Es ist sicherlich möglich. Ich woll sie ein Quellenangabebeispiel geben am Wochenende. MfG. Lycaon (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:Papio ursinus.jpg

Hi! Sorry for bothering. I just happened to come across this photo you had uploaded. I'm afraid the monkey depicted doesn't belong to the Papio ursinus (Chacma Baboon) species, but rather the Papio cynocephalus (Yellow Baboon) which is easy to prove: Chacma Baboons and other species of the genus don't live in Malawi, only Yellow Baboons do. Not to mention the obvious sign of the yellowish coloured pelage, while Chacma Baboons are much darker, brownish and blackish. I think the image should be renamed, if it's possible. --Mathae (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That can be done. Thanks for telling me. Any day soon I'll make the corrections. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mathae (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

QI candidates

Welcome back :-). I see you've been a bit further abroad than usual :-). I am impressed with a 500mm focal length lens and I sympathise with the difficult shooting conditions! But I do wonder whether those images need a bit of cropping (large areas of blurred forest, small area of bird :-).
PS Have you thought of adding something like {{Photo Information}} to your images, most just duplicates EXIF info (so I would leave those blank) but you can add info about the lens model, the flash unit (if any), and what sort of support was used (eg freehand, tripod etc), and other notes (eg from a rocking boat ;-))
PPS Do you know that all your edits are marked "m" ? I'm sure you must do some edits that aren't minor :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
PPPS I have recently decided that I will upload the full, unedited version of my photos, then my best edit over top. That way better editors can have something to work from (although I expect that they may prefer RAW files :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying Tony. I actually made two version of those three files, they each have a cropped counterpart for taxobox use, yet they are only 1024×768 in size (see VI noms). So for QI I'd rather leave them uncropped. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

PS's: I'll look into the template, my contributions are mostly minor (I untag when I create a new file/lemma if I don't forget), and your last comment looks like an interesting idea. Lycaon (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at your upload gallery, yes I see those other versions. You could probably crop to 1600x1250 or so and get something just acceptable in size for QI (for people who find that important ;-), good luck getting the full size ones through :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Denoise

I have seen that you denoised one of my images. If you tell me how to do it with gimp, I might be able to do it myself in the future. =) Best regards -Korall (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to, but unfortunately I use commercial stuff (Corel Paint Shop Pro with Neat Image). Lycaon (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Try playing with the values of the plug-ins. The defaults for these are intended for an average and well, my plan was to one day start with the smallest values possible and work my way up on a few noisy images to see 1)if the plug-in works and 2)start to get some experience with it which should lead eventually to that kind of knowledge where I could look at the image and just know about what settings it would need to improve it.

My theory is that they use the same mathematical transformations, all of these applications. It is the way that the application accepts the input (the GUI) that differs. In truth, whoever first started to denoise with PaintShopPro started the way I suggested and shared this knowledge either in a classroom or in a book/magazine or in an online how-to and even Lycaon had to use the plug-in often to get a feel for how to make it work.

I think that the default settings for this plug-in that comes with GIMP are simply set too high and are too destructive. I also acknowledge the fact that I haven't tried to use this plug-in for several years now. So, the only thing I really know is what I shared with you in previous paragraph here, my plan.... -- (sorry Lycaon, I was only lightly trolling...) carol (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask

Why the revert? I don't want to edit war with you, but a file page is supposed to follow a convenient format. You do not reserve ownership of the page so I politely ask you to revert.ZooFari 16:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for inquiring. My 1300+ uploaded photo's use the same convenient format which uses no exotic custom templates. I don't plan to change the lay-out. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the only thing that bothered me is the placement of the coordinates, but never mind, those are too many files :) ZooFari 14:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions/comments are unwanted

Nice thumbnails of hummingbirds at QI. I was thinking about a /Promotion and then I thought screw that and didn't.

I am here wasting electrons and public disc-space at your talk page to complain about the local hummingbirds here. There was one gruffing just outside of the window here. I have a difficult time onomatopoeia-ing the sound that these birds make -- gruffing seems to be reasonable for this -- their noise doesn't match their size or visual character in my opinion. Well, back to the point....

I grabbed my camera, thinking that I might be able to get the sound file from a movie (even if the camera is making broken images) made while the bird was chirping gruffing and it was as if the damn thing was watching me and quit as soon as I was ready to record it.

In truth, I have little evidence that my last few months photographing in my hometown was not being interferred with by posers -- here, I have a semi-domesticated wildlife that seems to know enough to know when not to pose.

Next time: crows who apparently become friends with the more generous of the subdivision inhabitants within their range....

-- carol (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My 15 minutes with a real camera this decade:

http://carol.gimp.org/files/img_6387.jpg

http://carol.gimp.org/files/img_6409.jpg

http://carol.gimp.org/files/img_6420.jpg

Lesson learned too late: if you take some awesome photographs real quickly with another persons camera, don't put them online until you are done playing with the borrowed camera. -- carol

Hi Carol. Real cameras are not always a bonanza. Circumstances (and luck) are even more important. Thirty days and 3000+ shots in a hot and humid (close to 100% every day) climate yield only a handful of pretty pictures. Lucky you that you can enjoy the hummingbirds outside your window. I occasionally see a blackbird here or a sparrow... Lycaon (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support rare photo, best in category. Good description. Meets all of the criteria for VI --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflict ?

Possible, it is personal conflict. Kallerna's voting is very similar to personal hostility. It is inadmissible in Commons and very incorrect for an administrator. Same was earlier two times. At that time Kallerna has received the polite remark from other users.

Possibly, the reason that I have rejected a few Kallerna's nominations. However I always support its good works. I am surprised by such relation, however I concern Kallerna friendly.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussed misunderstanding now finished. The good friendship is good for Commons Wikimedia. -George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Great!! Never thought kallerna had wrong intentions. Sorry for not answering earlier, I've been rather busy IRL. Lycaon (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

• Support I think it is the best photo we have for this scope --Kersti (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support best photo in the category. --Kersti (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Rare photo in good quality of rare animal. Full descrition. Alternative in this category not exist. It is valued contribution --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Photographers Blackbelt

		THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
		I hereby award at you this Photographers Blackbelt for your outstanding and excellent pictures. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thalurania colombica (female).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good enough for me, I guess the small bird was kind of far away and I think it is hard to d better consithering the circumstances.--Korall 19:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

• Image:Jacobaea aquatica.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.  categorized
• Image:Phlomis fruticosa 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.  categorized
• Image:Taraxacum officinale (inflorescense).jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.  categorized
• Image:WikiSpecies.svg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.  categorized
• Image:Crustacea.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.  categorized
• Image:Dactylorhiza majalis (plant).jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.  categorized

VI nomination

Question about my mushroom photos. It is a rare edible fungi iodine bolete.

• File:Boletus_impolitus_2009_G1.jpg - This photo in good illumination and shows some mushrooms from diffirent angles.
• File:Boletus_impolitus_2009_G2.jpg - This photo of one mushroom, however shows, how it grows.

Both QI and both geocoded.

What is Your opinion concerning a VI nomination: nominate first, second or both as set?

I know that you are usually taken, therefore I do not wait for a quick reply. Please, answer at free time.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Hoi Lycaon,

Ik waardeer dat je de tijd genomen hebt om te stemmen, ik weet dat het verzoek voor een herbevesting raar is maar het is zeker geen zoeken naar aandacht.

Sinds gisteren zat ik met het idee om te stoppen omdat ik al een tijdje het gevoel heb dat ik teveel fouten maakt en daardoor andere admins te veel aan het werk zet. Toen ik aangaf op IRC dat ik wou stoppen als admin kwam iemand met het idee om een rfa te doen om te kijken of er nog voldoende vertrouwen is en daarop te beslissen om te stoppen of niet, het liefst had ik persoonlijk alles in stilte laten verlopen en nu geedit als een gewone gebruiker.

En ja ik weet iedereen maakt fouten, we zijn allemaal mensen en alleen mensen die zeggen dat ze geen fouten maken zijn fout maar het is een verschil tussen een foutje maken en teveel fouten maken, en ik vind persoonlijk dat ik over dat laatste ben heen gegaan.

Groetjes, Huib talk 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Platycapnos tenuiloba (habitus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent --George Chernilevsky 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support This photo corresponds to all criteria --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Good quality; fulfills all requirements IMO. -- JovanCormac 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Fulfills all requirements IMO. -- JovanCormac 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Fulfills all requirements IMO. -- JovanCormac 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO this is bit better, I would use it in Wikipedia. But they're both almost as good, so I won't vote. —kallerna™ 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It has better quality, yes. But the candidate has the advantage of showing the cormorant in its natural habitat. -- JovanCormac 08:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support for showing the bird in its natural habitat --Kersti (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Puerto Banús Dusk Panorama, Andalucia, Spain - Sept 2009.jpg

Hi Lycaon, can you be more specific about the stitching error? I looked and couldn't see anything. The boat on the right is a little blurry because it was moving. Thanks, :) Maedin\^talk 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've indicated the two most noticeable stitch faults with numbers 1 and 2 (to be removed after viewing). A few others are so minor as to be negligible. The movement of some of the boats (the rightmost one specifically) at the other hand is rather more disturbing than those stitch errors. A crop might fix that. Lycaon (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hans, for taking the time. I spoke to Diliff about the errors and he'll keep it in mind for a future upload, but might not be able to correct them. Cheers, Maedin\^talk 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my friend!

Thank you so much for pointing out the problem with that amphipod image! Actually, I just entered the information wrong first time - I am the author of the file! At any rate, it don't matter to me if it gets deleted! I am always happy to help out other people, ciao :) Stho002 (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And as for Motuweta isolata, permission will be forthcoming, but I will investigate if this is really necessary, since I did list myself as author, and "courtesy of" someone else could just mean that he let me use his camera!

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ocypode quadrata (Cahuita).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. --Iotatau 10:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dynastes hercules (female).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent. Good for FP nom. --George Chernilevsky 10:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi!

Any thoughts on why you reverted my (arguably uncontroversial) addition to the FPC rules? Small changes in that vein are being done all the time without voting on them, such as the aforementioned "Well documented" criterion, or even the whole section "Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents" for that matter...

Cheers, JovanCormac 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. No discussion → no consensus (viz. [1]). Lycaon (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but only acceptable if that principle (no rule change w/o consensus) is being enforced consistently (cf. [2], the discussion here featured everything but consensus). -- JovanCormac 19:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very fine by me :-). Lycaon (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

F-16 VIC

You see, the problem is than when I had nominated a different picture for VI some time ago, it was rejected by Yann (see here), because the scope was not exactly the same as the category (even though it was, just a different word was used to make it more precise - and thus a bit narrower). This time scope=category and it's wrong again. Your oppose is correct, of course, as there really are two SDTs, but then what should the scope be? [[:Category:Solo Display Team|F-16 Solo Display Team]]? Airwolf (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, tightrope walking between narrow scope and a scope not fitting the contents ;-). I'd go for F-16 Solo Display Team as a scope and see what happens (I would tend to support that, but from monday I will be at sea for three weeks...). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And how about splitting? I mean, creating two categories, one for the F-16, one for the PC-7 (with one picture). Airwolf (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? One may envision more pictures to populate this two cats in the future. Lycaon (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is done, see here. Airwolf (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Passer hispaniolensis

Thanks for your help ;-), I've linked the pages on wikipedia where the image is used. --Cesco77 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Any time. Lycaon (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting images! I hope you enjoyed our isle and sardinian people ;-) --Cesco77 (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support meets all criteria. The butterfly good showing wings from both sides. -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Fulfills all criteria. Excellent quality and very illustrative. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Quercus coccifera flowers misidentified

The picture you have loaded labeled Quercus coccifera is something else. If I knew what it was, I'd rename it. Please see the discussion to that page to see what the flowers really look like. I think you must have a holly or some other look-alike plant. Brillig (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Arghh!! You are so right. How embarrassing. It is of course a Mediterranean Buckthorn (Rhamnus alaternus). I will fix this ASAP. Thanks a lot for noticing. Lycaon (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good. Now I can stop trying to figure out what to do about it. Cheers! Brillig (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Valued Contributions Barnstar

		* The Valued Contributions Barnstar *
		I hereby award to Hans Hillewaert a.k.a. Lycaon Thank You for all Your tireless contributions and some rare photos! 150 Valued Images - Excellent! --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Neutral I'm not sure if this image isn't more valuable yet (it's a little more detailed, at least). -- JovanCormac 15:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• The main difference is the use of flash in the photo you mention. I personally prefer images in natural light, if I have the choice. Others' opinions may differ. Lycaon (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - this one is better as most valuable illustration. Overall meet all VI criteria --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria. Photo in good quality. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Quality is less than perfect, but it's certainly the best of the species we have, and fulfills all other criteria as well. -- JovanCormac 07:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Meets all criteria. Rare photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alitta succinea (epitoke).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Lovely image -Herbythyme 15:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support as others, only one image for this scope, and it's in good quality --Cesco77 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support best shot for this scope --Cesco77 (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Unique image for this scope, good quality --Cesco77 (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support few images for this scope, and this is in excellent quality --Cesco77 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria for a VI --Cesco77 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Support - Only image of high quality displaying the Hetaerina cruentata. Tiptoety ^talk 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Rare photo. Meets all criteria. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Anagallis foemina1.jpg

For your information. Regards, --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It might manage a finger, but the whole hand?

"Soon we will allow 640x480 images again"[3]. Oh good, I have been saving up a few nominations for when that day arrives :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support All criteria met and only this sole image exist in the scope. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support All criteria met and only this sole image exist in the scope. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Meets all criteria and is the only image on commons in the scope. -Korall (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support All criteria met, rare photo and good quality -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support All criteria met, rare photo in good quality. Only this sole photo showing fruit in its natural environment -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support All criteria met, rare. Alternative not exist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met, good quality. Alternative not exist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support As I unserstad the rules, it is the review size that matters, not smaller and not bigger. At this size I think it is well illustrated and better than the other image in the category because the other one has part of the animal cropped off. The image meets all criteria and goes through for me. --Korall (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met, best in scope. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support All criteria met, good photo. Alternative not exist, valued contribution -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)