User talk:Lycaon/Archive16

Category:Animals of the Belgian coast

Category discussion notification

Category:Animals of the Belgian coast has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Know any of these fish?

Hi Hans,

I was at a market, where some fish from the Carribean sea was sold. Can you identify any of them (annotate), or is the angle of view too unfortunate to do that? Thanks in advance, --Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To sick to do research atm, but see this: . Lycaon (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hans, very sorry to hear you are sick. I hope you will recover soon. Thank you for having a look despite this. I agree with you that one is Coryphaena hippurus. The other one, which you marked as being perhaps that species as well, is a different fish, considerably longer with a very large almost vertical forehead extending high above the eyes and mounth. --Slaunger (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought after reading a bit more about en:Mahi-mahi I realize they are both dolpin-fish, only the second one is a male individual! Odd that they look so different - and of course you were right!. --Slaunger (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:User VI100

Template:User VI100 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 template, 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!

--GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ID help needed

Hi, Lycaon, I'm going crazy with this plant , which I cannot identify due to the weird shape of the leaves. I suppose it is some Geranium sp., but which one? This picture shows the flowers better. Thanks, -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joaquim. Family is Saxifragacea. More info ASAP. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could be Saxifraga granulata. Lycaon (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes! This seems to be a mountain species, that is why it is not listed in my excellent book of Mediterranean species (Blamey & Grey-Wilson), not even the family! Thanks a lot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, no saxifrages in Blamey & Grey-Wilson. Surprised me at first. Then checked in Guide des fleurs de montagne by same authors, and bingo. If you need help on ID'ing, I've got these books at home + a nice collection of bookmarks spread over a few PCs. Lycaon (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, when I come to Belgium I'll borrough some... There is a very good one missing: Chinery, Michael (2007) - Insects of Britain and Western Europe. London: A & C Black. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anytime :) Lycaon (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Pieris formosa

Hello Botanist.

I've put on "Commons" a photo of a Pieris formosa plant, it seems to be the first one, I create the category and nominate it as QIC, but I don't know how to use it (red link in wikispecies, or in different other wikis). Fell free, if it's interesting for you ! Friendly from Paris, --Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

 checked. cheers. Lycaon (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Mount Scopus.JPG

I've changed the scope, so you might want to have another look at it-Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Jerusalem Dome of the rock BW 14.JPG has an oppose from you. After the scope change, it formally remains valid; but perhaps you may nevertheless express confirmation or change? Thank you, --Ikar.us (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I noticed and remain opposed as I don't think the view from scenario should be promoted and thus set a precedent for other such scopes. Thanks for letting me know anyway. Lycaon (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

VI Candidates

Hello Lycaon. Thanks for your interest and comments on the two maps I nominated as Valued image candidates. I changed the scope accordingly, and would appreciate if you could revisit your vote. --Elekhh (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed my vote. Lycaon (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Common Green Capsid?

I'm not sure about the id of this mirid bug: File:Bug May 2010-1.jpg. Could it be a Lygocoris pabulinus, perhaps a nymph? The brown tibial spines are characteristic of the species. Greentings, Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not that one but most likely Lygus maritimus. Lycaon (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it. Thanks! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Buffon's plane tree

Hello dear Lycaon. (does a 'Lycaon' may be 'dear' ?)
Please note that I added a complete view of this tree, and changed the scope of the VIC set. Friendly, with my unidentified veneridae...--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Buffon is ok now, the venerids I still have to check. Lycaon (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment As this concerns a rare/protected species, geolocation is approximate. Lycaon (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment Laboratory shot, hence no geolocation. Lycaon (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Strong support Very rare, criteria met for a studio photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Apodemus sylvaticus (Wood mouse).
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 04:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Rare, all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Black Backgrounds

I love your images! Thanks for contributing to our knowledge base. As a fellow photographer, I was wondering, how do you get such beautiful, pure black backgrounds? Dlempa (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wild/domesticated for VI scopes

Hi Lycaon. I have reverted your moves of some VIs from one gallery to the other, because unlike for QIs, the distinction between wild and domesticated is not about the individual picture, but about the written scope. This is why we don't have a "zoo" category, for instance. However, some of the pictures you moved might well be included in the domesticated gallery, but to the best of my current knowledge, they belong to "wild" (Dartmoor pony is probably a borderline case). --Eusebius (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying I have checked all the pictures in the galleries, this remark is only about the concept. --Eusebius (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Lycaon (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This was just a reminder, as we built this part of the organization together. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the pony back. The rest is fine. Lycaon (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Most illustrative in scope. all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met, rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met, alive butterfly in wild --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support I agree with reason. All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

All criteria met. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met, rare. Best in scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment trimming could be improved to an image QI--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Criteria met, rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment Studio photo exempted from geo-reference. Lycaon (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment For an image of value it would be better to see both sides. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Far better is scope, studio photo with big resolution --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Yes, rare. All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support I agree --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Good realisation --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment a top view and profile would be preferable for this genus.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Rare object/ criteria met for a studio photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Good realisation --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment a top view and profile would be preferable for this genus.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This best that we have, rare on Commons. Criteria met for a studio shot --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope, all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope, all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment There are dozens of images in the related category Category:Giraffa camelopardalis, I can't believe there isn't any decent opponent. --Myrabella (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact is I didn't manage to find one picture meeting the specifications to be a decent competitor: full view, in the wild, geo-referenced (or easy to geotag). And being a male, too :-). I've noticed: 1 (but legs hidden and no precise location); 2 (but feet cut, poor quality); 3 (but in a park and against the light); 4 (could be roughly geocoded I guess but sub-species with peculiar patches. So, the last thing I have to say is:  Support ! --Myrabella (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met, rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

• Very good shoot, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Per Archaeodontosaurus. --Myrabella (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Polarlicht 2.jpg

It took ages, but I think I have a probable location. It's above Bear Lake, this [1] gives a location for Bear Lake "FamCamp", which is n a peninsula jutting into a lake... It's hard to be sure exactly where, but if it's over Bear Lake, as claimed, I think it has to be fairly near where I put the pointer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. I did some quick checking and will post my comments later this morning. I think we will be able to agree on a close enough geolocation. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you've found a better location, I'm happy to bow to your judgement =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is tempting, I agree when I look at the trees, but there is a lake to the right of your position and on the photo there is a slope. Another issue is the fact that polar light is seen towards the magnetic north (from here to 82° 42′ 0″ N, 114° 24′ 0″ W would be NNE) and here the road is heading straight north-west. I'm not yet convinced so let's look at other possibilities first before rushing things. Maybe someone locally can recognize stellar constellations and given the EXIF time can point us in the right direction (no pun intended)? Unrelated to the position but important for criterion 4 (well described) : the reference to Bear Lake in the current caption is clearly wrong as it refers to a different 'Bear Lake', more than 540 km to the south-west. Lycaon (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I'll kill the link. As for my other thoughts:

I was presuming the apparent slope was lens distortion - you think it's a real slope?

If that's not the lake, then it'd presumably have to be just beyond a line of trees, if we presume the description's accurate...

The left side of the lights is over the road, but they stretch right quite a ways. So I'm not sure if the road should go directly NNE.

Augh, don't know, and at this point, would rather get supper and go to the local nature reserve than stare at maps another couple hours. I'll check in again once I'm back. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the road a little southeast (I'm hitting a precision limit) of 64°42′11.22″N 147°6′50.53″W? I can't zoom in to more than 1 pixel = .5m x .5m or so, so it seems at least possible that some of the specks could be the small trees. It's about an NNE facing, it does include the lake (if you presume it frozen and snowcovered). Bing maps lets me zoom in a little more, and shows a dull grey building at about the right spot for the orange glow on the horizon, maybe?Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The first location 'looked' better on Google Earth... Thanks for the effort, but I don't think we are going to nail this one. However, the image is probably the best we have on the scope so maybe we will have to settle with a less accurate geolocation this time. We may add a position somewhere close to that lake (preferably south of it) and state that the photo was taken within a kilometre (or whichever distance we are confident with) of the position. It is not as if the phenomenon wasn't visible over a rather large area that night. Lycaon (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, see something interesting in the local nature reserve? I'm starting of to Pas-de-Calais in a few moments to see if I can find some orchids. It is the time of the year again... Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Could hear lots of birds, but couldn't spot any that were particularly unusual - robins, sparrows, jackdaws that sort of thing. It's a enclosed large hill/small mountain in the middle of Edinburgh; I see a lot more when I go up to Fife, which I should probably do tomorrow.

I just wish I had a better camera - there's no way any photo I took would ever get even QI with what I have. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Rare object, criteria met for a studio shot --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Criteria met for a studio photo, rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met, rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FPC careless reviews

Hi Hans, You may be interested in participatin in this_discussion. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. Lycaon (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Besleria notabilis.
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 20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Floods in QI

You might be interested in an ongoing discussion regarding QI floods of late, here. Cheers, ianaré (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. Lycaon (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:User VI100

Template:User VI100

Template:User VI100 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 template, 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!

--UnreifeKirsche (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hans,

Noticed this, and have posted a comment on the deletion request. I think the new functionality on {{User VI}} is OK and could stay (as it is backwards compatible), but I agree in principle that such changes should be discussed first. I think it makes good sense to centralize the template implementation for easier maintenance - it just has to be done right such that existing templates are not broken. --Slaunger (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically agree. Lycaon (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hans!
Please look this Template_talk:User_QI
With best regards --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I just did. Lycaon (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cardiospermum halicacabum - Valued Image Review

Hallo Lycaon, I changed the scope as proposed, will you review again? Llez (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Anaxyrus boreas

Thank you for commenting.[2] Please see Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Most_valued_review_candidate_list#Anaxyrus_boreas_.28Western_Toad.29. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support meets all criteria. Goog quality -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment I'm not sure that this species merits a subscope. Neither image is used by a sister project and Google Scholar finds no instances of "Ophrys zonata". I would support a mainscope nomination, however. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Google Scholar has several hits amongst which this article (unquote Ophrys zonata as it is often mentioned as O. zonata). The species is described in Delforge, P., (2006). Orchids of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East p. 383. If you insist, a mainscope would do too for me. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support From the paper linked to by Lycaon, "O. zonata est un taxon rare en Corse puisque seulement signalé des environs de Saint-Florent (il est beaucoup plus fréquent en Sardaigne)." I think that a rare taxon may have a flower subscope, especially if it is as distinctive as this one. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image nomination Helleborus niger

Scope changed from Hyoscyamus niger (Henbane) to Hyoscyamus niger (Henbane), flower, please review again Llez (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

San Giacomo di Rialto (Facade).jpg

«Merci, je vais essayer. J’ai passé une bonne partie de la matinée à regarder ton Showcase. Je n’ai pas perdu mon temps et j’ai appris beaucoup.» Thank you, I'll try. I spent a good part of the morning to watch your Showcase. I have not wasted my time and I learned a lot. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Le 'Showcase' n'est pas mise à jour. Il faut que je trouves le temps pour le mettre en orde. Merci pour regarder. Lycaon (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

French language

Salut Lycaon. Hoe gaat het met U ?
Je te réponds chez toi et en Français, alors. Je pense que, peut-être, tu as utilisé bizarrement les mots anglais "Mother tongue", car je crois que "tongue" désigne uniquement l'organe, et non le "langage". Et donc "la langue de ma mère", en Français, c'est amusant, suivant le sens... C'est comme "la langue de boeuf", quoi !! Ah là là, Babel est bien compliqué !
Merci beaucoup pour tes commentaires et conseils sur le choix d'un appareil photo, tu as vu sûrement que le mien actuel est un petit "pocket" qui ne me donne plus satisfaction depuis que je vous côtoie tous. Le problème, c'est que je n'y connais rien de rien en technique ni en matériel, je ne suis pas du tout photographe, j'ai commencé il y a quelques mois en m'inscrivant à Wikipédia parce que je voyais trop d'articles mal écrits, et j'avais envie de les corriger. Mais très vite, presque tout de suite, j'ai foncé dans "Commons", et c'est Archéodontosaurus qui m'a très gentiment accueilli et lancé au début. Il m'a donné envie et voilà. Je suis "mordu" désormais et j'aime ça !!
Je suis conscient que mon "oeil" n'est pas forcément celui dont on a besoin dans "Commons", parce que je ne suis pas forcément très "académique" ni "encyclopédique" dans ma façon de voir le monde (et de le photographier), mais tant pis, j'essaie de me faire une petite place...
Tu as donc vu que j'étais assez actif, j'essaie d'apprendre et de progresser, tant en technique photo, que pour apporter des images intéressantes et/ou utiles. Je suis parfois assez opposé à certains comportements dans les QI, les VI ou les FP, mais je préfère le dire, c'est comme ça. Parfois je me trompe, mais parfois, je crois que j'ai raison (comme pour les "consensual reviews" par exemple). Je trouve que tu es parfois bien sévère, mais c'est sûrement toi qui es dans le vrai. Tu fais un peu "bad guy" avec ComputerHotline, non ?
Je crois comprendre que tu es flamand ? Ik verstaa (en schrijve) een beetje Nederlands, maar geen Vlaamse dialect, parce que j'ai épousé autrefois une amstellodamoise...
Encore merci en tous cas de ton message, tu es le bienvenu sur ma talk page aussi, si tu veux me dire quelque chose en "direct". Je suis très content de t'avoir lu, et de ce nouveau "contact" amical sur "Commons" (une belle aventure, by the way !!)--Jebulon (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• • re-moi. On me signale par ailleurs que "mother tongue" serait correct pour désigner langue maternelle. On en apprend tous les jours !--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hexaplex trunculus.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 strange view, but very good picture IMO--Jebulon 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1

Hi Lycaon; Given the history and personalities of the parties, I don't see that your reviews on Mbz1's work are likely to be helpful to Commons. I worry that one or both of you may stop contributing. That would be a pity, I think. Please consider not commenting on her work. I ask Mbz1 to not comment on yours. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to step back a bit. She seems rather upset, and that doesn't really help anything. You can be a bit blunt when stating your opinions. Cheers, Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Flowers ID

Bonjour Lycaon
Je viens vers toi au sujet de l'identification des specimens végétaux, et je voudrais ton opinion plus développée s'il te plait. Tu as récemment refusé une photo d'un bouquet de roses, au motif que l'identification scientifique manquait. Il me semble que c'est un "contre-sens", parce qu'il s'agit juste d'une photo de fleurs de culture (hybrides) vues d'en haut, dans un bouquet, sur un marché. L'effet recherché est uniquement esthétique et visuel et non scientifique. D'ailleurs, j'ai "catégorisé" dans "rose bunches" et dans rien d'autre, volontairement. Bien sûr, je n'ai pas le moyen d'identifier les spécimens (incomplets) autrement que par un pauvre Rosa sp., ça ne ma parait pas apporter grand-chose...
idem pour les iris. Il s'agit de cultivars complètement artificiels photographiés au Jardin des Plantes de Paris, qui est une Université (et non un simple jardin botanique). Toutes les plantes y sont scientifiquement décrites, et je photographie toujours la plaque avec le specimen, et je recopie scrupuleusement ce qui est écrit dans la "file description" de la photo. N'étant pas un scientifique, je ne peux pas faire plus. Ainsi, il y a parfois des iris qui ne sont pas plus identifiés que ce que j'écris (voir les deux autres photos à côté des roses. As-tu promu l'"Iris germanica" uniquement parce qu'il était complètement identifié ?)
Tu es connu et reconnu ici pour tes compétences, et je suis flatté de tes revues et de tes commentaires sur mes images, même quand ils sont négatifs. Merci du temps que tu y passes !
Bien cordialement,--Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (If you answer, you may use the language you chose, French or English or German maybe ! (except West Vlams, that I don't know very much !!)

Trientalis latifolia

Thank you for your help with File:Trientalis borealis 1177.JPG. I didn't know how to respond to the comment of the second reviewer. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg

Hello Lycaon, The scope has been changed in this VIC : Commons:Valued image candidates/Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg. Would you reconsider your vote? --Myrabella (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Second scope change. Your opinion would be welcome. --Myrabella (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Acknowledged. Lycaon (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission missing

Hello, Lycaon. You have new messages at Prashanthns's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And very nice editing work on the photo of Chestnutbanded Plover! Thank you. Prashanthns (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see India on your wishlist. Let me know if you need any support, (if and) when you make that trip! Prashanthns (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remember. Lycaon (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Geocodage en minéralogie

Bonjour, Ce point avait déjà été évoqué pour les VI, et j’étais sensé mettre « No Geocode is a studio work » je l’ai oublié. L’explication est simple c’est qu’en minéralogie il est, sauf exception, impossible de donner un géocodage vrai au sens de celui que l’on peut donner pour un monument. Les indications sont imprécises et ne concernent qu’un district minier qui, au mieux, couvre quelques kilomètres carrés, au pire une région entière. Même si le puits de mine nous est souvent connu, l’échantillon a pu été récolté à plusieurs kilomètres de l’entrée sans parler de la profondeur qui pour certain spécimens nous est connue. Je vais tenté de traduire çà en anglais et le mettre sous li'mage merci de surveiller ma traduction. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pas de problèmes. If you mention « No Geocode required as a studio work » on the image info, then evidently no geocode is required. I will adjust my vote. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remain calm and collegial

---

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Do not make edits like this, do so again and I will block you (and I urge you to refactor that). Remember always comment on the content not the contributor...

With respect to the edit she is complaining about: It is odd that you do an edit where the auto-summary is for a different section, but its only effect is blanking in another. I'm not sure as to how that happened, but I would suggest if you try to use edit summaries most of the time that would help - a summary about an image in the June 10 section would have clearly indicated it was an error.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The warning specifically refers to the edit on the AN not the edit on QIC. I'd draw your attention to the sentence above "...action can be taken against other parties if necessary". However, I would point out that 1 wrong (or 500 wrongs) does not justify one back. I'd also point out that one editor with an extensive block record should not be treated any better or worse than an admin.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

QIs and Mbz1

Please do NOT remove people's votes from images on QI as you did here. I'm intrigued to know what your reasoning for this one was.... -mattbuck (Talk) 12:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

VI candidate Nefertiti bust

Hallo, ich habe die Koordianten des Museums nachgetragen, in dem die Büste aufbewahrt und ausgestellt wird. Viele Grüße. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Stimme verändert. Lycaon (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Annotations

Hallo Lycaon. Wenn ich ein Bild mit "annotations" habe und nominiere es als Qualitätsbild (oder VI), sind auf der Seite der Nominierungen die "annotations" nicht zu sehen, erst wenn ich das Bild anklicke und auf die Originalseite gehe. Ich habe aber schon Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder gesehen, bei der auf der Nominierungsseite auf dem thumbnail die "annotations" zu sehen sind. Wie macht man das? You can also answer in english. Danke für die Hilfe. --User:LlezLlez (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this section? It may be helpful. Lycaon (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Monkey Photos

Greetings. I have been updating the English page on Wikipedia for Vervet Monkey. I see you have a picture of one from Zambia Chlorocebus_cynosuros.jpg. Is this the Malbrouk? If so - there are no pictures currently loaded on the page for this monkey. Please could you confirm if it is a Malbrouk and load the picture to the page or let me know so that I can do so. Regards Michaelwild (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

moved File:Sipuncula.jpg to File:Echiuridae.jpg

Hi Hans, the File:Sipuncula.jpg has been renamed to File:Echiuridae.jpg, you request a note here. But there is a redirect on the origin, and this is needed at least as long as the commons delinker hasn't done its work. So an upload of a file with the name of File:Sipuncula.jpg isn't possible as long as this link is "blue". NobbiP talk 09:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look on the redirect and after doing it's work I'll do a {{speedy}} on the redirect and when it's deleted I should do a rename of File:Sipuncula (unidentified).jpg to File:Sipuncula.jpg, right? (I've a look on your talk page, you can answer here if needed). NobbiP talk 10:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks a lot. Lycaon (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

QI

I notice you changed some "discuss" to "nomination" - I have no idea why that would be so have changed them back. In passing you closed one which had a comment on it within the past 48 hours. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's how they go to undecided after 8 days per rules. The closed one had no extra votes within the last 48 hrs. All fine. Lycaon (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't switch to nomination after 8 days of undecided they will not be removed by the bot. Lycaon (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I was not aware of that to my surprise. Personally I think it would have been reasonable to allow Kallerna to give a rationale but I accept that is not your approach to things. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No need for apologies, no harm done. Lycaon (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Marine images and locations

Hi Lycaon, Obviously none of the images in Category:Animals of the Belgian part of the North Sea have {{Location}} as that is obviously inappropriate. However, I think more detailed info about the capture location would be helpful and {{Object location}} might be an appropriate way of doing so. "BPNS" isn't that precise, and there's no real reason to be vague with those snaps.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I will try to do that where appropriate (catch location is not always available) in the near future. Lycaon (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Very interresting image, No geocoding : is a studio shoot. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk)