User talk:FredD

Archives jusqu'en 2019

File:Linckia guildingi MNHN.jpg

Bonjour Fred,

Avant tout bonne et heureuse année!

J'ai vu que tu as catégorisé cette image comme Linckia guildingi et comme Ophidiaster guildingi, sur le site du MNHN elle est décrite comme Ophidiaster guildingi. J'ai vu aussi sur l'article en français fr:Linckia guildingi tu listes Ophidiaster guildingi comme un nom synonyme, cependant sur WoRMS, ce sont bien 2 espèces différentes, toutes les deux acceptées, si je ne me trompe. Qu'est-ce qui te fais dire qu'elles sont synonyme? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Salut Christian, et bonne année ! Ce spécimen fait partie des spécimens douteux de cette collection. Je ne me souviens plus si je l'ai examiné en dehors de la photo... Vu les tubercules ambulacraires, je l'ai recorrigée en Ophidiaster ; mais de toute façon l'image n'est pas utilisée sur Wiki et n'a pas vocation à l'être, on en a de meilleures et plus sûres (y compris de spécimens préservés). Merci pour tes téléversements, que je répartis pieusement sur les articles dédiés ! Bien à toi, FredD (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Merci pour la réponse, mais j'aimerai un petit éclaircissement au sujet de l'homonimie.... est ce que les deux espèces sont synonymes? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

WoRMS reconnaît les deux, donc normalement non (d'autant qu'elles ont été décrites par le même auteur dans la même publi, qui les a donc différenciées). Mais il est fréquent dans les spécimens de muséum que toutes les Ophidiasteridae soient appelées abusivement Ophidiaster, soit qu'il s'agisse d'un synonyme obsolète soit d'une négligence... Donc il vaut mieux se méfier. Cdlt, FredD (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

bon ok merci, à bientot :) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Estrela do Mar - Ilha Grande-RJ-Brasil (1376045179).jpg

Bonjour, une étoile à déterminer... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done FredD (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Report on the sea-lilies, starfishes, brittle-stars and sea-urchins ...

Bonjour, comme tu le constatera j'ai téléchargé les planches d'une publication scientifique, elles sont ici. Pas besoin pour toi de faire des crops, je m'en occuperais, ainsi que d'améliorer les images, seulement il me faudra un peu de temps, je les placerais ici, ou j'ai déjà commencé. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool, merci. Après, les illustrations sont assez peu lisibles, donc utiles seulement pour les pages encore non-illustrées. Préviens-moi quand le détourage sera terminé. Encore bravo pour ton travail (que je dispose pieusement sur Wiki : maintenant presque toutes les familles d'ophiures sont illustrées) et bonne fin de week-end, FredD (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Unidentified Echinodermata (26808006087).jpg

Bonjour, voici un échinoderme à identifier. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done ! FredD (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Super merci, c'est rapide! en voici un autre File:Unidentified Asteroidea (4360053842).jpg! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done ! FredD (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2019 (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:
Berthella martensi shows these gills..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Pour VI

Mets profil pour l'image du bénitier et place la seconde avec face. N'oublie pas le nom vernaculaire anglais que j'ai rajouté sur la premiere. Bonne journée --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Merci, tu es mon ange gardien ! FredD (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2019 (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:
Dascyllus trimaculatus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:25, 23 October 2019 (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:
Hippopus hippopus (bear paw clam), profile.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question @FredD: What makes this image better than this one? --Boothsift 02:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is the same animal at the same spot. I chose this one because I think that it gives a better idea of the shape and size, but they are comparable indeed. FredD (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree: both images have an interest. Just add front view and profile view to promote both. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• This was the reason why I asked. Why not nominate both? --Boothsift 07:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added "profile". I think one VI per species is already a good start, I prefer finding one for many species than several for a few... But feel free to nominate what you think is useful. Cheers, FredD (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• @FredD: Made a nom anyways --Boothsift 07:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Ok now all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Satisfies my question now--Boothsift 07:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2019 (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:
BR 683407 Alis (ship, 1987) - IMO 8806761.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Open to the thoughts of others on this but find the name of the scope - “L’Alis” to require better definition. It could be any ship named “Alis” and the linked category does not support this broad a scope. Suggest renaming the scope as “BR 683407 Alis (ship, 1987) - IMO 8806761” keeping the same category. The IMO # is unique to the ship with BR# and ship name, "Alis”, adding further definition.

  You're right : it's fixed. FredD (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Useful & used --GRDN711 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Ok with new scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

News

Salut FredD ! J'espère que tu vas bien (en tout cas, tu nous en mets plein les yeux avec tes superbes photos). Peux-tu me dire comment on peut obtenir ça : User:FredD/Echinoderm news ?, avec d'autres catégories bien sûr. --Salix (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Salut Salix. C'est classe, hein ? Mais en revanche je ne sais pas du tout comment ça marche... Je ne me souviens plus qui m'avait proposé ce service et avait tout mis en place pour moi, essaie de voir du côté du dresseur de l'OgreBot... A bientôt, FredD (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, donc je poursuis l'enquête ! (comme la totalité des locaux du MNHN est fermée depuis ce matin à tous les non-satutaires, c'est pas le temps qui manque !) --Salix (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Salix: Il semble que c'est ici. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:42, 13 March 2020 (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:
Live Tubipora musica.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope Buidhe (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Images

Bonjour, le Smithonian a passé certaines de ses images dans le domaine public, je suis en train de préparer un téléchargement de 3500 images d'échinodermes... elles seront sur Commons d'ici quelques jours ou au pire quelques semaines, donc pas besoin de les télécharger une par une. Cela dit je n'ai pas encore vérifié si le site est "white listed", si ce n'est pas le cas je devrais faire une demande et le délai sera un peu ralongé, mais bon rien de grave... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, voilà qui devrait occuper mes vacances... Merci ! FredD (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

ça y est, j'ai lancé le téléchrgement il y a 10mn, cela va prendre quelques heures pour que les 3400 images soient téléchargées. Cela se passe ici: Category:Collections of the National Museum of Natural History, United States (to be sorted out) ou là: Category:Echinodermata in the National Museum of Natural History, USA, la première catégorie "to be sorted out" étant bien sur amenée à disparaitre à terme. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wooow, j'ai enfin trouvé quoi faire de mon confinement ! Merci ! FredD (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Christian, j'ai commencé et déjà traité une bonne trentaine de taxons. Mais je constate que de nouvelles photos s'ajoutent en s'intercalant, aussi j'ai peur d'en laisser passer : y a-t-il un moyen pour les voir dans l'ordre où tu les télécharges, pour suivre ta progression sans rien louper ? Beaucoup de photos appartiennent aussi à des taxons rares qui n'ont pas encore de catégorie, si possible il faudrait, dans un premier temps, les placer dans la catégorie taxonomique supérieure (genre, parfois famille), sinon elles vont disparaître des radars - j'en ai déjà corrigé un certain nombre. Attention aussi, les taxons sont parfois obsolètes (là aussi j'ai corrigé ceux que j'ai vus). Merci en tout cas pour ce gros boulot ! A bientôt, FredD (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour, le téléchargement a duré plusieurs heures, mais normalement maintenant elles sont toutes téléchargées. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 03:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Salut Christian Ferrer, j'ai enfin terminé d'illustrer tous les taxons qui ne l'étaient pas sur fr.wp ! Par contre vu la quantité de travail j'ai rapidement arrêté de corriger les catégories, or beaucoup de taxons ont leur catégorie qui n'existe pas, et un gros tiers sont catégorisés (et décrits) sous un nom obsolète ; la seule erreur manifeste que j'ai trouvée est une étoile de mer affublée d'un nom d'ophiure (je l'ai catégorisée en "unidentified Asteroidea", c'est sans doute une forcipulatida abyssale). Grâce à toi, presque tous les genres d'échinodermes sont désormais illustrés sur la wiki francophone ! Merci pour ce travail et à bientôt, FredD (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Oui, j'ai vu tes corrections, merci, tous ces fichiers sont dans ma liste de suivi. Ne t'en fais pas petit à petit je vérifie toutes les images, ainsi que la validité du taxon, et je créé la catégorie lorsqu'elle n'existe pas encore et je la lie à Wikidata. A propos quelques nouvelles images: Category:Media from Borges, Alitto and Amaral 2015 - 10.15517/rbt.v63i2.23170. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha, tu avais peur que je m'ennuie ? Merci ! :) FredD (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2020 (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:
Chondrocidaris brevispina (raspberry sea urchin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Please fix the scope by adding the common name in parentheses. pandakekok9 07:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. FredD (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support Thanks. Best in scope and used. pandakekok9 12:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

User:FredD/Echinoderm

Bonjour, comme cette page est dans ma liste de suivie j'ai vu que tu as créé une page manuellement....malheureusement le programme "OgreBot" qui la remplissait automatiquement est tombé en panne. Et la personne qui le faisait marcher semble avoir pris ces distances avec Commons, cela dit cela affecte d'autres personne et cela devrait être réglé tôt ou tard, voir User talk:Magog the Ogre. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Ouais, j'ai vu... Je suis bien triste, c'était très pratique ! FredD (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Hoplodoris grandiflora.JPG

This image contains some element of ambiguity: you've uploaded it as Hoplodoris grandiflora (now considered a synonym of Carminodoris grandiflora) but in the description it is indicated as Carminodoris pustulata/Hoplodoris bifurcata (the first is a valid species, the second is a synonim of Carminodoris bifurcata). Could you specify which is the valid determination and consequently ask to rename the file? Thank you --Esculapio (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Esculapio. I corrected the ID and the caption inside the infobox (as well as cetegories) but did not ask for renaming. Anyway, as you will see here the current accurate identification is Carminodoris pustulata/Hoplodoris bifurcata. You can change the file name if you want.

Cheers,

FredD (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fromia indica Landaagiraavaru.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gorgone de Mayotte.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. --Celeda 08:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Asterias amurensis

Hi, you recently categorized the following photos of mine as Asterias amurensis but they are from the Atlantic

• File:Sea_Star_(Asteroidea)_-_Crow_Head,_Newfoundland_2019-08-15_(01).jpg
• File:Sea_Star_(Asteroidea)_-_Crow_Head,_Newfoundland_2019-08-15_(02).jpg
• File:Sea_Star_(Asteroidea)_-_Crow_Head,_Newfoundland_2019-08-15_(03).jpg
• File:Sea_Star_(Asteroidea)_-_Crow_Head,_Newfoundland_2019-08-15_(04).jpg
• File:Sea Stars (Asteroidea) - Crow Head, Newfoundland 2019-08-15.jpg

Ryan Hodnett (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, the species in this genus are very similar. It is Asterias forbesi. I'll fix it ! Cheers, FredD (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spondylus varius.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 Review: It has quite a bit of noise. Vincent60030 15:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)  Support IMHO the noise level is OK for this difficult kind of photography. Feel free to send the image to discussion. --Aristeas 09:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chaetodon xanthocephalus nuit.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 A little bit soft but QI to me, considering the situation --Cvmontuy 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:FredD/Echinoderm news

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:FredD/Echinoderm news, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 19493 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC))

Daily gallery updater has failed on User:FredD/Echinoderm news

Hello. This message is to inform you that a daily gallery in your userspace, User:FredD/Echinoderm news, has failed. Due to software limitations, the bot has a hard upper-limit of about 6000 files per day (including overflow galleries), while your gallery had 24043 files.

This usually happens because a gallery is too broad, encompassing too many subcategories. Please review the logs here and request that a subcategory be excluded, or narrow your category choice(s).

Please make your request for removal within 4 days, or your gallery will be subject to removal.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (via OgreBot (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC))

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support The scientific interest is obvious ... But - what taste? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the size, you need a lot of them to make it a dozen. FredD (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Question Don't these two fish nominations need an English vernacular name? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Vernacular names for fish are not normalized by any authority so they don't constitute sound information. But feel free to call this one "grey drummer" or "brown chub"... FredD (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment You have a good point. What do you think, Archaeodontosaurus? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fred and the naturalists, including myself, do find this recommendation bizarre. It may have a botanical interest for cultivars that are actually normative by copyright, which bristles sensitivity scientists. This rule had been put in place at the beginning of VI when wikiedia had not gained the magnitude it has today. Nowadays the Latin name is accessible on all media. It no longer applies and could be removed from our recommendations. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Since we're discussing changes to VI scope guidelines on the talk page, why don't you propose removing this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I know vernacular names for fish are varied and I have no strong views. In general though, we must keep vernacular names for animals. We should not be elitist. Wikimedia (and VI) is not here for naturalists. It is for all people. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And that's why there is a worldwide consensus for Latin! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC) [FredD : it's not "latin", it's scientific names - most are actually greek !]

I think there are 2 different concerns here. Some common, popular or commercial species do have quite consensual and not too ambiguous vernacular names, and in this case these should be used in priority (blue marlin, bottlenose dolphin, Grévy's zebra... and all birds). But MOST species in biology don't, because they are not familiar to popular audience, and in this case scientific names are the only option. I dare you to find the least vernacular name for any of the 700 species of Gastrotricha (despite a featured article in English wp). Hence I think we should recommend using in priority vernacular names when there is a satisfactory one (unambiguous, popular, consensual and single). FredD (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• For the story at the begining of the XIXe century, not all naturalists had yet accepted the binominal nomenclature and still used vernacular names, specially some french naturalists such as fr:François Levaillant e.g. with his Coucou de Klaas in 1806 whose latin binomin name was given a few years later, in 1815, by James Francis Stephens, another naturalist, who kindly access the request of Levaillant "Puissent les naturalistes conserver à l'espèce que je vais décrire, le nom que je lui donne...". See also fr:Coucou de Klaas. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2021 (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:
Kyphosus vaigiensis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Microcosmus sabatieri (Violet).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Question FredD, did you miss this message? "DO NOT ADD NEW NOMINATIONS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry. FredD (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's OK. Thanks for contributing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Stegophiura nodosa.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Stegophiura nodosa.jpg has been marked as violating policy, because it is considered unfree. This file has been, or will be soon deleted. The file is licensed under a license that does not permit unlimited redistribution, commercial use or the creation of derivative works. Wikimedia Commons is a free media repository, which means that unlimited redistribution, commercial use and the creation of derivative work must be allowed. See Commons:Licensing for more information. If you want to ask permission from the author of the file, please do so using a template from Commons:Email templates. For images, you may find it useful to read Commons:Image casebook.

Dylsss (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Psolus fabricii ventral.jpg

File:Psolus fabricii ventral.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/62688709 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Ekmania barthii.jpg

File:Ekmania barthii.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/72285005 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

[Je sais que je réponds à un bot mais c'est pour la forme] Dans les deux cas l'auteur a dû changer la licence sur le site, car j'ai obtenu ces 2 photos en faisant une recherche filtrée par licence, et sauf improbable bug elles avaient alors une licence compatible... FredD (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Pentamera calcigera.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Pentamera calcigera.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Pentamera calcigera.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/84952408. This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Psolus fabricii.jpg

File:Psolus fabricii.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/62688783 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Uokeaster ahi.jpg

File:Uokeaster ahi.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Bot license review not passed: iNaturalist author is using Cc-by-nc-sa-4.0: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/108934517 Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

This action was performed automatically by INaturalistReviewBot (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Posidonia oceanica, seagrass - Plant habit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Winged oyster (Pteria hirundo), alive and in situ.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used (n'hésite pas à faire un peu de ménage dans les catégories) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Ophiactis savignyi (6-armed brottlestar) - Specimen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Agay dans les années 30.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Agay dans les années 30.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Agay dans les années 30.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Ariadacapo (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Scopes

Bonjour FredD:

Je vous contacte via votre page de discussion parce que vous avez 5 bonnes images qui méritent des évaluations d'images de valeur et que plusieurs personnes aimeraient voter pour cela. Le problème est le format de portée sur 3 d'entre eux (les 2 autres vont bien).

Goniaster tessellatus São Tomé

Vous avez « Cookie star Goniaster tessellatus » > suggérer Goniaster tessellatus en italique, sans parenthèses.

Vous avez ajouté le nom vernaculaire de "Cookie star" comme représentant toute la famille, mais il s'agit d'un genre spécifique. À moins que vous n'ayez une source de référence pour le nom vernaculaire, excluez-la simplement et donnez le nom scientifique du genre en italique et ce serait la meilleure portée.

Oreaster clavatus

Vous avez « Étoile de mer coussin d'Afrique de l'Ouest (Oreaster clavatus) » > suggérer Oreaster clavatus en italique, sans parenthèses.

N'inventez pas de nom vernaculaire pour ce genre à moins d'avoir une source de référence crédible. Il n'est pas nécessaire et entrave en fait la nomination.

Rotula deciesdigitatus-sao tome-14mar22-slb-0971

Votre champ d'application actuel est "Test du dollar des sables de Cthulhu (Rotula deciesdigitatus) in situ, face aborale" > suggérer Rotula deciesdigitatus - face aborale

La seule référence que j'ai trouvée à "Cthulhu sand dollar" était un commentaire d'utilisateur sur Reddit, pas exactement la meilleure source de référence. Je vous suggère de supprimer ce nom vernaculaire et d'utiliser simplement le nom scientifique en italique, sans parenthèses. Je ne sais pas ce que signifie "test in situ". Suggérez de le laisser tomber.

Meilleures salutations. Gordon --GRDN711 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC) (Mon français n'est pas le meilleur - désolé)

Hi GRDN711, and thanks for your message. I've fixed the 3 images, hope they will pass ! Best regards, FredD (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Diadema africanum (African diadem sea urchin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Very nice pictures ; look at the modifications on your nominations which are slightly imprecise. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2022 (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:
Paractinia striata (Posidonia anemone).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment @FredD: Your nominations should follow the COM:VIS domain-specific scope guidelines for scopes of animals and plants.

“General rule is: one scope per species, in the form: scientific name (English-language vernacular name if applicable)[, subscope], e.g., Zygaena lonicerae (Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet), pupa. The vernacular name may be omitted if not found. Subscope is omitted for main scope nominations.”

For examples, Archaeodontosaurus and Charles Sharp tend to do VI scopes well for the subjects you are nominating. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Compliment for the first photo for this species in Commons --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Very good image. Scope should include the English vernacular name. Would like to think that "Live" would be an unnecessary descriptor (assumed) but this starfish does not appear to thrive outside of water and it is useful distinction. Consider: Goniaster tessellatus (Common sunfish) – live specimen --GRDN711 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't need 'live'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed "live" and added "cookie star", which is the common name for the whole family. I had never heard of the "sunfish" thing that is on sealifebase and nowhere else on the www... Not all animals have English vernacular names, especially in the sea ! FredD (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the customary format is to start with the Latin name in italics and then put the English vernacular name in parentheses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Support with improved scope formatting. Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Another Sao Tome visitor! Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Another really good image. Scope could use "- upper side" at the end of the scope to differentiate from the bottom. A Oreaster clavatus is referred to as a species of star fish. Is "Star fish" the vernacular name? (I really don't know - it may not have a distinct vernacular name.) --GRDN711 (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Don't need dorsal for a star fish. Archaeodontosaurus doesn't like vague English terms like star fish or sphinx moth so I've using them if there is no distinct vernacular name. You do need to be careful. I have an insect field guide where the author invented his own vernacular names. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this species does not have a common name as it is seldom seen (that's why this album from Sao Tome is so important, retrieving many species that were previously never illustrated here or even on the whole web). But as this species has a very well-known sister-species in the Caribbean, I crafted a plausible name from it. FredD (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose No you can't make up a name. Temporary oppose. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment The Latin name suffices for this scope; the vernacular name is only given if it exists with published references.. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed. FredD (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Support with improved scope formatting. Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Rotula deciesdigitatus test in situ, aboral face..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It seems that there is only the test, it is necessary to reduce the scope to test uperside and not in situ --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Agree with Archaeodontosaurus that "- upper side" should be added at the end of the scope as the bottom looks different. Is the vernacular name for this sea urchin, a "Sand dollar"? --GRDN711 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed ! Thanks both of you. FredD (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Useful and used. "Aboral face" as an additional descriptor makes sense to me. However, I have no idea what "test in situ" means in terms of this nomination and would prefer it was dropped from the scope. Still, image is VI and I support the nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Question What does "test" mean in this context? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• The test is what remains of the sea urchin once dead. Test (biology) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Laganum laganum (Pancake sea urchin) - Test.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Unique in scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Supportlook at the retouching of the scope... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, unique in scope (and general category), that's why I added it. FredD (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Support, useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Images de Cédric Péneau

Bonjour FredD,

par Ticket#2022042710007215, Cédric Péneau nous envoie une autorisation pour « photographies déposées par l'utilisateur FredD sous mon nom sur Wikimedia Commons ». Au vu de tes nombreuses contributions, il m'est difficile de savoir de quelles images il s'agit. Peux-tu nous aider en envoyant une liste des noms de fichiers à permissions-fr@wikimedia.org ? Merci de mentionner le Ticket#2022042710007215 dans l'objet de ton message.

By Ticket#2022042710007215, Cédric Péneau sends us an authorization for "photographs deposited by user FredD under my name on Wikimedia Commons". Given your numerous contributions, it is difficult for me to know which images are involved. Can you help us by sending a list of file names to permissions-fr@wikimedia.org? Please mention Ticket#2022042710007215 in the subject line.

Merci, thank you, dankeschön, muchas gracias! --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Support team agent

Hello Mussklprozz. It is actually very easy : as I often upload photos of third parties, I create each time a category. Hence it concerns the picture in the Category:Pictures by Cédric Peneau. Thanks for your work and cheers, FredD (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks FredD. There is only one picture? Will there be more of them? – We are not able to steadily survey a category or a user's contributions and add the permission tag whenever files get uploaded in the future. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

For now there's only one, but there may be more later - see the other categories. About curation, maybe you can get me a link or code for upcoming uploads ? Or we can edit the category's page. Tell me how I can help. Best, FredD (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Just send us a short email under the above ticket#. If you happen to have a continuous mass upload of hundreds of pictures from one author, we can also create a custom license template like Template:Universitätsarchiv St. Gallen cc-by-sa. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The e-mail is sent, and I'll keep you updated if any mass upload is on the way. Thanks ! FredD (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laganum laganum.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Steindy 21:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Wild peacock mantis shrimp (Odontodactylus scyllarus), whole body..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support a tight bottom crop but best in scope and used --Virtual-Pano (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 Support While there is mention of a location, a geocode (at least approximate) in the image description would be helpful and in keeping with VI guidelines. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but GPS don't work underwater... And this species is highly mobile, so the location mention seems enough to me. FredD (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Info GPS coordinates do not have to uploaded as meta data from the camera. They can be added afterwards to 5 decimal places (non-exact but good enough) Template:Location --GRDN711 (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  The author told me "Approximatively Lat -21.018999° Long 55.2383°". Can I let you put it in the right format ? Thanks, FredD (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

*  Done Coordinates slightly shifted to the north (Lat -21.018999° Long 55.2383°" is high and dry) and linked to the frame --Virtual-Pano (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Close-up on the eyes of a Odontodactylus scyllarus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Cymodocea nodosa - Plant habit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sea urchins

Hello Fred, thank you very much for helping me out with the sea urchins. I moved the files to be consistent. Are you a biologist or specialized in the fauna of the Red Sea? I ask because I didn't upload a couple of fish and corals (5 or 6 in total) as I have no clue what they are. I can upload them with a more generic name and maybe you can give me a hint? thank you! Poco a poco (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am a marine biologist working mainly in the western Indian ocean. Don't hesitate to ask me when you are unsure of your identifications. Cheers, FredD (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool! thank you, Fred! And congrats for your nice underwater pictures, too! Poco a poco (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I uploaded now (see here) the species I could identify from my last visit to the Red Sea. All pictures belong to the Sharm El-Sheikh area (Ras Muhammad National Park). Among them a few fish species, a bunch of corals and two sponges. Now I'm curious :) No hurry and thank you again! Poco a poco (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Any other hints? I can further investigate if I would know the genus or the family Poco a poco (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Poco a poco You can check here - and be careful with look-alikes, there are many Red Sea endemics. Cheers, FredD (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

C'est une page impressionnante, merci Fred! --Poco a poco (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Red steamed bun jelly (Periphyllopsis braueri).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best is scope and used. Not geocoded, but the location Gulf of Alaska is mentioned in the description. --Tagooty (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Must be geocoded FredD. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Charlesjsharp How can you geocode a drifting animal in the abyss of the open sea at >2000m deep ? Geocoding is not always possible neither relevant... FredD (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Easy and relevant. Geocode using one or two decimal places. You know roughly where you were. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Ok... Then feel free to add any rough gps coordinates in the Gulf of Alaska you will find satisfactory. Here's the place. FredD (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose Only pending geocoding. Please don't think I am being difficult for the sake of it, but you need to add the coordinates. I've had many cropped images rejected here, but I would support this one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Splendid no problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles and COM:VICR(5). --GRDN711 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Ok, I just added inaccurate and useless random GPS coordinates. I'm wondering how you do when somebody proposes a picture of the sun as VI (and there are several)... FredD (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you  Support. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Sufficient IMO. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. A1Cafel (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Petite Terre (Mayotte).jpg

File:Petite Terre (Mayotte).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Skimel (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ophiothela mirabilis.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jsamwrites 10:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Ophiothela mirabilis, alive.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Oligometra_serripinna_221213.jpg

Bonjour Fred,

first of all Happy 2023 and I apologize that I don't write in French, I'm not that good in it. As I see your are an expert for Echinoderms. I was looking around to identify this feather star, I recently saw in Egypt. I found out that it may be possibly an "Oligometra Serripinna", but I'm not sure about it. What makes me think that I'm wrong, is that some descriptions are talking about 10 arms, this one has more. Could you please verify if I'm right? And if not, any idea what kind of see star this might be? Thanks in advanced and greetings Pc.wiki4 (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Pc.wiki4, it's done. Cheers, FredD (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition

Bonjour FredD,

Au nom de l'équipe d'organisation de Wiki Science Competition 2023 en France, je tenais à vous remercier de votre participation. En 6 semaines, 838 photos ont été partagées, de 51 personnes, dont beaucoup de nouveaux contributeurs (57 % des comptes créés spécialement pour le concours). En nombre de photo, cela place la France à la 2e place, juste derrière la Macédoine. C'est assez encourageant pour un concours qui n'est habituellement pas organisé en France.

Toutes les photos de l'édition française sont regroupées dans cette catégorie. Et les lauréats sont indiqués sur cette page.

L'équipe d'organisation française en a terminé pour cette édition 2023, le jury international va prendre le relais. Nous vous tiendrons informé s'il y a une édition française en 2024.

Pyb en résidence (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ 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:
Ophioderma longicaudum in situ..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Ophiomastrix wendtii 722440.jpg

File:Ophiomastrix wendtii 722440.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Lymantria (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)