User talk:Lycaon/Archive9

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive 1 (3 1 2006 – 8 1 2007)
Archive 2 (11 1 2007 – 30 5 2007)
Archive 3 (30 5 2007 – 2 8 2007)
Archive 4 (2 8 2007 – 24 8 2007)
Archive 5 (25 8 2007 – 16 12 2007)
Archive 6 (17 12 2007 – 27 4 2008)
Archive 7 (27 4 2008 – 30 6 2008)
Archive 8 (01 7 2008 – 04 11 2008)

Closing COM:FPC[edit]

You really shouldn't close nominations that you voted in...it isn't considered fair or impartial, and some, like myself, my not be too pleased about it. In this case you closed a nom with 11 supports (65%), 6 opposes (35%)...a neutral editor may have felt differently. Smooth0707 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing unfair about that, just executing fixed rules. Whether it is me or anybody else, the result would be the same. Lycaon (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, its not done on Wikipedia, and it should not be practiced here. Smooth0707 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this is not Wikipedia and we have different rules here. So tough luck :-). Lycaon (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me jumping in here, Smooth0707. You have made a common assumption, namely that the FPC rules here are the same as those on the English Wikipedia. They are not. On Commons, we simply count votes, and determine the outcome as explained at COM:FPC#Featuring and delisting rules. We do not use the concept of consensus, as you may be used to, and anyone can close FPCs since the procedure is purely mechanical; the closer has no discretion whatsoever and hence there is absolutely no possibility of bias. Lycaon's action was quite normal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not entirely true. Concerning the aforementioned FP nom, the support count was 65%. Another editor may have waited for more votes (1 more would have made the 2/3 majority), but really, is 65% that different from 66%? Not to mention, that "all rules can be broken" and whether you see it or not, the closer has passed a judgment. Smooth0707 (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point. The time for voting was over and FPC rules cannot be broken (unless you rediscuss with the community and make different rules). There is no other way this vote could have been interpreted. The judgement was correct and the only one possible. EOC. Lycaon (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ayacop/Blanco nonsense[edit]

First of all, I am disappointed to see that your victory run in closing those incredible Quality Images has been made longer due to not remembering how to close them.

Second of all, I am going to move that list that Cronquist made and used since Cronquist made and used it and not me and it reflects many a page on the wikipedias and its not being within the scope has not been established and there seems to be some memory corruption among the administrators on how to manage the things they should be extremely familiar with.

I thank you in advance for your complete understanding of this and in the expectation that your memories of how to function will be restored as nicely as that list was.

Whatever reason that Category:Ayacop/Blanco exists instead of Category:Blanco was a complete nonsense. Do not reproduce this same ignorance, I request respectfully. -- carol (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And further, for all I know, it is my software that they use to make galleries here, btw. But this User_talk:Multichill#.7B.7Btl.7CSee_more.7D.7D_redundancy is astounding to me. -- carol (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing image from database[edit]

Hello,

There has been an unfortunate technical problem that deleted some images from our database (please read more about it on Commons:Village pump#Massive image loss). I'm afraid your image Image:Aceras anthropophora (detail).jpg is one of them. Could you please reupload the file? Sorry for the inconvenience. Patrícia msg 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moth September 2008-3.jpg[edit]

This is a diffcult one, I guess. By the wing venation and antenae I would say it is a male moth of the Notodontidae family. However there are two puzzling details: the almost transparent wings, with very few scales, and the fact that they are held upright, like a butterfly. This specimen was rescued from a swimming pool and put at the sun to get dry. Could those be the result of the imersion in water? Also notice that the frenulum seems to be out of its normal position, under the hook on forewing. A final info: when the poor thing was dry and apparently ready to fly again it was caught by a wasp (here). That should be a rare thing to happen since moths are active at night and wasps at day. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at our Image Guidelines before nominating at FPC. Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, of course not. This was posted by Jnpet actually. Concerning your moth, it is indeed highly likely that the bath washed away most of the scales on the wings, making identification very difficult. I have (currently) no idea ;-). Lycaon (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPC[edit]

I agree with you except the image you tagged was not out of focus. I would prefer a proper judgement on this, instead of some one singlehandely dismissing it. But I guess you worry that others will vote for it. Please allow some democracy here. The image is in focus. Let others decide if they like it or not. You are not the emperor of Wiki-Commons. CheersJnpet (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Jnpet, I wish you could wipe this idea of a personal vendetta against your images from Lycaons side out of your mind. But I guess you worry that others will vote for it is pure nonsense. A single support vote within 24 hours is all it takes to negate it. And if no-one is willing to support it within 24 hours I doubt it will become FP anyway. The fact that Lycaon sets the bar differently and often higher that other reviewers is not a sign of being personal. This message is, however. If you look a little up, you will see that I sometimes strongly disagree with Lycaons view, but I have never seen any sign that his views reflect a systematic bias pro or con certain editors. I suggest you move on. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I apologize. I would just have preferred a simple oppose vote. I will accept what ever is decided. Cheers! Jnpet (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tak, Jens Peter! -- Slaunger (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Gypohierax angolensis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Duplicates[edit]

Hello, This deletion caused red links from the pages for the 2006 picture of the year competition. I think the duplicate was Image:Liocarcinus marmoreus 2.jpg, so I aded a redirect to that file. I hope that was correct, but I can not be sure since the kept file was not named in the deletion comment.

When you delete duplicate files it is very good if you redirect the deleted image to the kept file. If you do that links to the image will not be broken. Using CheckUsage for replacing images only fixes images that are displayed. Text links such as [[:Image:Liocarcinus_marmoreus_2.png]] or urls (from inside Wikimedia projects or from resusers of Commons content) are not replaced. If the deleted file name is so bad that it should not be redirected, it is useful to link to the kept image in the deletion comment. That makes it easier for people following broken links to find the kept file even if there is no redirect. /Ö 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concerning Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Locustellaluscinioides.jpg[edit]

I obviously didn't get the the nomination right. Do you know what I did wrong? --oskila (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Valued image candidates/Carboxysome 3 images-en.svg[edit]

Hi there, I was wondering if you had any more comments on this image after the change in scope? TimVickers (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Tim, but the nomination is closed now as undecided. You can renominate it again as is as explained in Commons:Valued image candidates/Nomination procedure#Renomination once VICbot has done its daily run. Thank you for your understanding. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Macro technical background[edit]

A4_Macro_Shoot_wiki_background, 1st version.

Hello Lycaon,
I create the following image : Image:Macro A4.svg to use as a macro technical background providing :

  1. the scale (an important information. often/everytime missing on macro pictures);
  2. an 95% cleaned up background ;

I'm making some test on my side but I'm limited by my camera (a Canon S5IS) which -for macro- is correct but no more. It would be great if you can also make some tests or your side, to see if it's helpful, if it give good results, give more encyclopedic pic, etc. All comments on color or anything are welcome !

Regards, Yug (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have in mind some other active macro photographers here, let me know their user names. I need comments on this tool ;)
Below are ny first production with this technic:
  • Hogna_radiata, 1st or 2nd serious macros
    Hogna_radiata, 1st or 2nd serious macros
  • Hogna_radiata, 2nd or 1st serious macros
    Hogna_radiata, 2nd or 1st serious macros

Yug (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check my work :)[edit]

Hi Hans,

could you check if I closed an FPC (Mantis) correctly ? I created a category, but since my knowledge are short on this field... better ask someone who knows. it's here (bottom of the page, Mantodea). Merci beaucoup ! Benh (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done :-). Lycaon (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias ! Benh (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Myripristis pralinia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Preparation[edit]

We are starting the discussion on POTY 2008. Would you like to join? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#September_27.2C_2008[edit]

I've fixed the horizon in Image:Praia da Rocha, Portimão fisherman.jpg, could you review it again please? Bedankt. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tapping your memory and a logic query[edit]

Not necessarily nautical nor biological, but perhaps you can grasp the idea diagrammed here?

Can you explain what qualified a species gallery to be located into a plants of category?

What use is a species that is categorized to "Plants of Russia" -- I happen to know that this is not useful to the science. My question is what is this useful for?

In the statement "the cow jumped over the moon", if deemed to be popular, would it that also make it be true? -- carol (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I have not participated in this discussion yet. It has been quite hairy. My opinion is to put all plants indigenous to an area (country, province) in to a category Flora of x. Floras are collections (often books, these days also websites) of plants occurring naturally (or even adventive) in the area covered by the publication. This would not necessarily cover images taken in that country, but rather galleries of the concerned species. At the other hand I would put images taken in a country, but not necessarily indigenous to that country, in a category Plants of x, and that not as galleries but just as a cat (with possible subcats) of images.
This is a good "circumscription" (a new word for me this year) of the differences, but in my opinion, a little complicated and perhaps not intuitive for every one who uploads images of this kind. My own experience with uploading without knowing what the goals here were was quite naive in that 1)I thought that the system was uniform 2)I would not have known the search terms to find the ToL documents and 3)I was unknowing of the maintenance requirements that the current system requires and I think that such heavy maintenance would not be intuitive to anyone recently trying to participate.
I personally find it very handy if I travel (and travelling is often location restricted, e.g. a country, a national park, etc), to have a pictorial list available of plants that occur in that particular area (if it occurs there, then my id is more likely correct).
Hope this makes sense. Lycaon (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinions about the galleries just some thoughts gathered while seeing some of them. They are not as unmaintained as they could be and especially compared to the claims I made about maintenance being a problem; in fact, there were very few that had deleted images still listed and not adding the new often nicer images that were in the same category is not visually a problem. That some galleries really take advantage of intrawiki links and internal templates and others are just image names stuck between gallery tags perhaps is part of some great scheme whose goal I have just not determined yet -- these things I have no opinion of. I also find the ease in not interferring with these things that I do not understand to not be a problem.
I came here with these questions because I saw that you had created a "Flora of" category which was not large enough to be one of the eight sections that scheme begins with and too large to be one of the first subdivisions. I thank you for explaining what you think that the two categories schemes mean but I am still curious to know what the "Plants of" category scheme that existed here until a few weeks ago actually meant. Not your feelings or ideas or what you would want the scheme to have been -- the actuality for the original scheme.
 Support The cow did jump over the moon. <-- becoming a fact now? -- carol (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to explain the "feeling" that you had of what the "Plants of" categories were and what you know from me of the "Flora of" category tree which I made to the people (including yourself) who merged these? I do not want to think that it is too much to expect the Europeans to have the equivalent of the simple set theory that the United States children receive by or near to the age of 13, but I like to think that such complicated ideas can be learned even later in life.... -- carol (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Species categories - arthropods[edit]

Hello, I ask for advice since you think you'll know far better than me. I have cleaned up a little Category:Arthropods by mapping the content to the corresponding cats in Category:Arthropoda instead. I hope I haven't done anything wrong. I stopped when I arrived at Category:Insects (vs Category:Insecta) because I thought that maybe it would make sense to keep it anyway ("insects" subcats are less about taxonomy and more about concepts, iconography and so on). I have put it in Category:Hexapoda and left it as it was. I'm not sure whether anything more should be done. Another, independent question, should a category be created for each species and taxonomy level that is relevant to at least one picture? --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have read, will reply soon. Lycaon (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miners' Castle pic[edit]

I got rid of as much of the color noise as I could and reuploaded. Can you take a look again? Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hans, You might want take a look at this discussion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QI comment for Image:Varanus gouldii - Chace ranges.JPG[edit]

Hi Lycaon....sigh....Don't know how I missed the CA issues on this one. Just my luck that the first time I get a good shot of one I have the wrong camera at hand and the subject holds still just long enough for a single snap-shot. More practice and planning I think. Happy editing - Peripitus (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the best shots are the lucky shots, though planning and practice help a long way. I've had opportunities in the past where I now regret no having had a better camera at the time (years in Zambia, a month on Dominica, months in Mauritius...) But no use crying over spilled milk. Next year, if all goes well, I'll be in Madagascar for five weeks, hopefully with good material.
About your pic: the CA can be fixed I think, the tail is very unfortunate. Still it is a great shot, I wish spectacular animals like that were occurring in my neighbourhood. As for now I'll have to do with gulls and hoverflies... ;-). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image candidates[edit]

Thanks for you comments at the Quality Image candidates. You opposed several of my nominations, and for good reason: the images are too small. My two questions are: are there any mitigating circumstances in which a small image might succeed in a Quality, Valued, or Featured image candidacy? And, is there no way that an image's resolution might be increased without causing irreparable damage to it? I see you are an experienced editor, and so I look forward to hearing your answers. Thamks, Elucidate (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have had to decline your pics. On VI size limit is only 480x360 (minimum), but the other requirements are quite strict (geo-coding, categorization, proper scope, identification, etc.). For FP and QI quality requirements are stringent, which also means that upscaled images will never pass (it is virtually impossible to upscale an preserve a good quality). I would advice you to upload as high a resolution as possible and observe the goings on at the different assessment pages (FPC, QIC and VIC) for some time before nominating. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the goings on on Commons, but your help is still appreciated. I suppose that as a newly registered editor, I am expected to be inexperienced. Thank you nonetheless. In regards to my VI candidate, your comments are appreciated. I have recategorized the image in relation to its subject and its scope as a VI candidate. I have also geocoded the image appropriately. Any further comments or suggestions would be welcomed. Elucidate (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Swedish Police Eurocopter EC 135.jpg[edit]

Ik zag dat je mijn indeling bij Zweedse helicopters had teruggedraaid, omdat de foto niet per definitie in Zweden gemaakt is. Op zich kan die conclusie kloppen, maar dan gaat het hier op nog veel meer plaatsen fout. Het woordje "in" bij alle subcategoriën vallend onder Police in X dient alleen maar de conformiteit in de categorie-structuur. De woorden "of" en "in" zorgen wel voor meer problemen, heb ik inmiddels gemerkt. Het corps is altijd "in", de plaats waar de foto van auto, helicopter, boot, fiets, bus enz. gemaakt is kan dus heel ergens anders zijn. Om die reden is mijn voorkeur om de foto in elk geval ook op te nemen in Category:Police helicopters in Sweden, al misstaat hij niet bij Category:Police helicopters. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Lycaon (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoposition[edit]

Hi Lycaon.

I'm trying undestand the geoposition template. I had shoted a image with the coordinates: 10º54´10´´ latitud Norte (Manglillo) in Nueva Esparta State, Venezuela. Could you to help me to fix that mistake?. Thak's you

--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can try. What is your longitude (west)? Is the place on Isla Margarita? Lycaon (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lycaon greetings, I have searched for GPS provided and I found these data. But I would like to help me put them on the themplate, namely, how to use them. Thank you very much. Latitud N 10.8861, Longitud O 63.9986, precisión: 10 m --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Photography critiques[edit]

Hi there. I have placed several of my photos on the critiques page, in order to see where I could improve on my technique. As you know, some of these images failed at the Quality Images nominations page, due to their small size. However, I am interested in finding out about the actual image quality, and what would improve these shots. Your comments would be much appreciated. Just see the top page entry on the critiques page, under the heading "Miscellaneous Photographs". Thanks in advance, Elucidate (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and recategorization. Elucidate (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image Image:Windmills D1-D4 (Thornton Bank).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Windmills D1-D4 (Thornton Bank).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Bravo !! Benh (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Callionymus reticulatus (dorsal fin).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments nice --Mbdortmund 20:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fisherman's mascot.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 Of course --Massimo Catarinella 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the status to Oppose during a MVR[edit]

Hi. You changed the status of my MVR, which I changed to Discussed because on top of the MVR section, it says: 

All open candidates in an MVR has to be in the discussed state, while the review is ongoing. 
Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.
--Mr. Mario (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highlights[edit]

True about some blown highlights on my nomination, but I think :

  • They are minimal. Blowout areas are a lot smaller on my picture (especially when viewed at "viewing size" : 50% zoom), and they do not occur at "vital locations" IMO.
  • The Dynamic Range is a lot more difficult on my scene, which is why I used Enfuse to combine different expositions (10 seconds, 1 second and 1/5 Seconds). A single exposition panorama is impossible here without a unacceptable lost in highlight and/or dark areas. --S23678 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you posting full size images and my qualms are not in the first place with the highlights, but more with the noise, which can be remediated IMO. Lycaon (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reacted to your comment here because I did not thought the reference to my picture was appropriate on another FPC vote. I respect your reason for opposing my FPC (noise and flare). As for noise reduction, can you have a try at de-noising my picture? I only have an old version of Photoshop, and it's ineffective at removing sky noise. I took my picture at the lowest noise setting my camera would allow (ISO 100), but for sure I can't match the noise level of recent SLR cameras. --S23678 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can try, but it won't be before tomorrow, I'm afraid (too busy IRL today). Lycaon (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Arnica montana (flower).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good image --Twdragon 14:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued image candidate[edit]

Hey there. I have changed the scope of this VIC. I'm just wondering if you would like to reconsider your vote? Pbroks13 (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Campanula rotundifolia (plant).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

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

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Fine --B.navez 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Bridge[edit]

Thanks for this great edit, I never thought de-noising could be as effective. What de-noising tool did you used? --S23678 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the colour balance is wrong[edit]

Lycaon greetings.

I'm looking for ways to fix the color balance in the picture. I know programs like GIMP. I would like to know, a technique for correcting balance. Thank you very much beforehand

--libertad0 ॐ (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you have been able to correct the problem, I would like to congratulate you for that. But if it is not much trouble, could you teach me to fish?. Thank you very much beforehand. --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buildimg in tehran1.jpg[edit]

Guideline: Panoramic images need to have a minimum height of 800px. SHORT DESCRIPTION this photo has height of 1600 px!??--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum size is 2Mpx (yours is about 0.8Mpx) height should be about 1000px, yours is 592px. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Populate category[edit]

For your information: What {{Populate category}} does. Enjoy. --Foroa (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flooding FPC[edit]

No problems, these are practically all featured pictures at enwiki, just decided to move them over so people from other languages would be able to see and use them (hopefully). It is easier to do this in one go for me. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Alogenius cavifrons.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Stenocara gracilipes.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Somaticus aeneus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Balistapus undulatus (Orange-lined triggerfish).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Cercomela familiaris (Familiar Chat).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Alcelaphus buselaphus caama.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Question about your uploads[edit]

Do you just put the QI template on your images when you upload them? Image:Anagallis monelli (habitus).jpg <-- this image is not linked to any review archives, for example. -- carol 13:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a rename issue (arvensis → monelli) overdue (refs). Lycaon (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry then -- except for the fact that I asked before removing it. I am not sorry about that. -- carol (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if {{Rename}} retains the history of the image? -- carol (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASFAIK, it doesn't as a new version gets uploaded with the information of the original uploader added (which is not the same as the history). this is an example. Lycaon (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were you referring to Crantzia cristata? I'll reupload those under the correct names one of these days, as I did with above A. monelli. Lycaon (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are people, perhaps not unlike me, who would like to find cheaters. Having the history of Image:Anagallis monelli (habitus).jpg with the image prevents people like me from finding cheaters like you. -- carol (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you better come up with a good reason to call this cheating. Lycaon (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Cheaters like you" and what I wrote was about prevention of finding "cheaters like you". Follow the logic of this statement while I stand by its accuracy. -- carol (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(in this case) -- carol (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gazy cieplarniane na osobę 2000.svg[edit]

Hi. May I ask to temporarily revive this image? I have created it and I would like to try to fix it. It works in inkscape, just didn't work when uploaded on Commons. Thanks,--Adi4000 (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of images[edit]

Thanks for deleting one dupe. Image:Pano_hdr.jpg is another while you are at it if you wouldn't mind. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony DSLR-A100[edit]

Hi Hans,
Had you any special intention categorizing this very and only picture in Category:Taken with Sony DSLR-A100. Do you mean it would be useful to do the same with all my 2008 pictures ?
Cheers
--B.navez (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be useful IMO. It was just a hint ;-). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QIC 'Dew on nasturtium leaf.JPG'[edit]

I have correctly categorized this image. It is indeed of genus Tropaeolum. I have shown this on the image page. Would you care to take another look at the image? Elucidate (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope change at VI[edit]

You complained about the scope but haven't been able to suggest a better one. I have changed it at Commons:Valued image candidates/Magpie chasing Brown Goshawk (Immature).jpg, please vote on this issue and nominate a suitable scope if it isn't better. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture template[edit]

Hi there Lycaon. As you are an administrator here on Commons, I thought you might find the following templates interesting.

This user took the featured photo [[{{{1}}}]].

With this template, a user can show which Featured Pictures they have uploaded to Commons.

Alternatively, you can use this template:


This user has uploaded featured pictures on Commons.

Here, a user can say exactly how many Featured Images they have uploaded to Commons. They simply add the number of uploaded FPs to the template.


I have also created two other templates for Valued and Quality images, which can be found here and here. What do you think? Could it catch on? Elucidate (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are baai goed, but I don't think I want thát much publicity ;-) I think I'll settle for this Good job nevertheless. Lycaon (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that was Afrikaans you were attempting, i think you'll find its spelled baie goed, not baai goed. Cheers, Elucidate (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Onychognathus nabouroup (Pale-winged Starling).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Scolelepis squamata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Lepidepecreum longicorne.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Raja clavata (Thornback ray).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Offshore wind park.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your edit to the graph of my contributions. Much appreciated. Elucidate (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Reticulitermes banyulensis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:8-cell.gif[edit]

Lyacon, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but don't you think that was just a little rude, and quick to assume bad faith on my part? {{FPX}} doesn't say that you cannot remove the FPX if you have ever said a preference for that image before, and it's hardly canvassing to vote on someone else's nomination. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VIC scope change[edit]

Hi Lycaon, there has been a scope change here. You may want to reconsider your vote. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Iguana delicatissima (Lesser Antillean Iguana).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Scomber scombrus (Atlantic mackerel).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Diastylis brady.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Echinocardium cordatum (common heart urchin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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 planata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Voting for scope ecchi[edit]

I saw that you opposed at the Valued Image Candidates. But there is no reason to oppose since it is typical for manga and anime. Here you can read my Comment with examples and comparisons, that show you it is just normal to draw the hair behind the eyes. --Niabot (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Pectinaria koreni (trumpet worm).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

QIC[edit]

When nominating other contributor's work, could you please add the user name of the original author in your nominations? Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added all authors of my current nominations [1]. I will of course add them in the future.
Thanks for reminding me
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problem with Image:Pseudorasbora_parva.jpg[edit]

Hi. There seems to be something odd going on with Image:Pseudorasbora_parva.jpg: specifically, the file size and image dimensions recorded in the Commons database don't seem to match the actual file. This might be because someone — possibly you — uploaded a new version of it at some point, but due to a software bug the upload wasn't properly recorded as a new version, and ended up silently overwriting the original file instead. I'd appreciate it if you could check the image and reupload either the current version (to simply correct the database record) or whatever version you think should be there. Thanks in advance, and sorry to bother you with this. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Lycaon (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insect copula[edit]

Hi Hans,

What do you think of this? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverted?[edit]

Why you reverted this image? I'm following notability guidelines on Wikipedias to illustrate those brazilian people. --Ciao 90 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk. Lycaon (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:MuralBrasileirosÉNóis_naFitaCommons!.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

Sdrtirs (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more "OOMPA"[edit]

I have recently acquired a quotation from one of my favorite cartoons from the seventies. Like money in a pocket it is burning a hole in my brain and I am really needing to dump it somewhere. So, despite it being mostly inappropriate to honor the upgrade I have noticed recently in your reviews, here it is:

One more "OOMPA" out of you and you will be evicted from these premises. -- Signed by Everybody from the Pink Panther, Pink Tuba-dore, 1971.

-- carol (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC) (the "downsampling" critique) -- carol (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, before I upload a new version of Image:Koeh-066.jpg, can you see the gray boxes which are selection spooge in it? -- carol (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why my image is not ok?[edit]

I didn't get it. Can you please explain me? Georgez (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay now?[edit]

I've updated the photo. Could you please check and tell me if it's okay now? Thanks in advance. Georgez (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Neoscona adianta (female).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Polygordius appendiculatus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Trithemis kirbyi female (Kirby's Dropwing).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Hesionura elongata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Clavella adunca.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Pseudocuma longicorne.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Image:Chausey maison de Marin Marie.JPG[edit]

Dear Lycaon, just for your information, I did removed the artefacts in the image.   ■ MMXXtalk  14:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Monticola brevipes female (Short-toed Rock-Thrush).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Nephtys hombergii (catworm).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Pontocrates altamarinus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Pyrrhosoma nymphula male (Large red damselfly).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Hyla sarda (Tyrrhenian Tree Frog).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pectinaria koreni (with and without tube).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 Defenitly QI --Massimo Catarinella 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Cynomorium coccineum (Malta Fungus).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

QI categorization of Pectinaria koreni[edit]

Hi, I just wanted you to know that I failed to categorize your picture. I couldn't find an "Animals/Annelida" category in the QI cat tree, and I'm not sure any of the existing class cats would be suited. --Eusebius (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I created a new entry: "Animals/Annelida". Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank you very much for your support of my recent RfA. I'm really honored to have gotten unanimous support and I hope I can live up to everyone expectations! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything. --J.smith (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued image scope[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement on VI scope. Bald Eagle in flight was opposed one due to too narrow of a scope but yet there is the scope "Graphosoma lineatum (mating)" as well as "[[Anthidium florentinum] (mating)". Can you explain this discrepancy? One species can have a scope on a certain activity and yet another can't (my nom). While we're on VI images, since Bald Eagles can seemingly only have one scope, which of these is the best VI candidate: Image:Eagle on roots - crop 3 (430008061).jpg or Image:Haliaeetus leucocephalus2.jpg? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be participating in the discussion. Lycaon (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help please[edit]

Hey Lycaon, An image of mine Image:Dar_es_Salaam_City_360.jpg was promoted as a QI, but after close examination by en FPC reviewers, a slight stitching error was discovered and an edit Image:Dar es Salaam Panorama edit2.jpg, was created which was then promoted as FP there. Is there any delist and replace feature to replace the current QI with this new version? Muhammad 16:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original image had also been misnamed, I have added the bad name, correct name template to the page and the retouched template to the edit. Could you strip the QI status off the incorrectly named image? Thanks Muhammad 12:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all ✓ Done Lycaon (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

★ 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:
Amadina erythrocephala male (Red-headed Finch).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Viola arborescens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Amadina erythrocephala female (Red Headed Finch).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Lamarckia aurea (Goldentop Grass).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ 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:
Diastylis rathkei.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Hubble Ultra Deep Field Delisting[edit]

Hi, an image you uploaded, Image:Hubble ultra deep field.jpg is being considered in a delist and replace nom on the English Wikipedia. Please express your opinion here.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lycaon/Archive9&oldid=41939507"