User talk:Archaeodontosaurus/de janvier à mai 2011

Crabe

Merci mon ami, et pour tes voeux, et pour tes remarques sur ma photo.

Reçois à ton tour mes souhaits les plus sincères et les plus amicaux, pour toi et les tiens. Sache que tu as été pour moi une des "personnalités de l'année 2010" ! Je te souhaite un particulier succès dans tes entreprises multiples, et toujours de la passion, car c'est la vie.

J'ai vu et corrigé les erreurs que tu me signales.

Si tu ne connais pas le muséum de La Rochelle, je t'engage à le visiter, c'est vraiment remarquable, j'ai été très agréablement surpris. Comme tu peux le voir sur mes productions du moment, il ne concerne pas seulement l'histoire naturelle (Aimé de Bonpland et Alcide d'Orbigny sont rochelais, comme moi...), mais aussi l'ethnologie. La muséographie est très moderne et très bien faite, j'ai même réussi à trouver des endroits pas trop acrobatiques pour poser mon appareil photo... (même si on ne m'aurait pas embêté si j'avais eu un trépied).

Amitiés.--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

C'est toi, la promotion de mon crabe ? Si oui, tu as oublié de signer...--Jebulon (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Non il était déjà promu ce matin. Par contre j'ai trouvé dans l'énoncé la faute de frappe et je l'ai corrigé...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Albinaria corrugata corrugata forma inflata 01.jpg

Thanks and the best wishes back. I first tried a grey background, but then I decided for black. I know the difficulties of the apex, but as the shell itself is greyish, it is not so good. As the apex is not completely black, the outline i still visible. Second: I wanted the same layout as for "draparnaldi" (see my second nomination)for comparison. I think they fit good together. --Llez (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

very good explanation --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Archaeodontosaurus, happy New 2011 Year! --Vizu (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Valued Images Candidates

Happy New Year.
Changes have been made to:
[Blue_Tit_(Parus_caeruleus)_(13]
[Little_Stint_(Calidris_minuta)_(1)]
Many thanks for your suggestions. --Ken Billington (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lame 207.4 Global Fond.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 and useful. --Cayambe 09:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hache 224.1 Global Noir.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 detail. --Dschwen 15:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lambis lambis 01.JPG

Merci. J'ai trouvé 2 près d' A et 5 près de D. --Llez (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2011 (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:
Stone Arrowhead of Font-Robert.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:55, 3 January 2011 (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:
Side notched point.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Lambis female

Thanks for the suggestions. I removed the red border. The other problem was, that the original itself is somewhat "oversaturated" with a polished brilliant surface. The colours are much more intensive and darker as in the male shell I photographed. I had already reduced the saturation, but now I did it once again. I expanded also the annotation, now you can compare the two shells. Salutations --Llez (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Chromatic aberration

Could you do me a favor and point it out in File:Yellow-green Adamite.JPG? Thanks, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 23:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Molaire de Platybelodon grangeri.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nucleus MHNT PRE .2005.0.10.global.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --George Chernilevsky 15:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Almandin.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. --Mbdortmund 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pointe à dos courbe Helena MHNT PRE .2009.0.227.1 (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Oui.--Jebulon 18:55, 9 January 2011 (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:
Azilian point.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:33, 12 January 2011 (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:
Truncated bladelet.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:16, 12 January 2011 (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:
Gravette point.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Steneosaurus Holzmaden.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 07:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Parkinsonia and steneosaurus

Thanks, correction done in Parkinsonia. I corrected the german text in Steneosaurus. Instead of "Zeitalter" one could also say "Stratigrafie" (stratigraphic layer). There is an warning at your description side. I think you have forgotten the licence. Salutations --Llez (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Acca sellowiana

Sorrry, sorry, sorry. I made a heavy mistake. In nominating Acca sellowiana I erroneously checked only the "page" of A.s. and not the category. So I overlooked a lot of good (and better than mine) pictures. If I had noticed them before, I'd never had made this nomination. But meanwhile I've seen, that G. Chernilevsky has decided for you, congratulations. --Llez (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarcopohage

Salut, J'ai importé une nouvelle version. Merci pour tes commentaires. --Bgag (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Phacochère9.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phacochère9.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Xenophora pallidula

Vielen Dank. Korrekturen erledigt. Wegen der anderen Anfrage (Considérations diverses) melde ich mich demnächst noch einmal. Salutation --Llez (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbousier

Salut.
Il y a un problème de calendrier avec ta nomination, du coup le FCP Bot s'est affolé...--Jebulon (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Merci de ton alerte. Cette image est maudite, j’ai essayé de bidouiller mais je ne suis pas sur de mes manipulations antiBot. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Visiblement le problème continue. Il se double d'une intervention dont je doute qu'elle émane de quelqu'un ayant 50 contributions... (J'ai vu ton message "Puppet or not"). Je serais toi, je supprimerais tout ça, et je recommencerais à zéro la nomination. C'est ce que j'ai fait avec mon cavalier de l'apocalypse, proposé un poil trop tôt... En tous cas , moi, j'en veux bien de ton arbousier. On dirait un Van Dael. N'abandonne pas cette proposition.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dés que j'aurai un moment je reprendrai cette image et je me lancerai dans un fond pour la reverser sous un autre nom ce sera plus simple. çà nous à donné l'occasion de "découvrir" un curieux personnage qui a mon sens est un Puppet...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Et moi, dès que j'aurai un moment, je te ferai un ch'ti coup d'archivage qui va bien... Une connection bas-débit, plus un filtre réseau, ça fait long pour arriver en bas de ta page pendant les heures ouvrables (Bon d'accord, je suis là pour bosser...)!! Sinon, c'est Jan van Dael dans wikipédia, et non Frans (son prénom d'usage, ce qui m'a induit en erreur).--Jebulon (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! OS La Quina MHNT PRE.2006.0.35.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 17:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Steneosaurus Holzmaden.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very large Border, slight motion blur reversed by strong sharpening (still OK though).  Comment Usage license is missing (!) -- ElHeineken 12:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  Done Thanks ! --Archaeodontosaurus 14:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  Support Good work, qualifies for me. --ElHeineken 15:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Creedite 3 photo fond.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Jebulon 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Profil 8.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 Impressive --Llez 17:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Molaire de stegodon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Llez 14:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rangement, ménage et Cie

L'archivage des multiples correspondances de Monsieur en 2010 est avancé. Je te gâte trop.--Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Je remercie votre Grandeur de ses bons soins, j'ai dans l'instant pris soins de son âne pour qui j'ai créé une catégorie spéciale où il sera tout à son aise...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Voilà qui est bien. Grâces vous en soient rendues --Jebulon (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

FPC update

Hi, just wanted to let you know that this FPC which you commented on has been updated an now meets the minimum size criteria. --Elekhh (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Scheelite MHNT.MIN.2004.0.88 (p).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good --Mbdortmund 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Curiosité

Je ne le propose pas en QI car la photo n'est pas très bonne, mais j'ai quand même placé ceci dans "Commons", à titre de curiosité. ça ne peut pas laisser insensible un médecin ! Une bonne trentaine de centimètres de diamètre. Spectaculaire, non ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Elle n'est peut être pas si mauvaise ce soir j’essaierai de voir si on peut l'améliorer. A moins que tu es le fichier RAW en auquel cas ce serait très facile... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • J'ai le RAW ! Et on fait comment ? --Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • tout dépend de ton programme de traitement. Le problème étant ici que la coupe du calcul est trop claire. Il existe parfois des fonctions de "récupération" des zones "brulées" ; si elles ne le sont par trop, ce qui est le cas ici, tu peux baisser les tons et zones claires. Les RAW sont souvrains pour recupérer les erreurs chromatiques avec une fonction spéciale qui permet cet ajustement. Tu peux aussi augmenter le netteté de l'image, etc etc ... bref un univers très utile; tu verras que très vite tu ne pourras plus t'en passer... (Félicitation pour la photo du jour!) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2011 (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:
Ichthyosaurus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support A very good example for Ichthyosaurus and besides that for a fossil zoocoenosis (or thanatocoenosis) with Ichthyosaurus, Harpoceras, Dactylioceras, Bositra. --Llez (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pycnodonte MHNT.PAL.LAM.2001.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. --Mbdortmund 14:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Castor canadensis MHNT.OST.3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --George Chernilevsky 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Felicitation

Thanks, without your aid, it would be impossible.

I removed the dust spot, I have also removed the chromatic aberrations. Right now, I have uploaded the new version. Greetings--Miguel Bugallo 19:28, 26 January 2011 (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:
Heliophyllite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:53, 26 January 2011 (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:
Talpa europaea European Mole, Skeleton.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:54, 26 January 2011 (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:
Castor canadensis North American Beaver, skulls.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cassia fistula MHNT.BOT.2007.26.54.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 and high EV IMO. --Jebulon 17:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Taupe MHNT.OST.1997.45.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taupe MHNT.OST.1997.45.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luffa aegyptiaca MHNT.BOT.2007.26.52.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. --Berthold Werner 17:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coupe calcul intestinal stone cross section cheval horse .jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me and very interesting object --George Chernilevsky 10:30, 27 January 2011 (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:
Pseudoasaphus praecurrens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met, rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hystrix cristata MHNT.ZOO.2005.0.255 profil.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --George Chernilevsky 11:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Coco de mer - BOT.2007.26.21.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 EV and QI --Llez 16:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fagus sylvatica pliocenica MHNT.PAL.VEG.2002.31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good.--Jebulon 12:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

calcul

Tes améliorations du caillou équin ont donc emporté la décision, George a apprécié ! Bravo et merci.--Jebulon (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Je te retourne le compliment : tout était dans le sujet… sans calcul. Es-tu content de ton nouvel objectif? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Si tu n'y vois pas d'inconvénient, je vais référencer aussi ledit caillou dans ma collection de QI... Quant à mon objectif, je le trouve très bien, mais depuis que je l'ai, je n'ai eu que très peu d'occasions de m'en servir. Ce qui fait que je ne l'ai pas très bien en main, et que je n'en ai pas encore découvert toutes les capacités. Je souffre d'un manque chronique de disponibilité en ce moment, tu l'as peut-être vu à mes contributions moins nombreuses ces temps-ci. J'espère que "ça" va revenir, et que je pourrai alors étudier tout ça de plus près. Je vais bientôt fêter mon premier anniversaire sur "Commons", par ailleurs. Il y a eu du chemin parcouru, bien guidé par des gens comme toi... Merci encore! --Jebulon (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Entada phaseoloides MHNT.BOT.2007.26.55.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 Well done, excellent photo --George Chernilevsky 19:33, 30 January 2011 (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:
Népouite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:39, 2 February 2011 (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:
Fagus sylvatica pliocenica.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Raphia farinifera MHNT.BOT.2007.26.50.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent quality --George Chernilevsky 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Népouite MHNT.MIN.2005.0.63.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pseudoasaphus praecurrens MHNT.PAL.2003.439.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pseudoasaphus praecurrens MHNT.PAL.2003.439.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2011 (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:
Lodoicea maldivica (Coco de mer), female fruit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Would be more useful if the size were visible in the picture --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support All critera met. Most detailed picture and also of historical value. Size is given in the description. --Llez (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 3 February 2011 (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:
Hystrix cristata Crested Porcupine, Skulls.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Parkinsonia wuerttembergica

Hallo Archaeodontosaurus, would you please again have a look on P. wuerttembergica (Quality images: Consensual review). I replaced it by a complete new - and I think better (no flash, f20) - version. Thanks --Llez (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Much better is not it! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2011 (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:
Emericiceras emerici.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re : Raphia

Oui je suis autant désolé que toi de la situation. J'ai aussi failli répondre sur ta page de discussion. Je mets les choses au point : vous (je ne vouvoie pas, je parle de toi, Citron, Llez, Jebulon) faites un travail remarquable, et c'est vraiment grâce à des gens comme vous que Wikipédia est crédible et que dès que je me pose la moindre question, je peux sans hésitation vérifier sur l'encyclopédie. Si on devait choisir entre éliminer l'un d'entre nous, c'est sûr que je devrais être le premier à partir au vu de mes contributions. MAIS (oui !) je tiens à ce qu'on sépare bien le concept d'image utile de l'image remarquable sur Commons (qui prévilégie le côté image extra, incroyable etc, contrairement à ce qui se passe sur le FPC du wiki anglais). Et je me sens aussi obligé de corriger les critiques fausses, notamment sur les photos panoramiques, rare domaine où je pense avoir mon mot à dire. Vraiment désolé d'être parfois très cru, mais je pense avoir, en général, la courtoisie de me justifier assez, contrairement à beaucoup.

Et non, je ne pense pas avoir la même soif de partage que toi... je rend un peu à ma manière tout ce que Wikipédia m'apporte mais c'est tout de même plus de la fierté. J'assume ce côté.

Bonne continuation, et à bientôt sur FPC. - Benh (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2011 (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:
Hydrophilus sp. fossil specimen..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

All crieria met for studio shot --Llez (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:14, 9 February 2011 (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:
Pleuroceras spinatum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met. Congratulations, it's an impressive and well preserved specimen! --Llez (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 12 February 2011 (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:
Grave of André-Marie Ampère.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose I am truly sorry, but I think that the scope is too narrow. Of course Ampère is a famous scientist, but is his grave worth a scope on its own? Is it a famous grave, like the grave of Victor Noir?--Myrabella (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment

“Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope” - That is what is required of us.

This scope is well defined and includes several photographs, proof Ampere is a scientist known. It remains to know which is more valuable. This is good, without distracting character. It is especially geocoded what is important here because even with a map it took me an hour to find it. Obviously we do not have the same criteria to judge the merits. It is very possible that I'm wrong, he should explain. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment My thought is: Ampère yes, his grave no. Each category in Commons doesn't deserve a singular scope. For example, do we need a Valued Image for each one of those categories: Category:Divisions of the Père-Lachaise Cemetery? --Myrabella (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Je comprends mieux ta pensée et sur le fond je suis parfaitement d’accord il y a des scopes parfois bizarres. Comme tu l’as vu il y plusieurs photographies dans ce scope, se qui montre que beaucoup de personne sont intéressées par cette démarche. Faisant partie de ces gens je crois pouvoir expliquer que ce n’est pas un trait morbide mais une démarche intellectuelle que de venir rencontrer, post mortem, ces gens qui ont fait notre monde. S’est une émotion qui n’habite pas tout le monde et, à contrario, certain ne veulent pas en entendre parler, avec une violence qui m’interroge toujours, une peur de la mort ? Quand j’ai mis cette photographie dans le concours j’étais assez sûr de susciter des réactions. Je ne suis pas mécontent de la tienne ; ce qui m’aurait attristé c’est que personne ne dise rien. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I think, that "Grave" is a good scope, at least in renowned Persons. If a person itself can be a scope (e.g. Portrait), why not a grave or a birthplace (especially, if there exist severeal photos; and why several photos? As the place is important for more than one photographer). A scope can show a person, another localities. If I remember the visit of the grave of Edith Piaf or Moliere, it was a complete different thing and feeling than seeing a portrait of them. I hope for further comments. --Llez (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I understand Myrabella's opinion an thought, but I disagree with. The scope is not to narrow to me. The grave itself (stone, marble, plaque etc) is maybe not special as this of Kheops or Dalida, but it is noticeable enough, especially due to the plaque and portrait. I think it deserves a scope, and because it is the grave of the Amperes' too. I agree with Llez. Funny: Do you know there is a special website for searching graves ? (ok, there are websites for everything). This one is the best in the related category, and alone geocoded. Well, I change to discuss.(But please, crop the horrible CA in the tree at right !!) ;)--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Well, I am going to nominate this image and that one then (just kidding :-) --Myrabella (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Je reconnais bien volontiers que l'argumentation peut être jugée chancelante, c'est la balance entre la notoriété de l'occupant et la nature (historique, monumentale, esthétique)du monument lui-même (certains sont des Monuments Historiques, non ?), à quoi on peut rajouter l'existence de plusieurs images sur "Commons", ou même d'une catégorie dédiée, en plus bien sûr des autres critères techniques (géocodage...) Pour moi, tout ça est réuni ici. C'est le plaisir de la discussion.--Jebulon (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support By the reasons mentioned above --Llez (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

organisation des données par objet

Bonjour, j'essaie en ce moment d'élobrer autre forme d'organisation pour les photos d'objets et d'oeuvre d'art. J'ai fait un essai Category:Arrowhead - MHNT PRE 2009.0.232.2 (voir aussi les trois fichiers de la catégorie). L'idée est de

• centraliser la description de l'object pour faciliter les mises à jour
• mettre la description de l'object dans la catégorie, pour qu'on comprenne mieux tout de suite de quoi il s'agit, et mettre la plus belle image en évidence en la mettant là aussi (dans ce cas-ci j'ai pris l'"image de valeur", en ce moment il y a des images de valeur qui correspondent en gros à la meilleur image d'une catégorie mais on ne fait rien de spécial avec°
• à terme j'espère, pouvoir créer automatiquement des listes d'objets du genre creator:Berthe Morisot/works2. Si on faisait ça en l'état actuel on aurait plusieurs photos du même objet.

Il reste encore des choses à règler tant sur la forme que sur le fond. Les remarques et commentaires sont les bienvenus. Est-ce que je continue l'expérience sur les autres objets du Muséum de Toulouse ?--Zolo (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

J’ai pris un moment pour regarder ; çà me parait très bien. L’idée de continuer avec les photos du Muséum (projet Phéobus) me va très bien aussi. Je vais t’épauler pour la suite en rentrant les futures images sous ce format. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

D'accord merci. Je vais faire ça avec les collections de préhistoire. Pour la biologie, je pense qu'il faudrait un petit menu dépliant avec le nom scientfique et le nom courant de l'espèce, la date de baptême et le nom du baptiseur (je ne sais pas comment on dit) et éventuellement 2-3 autres choses, comme on a pour les artistes et les musées. Ca aiderait pour pas mal de choses et permettrait des traductions automatiques. Le problème, c'est que les informations sont sur Wikispecies, et que les récupérer ici risque d'être un petit problème de politique interne.--Zolo (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pardon de m'immiscer. Je trouve ça très bien et je tire mon chapeau. ça rend humble et probablement plus attentif les simples photographes (comme moi) qui auraient tendance à oublier que derrière tout ça, il y a aussi des copains discrets qui se donnent du mal pour que tout ceci ait un sens et soit plus utile à nos visiteurs. Bravo donc. Je suis cette évolution avec grand intérêt, et vais du coup arrêter de déc... avec les bandeaux !--Jebulon (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merci bien. (après les bandeaux,c'est sans doute aussi une question de goût). J'ai commencé à appliquer le nouveau système sur Category:Museum Toulouse Neolitic, je continurai un autre jout.--Zolo (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Le "baptiseur" est un inventeur (celui qui décrit l'espèce à le droit de lui donner un nom et de l'inscrire à l'inventaire...). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah out merci.. c'est vrai en fait j'avais déjà entendu ça.--Zolo (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oui mais les bandeaux, c'est quand même trop gros.--Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ben bon anniversiare alors.

J'ai fait quelques règlages, voir Category:Neolithic artefacts in the Muséum de Toulouse pour les résultats. Quelques remarques en vrac :

• Je me suis permis de renommer certaines catégories pour des raisons de grammaire ou d'ortographe.
• J'ai utilisé un format - Matériau et type d'objet - Numéro d'inventaire. Le tiret rend plus lisible et peut être utilisé par les bots. Il vaudrait peut-être mieux mettre le lieu d'origine que le matériau mais j'ai pensé qu'un petit village de France ne serait pas très parlant pour un non spécialiste non francophone (mais on peut changer). Il y a quelques objets dont la matière n'est pas indiqué, j'ai préféré ne pas inventer et donc je ne les ai pas fait, ils sont toujours à Category:Museum Toulouse Neolitic.
• J'ai du enlever quelques liens vers wikipédia. En fait, il faudra bien qu'on ait un jour un moyen plus rationnel de gérer les interwikis, ça permettrait de mettre des liens et des traductions simples de manière automatique, et ça simplifierait pas mal d'autres choses aussi. D'ici là, je pense qu'il vaut mieux ne pas en mettre trop de liens à la main à l'intérieur des modèles, ce sera plus facile pour qu'un bot puisse rajouter le lien dans toutes les languages.
• J'ai fait pas mal de copie assez mécanique, j'espère qu'il n'y a pas trop d'erreurs.
• Il n'y aurait pas de confusion entre "avant le présent" et "avant J-C". J'ai remplacé BP par BC dans certains cas, parce qu'on arrivait sinon au néolithique en + 200. Mais je pense qu'il y a la même erreur soit sur les autres aussi, il faudrait vérifier.
• Je vais présenter mes travaux sur template talk:artwork pour voir si on peut généraliser cette présentation. Il y aurait quelque chose à améliorer avant ?

--Zolo (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pour l’orthographe surtout ne te gène pas, étant dyslexique-dysorthographique lourd je ne vois pas les fautes et je ne peux écrire qu’au travers des corrections automatiques. Mais de temps en temps j’oubli de les brancher et çà dérape. Le consensus scientifique a tranché pour « avant le présent » et décale de 2 siècles. Il nous faut le respecter mais je fais encore des erreurs car les habitudes même mauvaises sont difficiles à perdre. Certain matériaux n’apparaissent pas car… on ne les connaît pas. Il faudrait les analyser mais nous n’avons pas de budget pour ce point. Les liens interwikis sont une lourde charge de travail et je te suis dans la proposition que tu fais d’en mettre mois, je pourrais me consacrer à des choses plus utile en pensant qu’un Bot pourra un jour le faire. Le lieu de découverte est fondamental ont ne peut pas l’enlever même si s’est un Lieu dit au fin fonds de l’Aveyron, car c’est la base même de la préhistoire en tant que sciences. Ce point va se poser pour toute la minéralogie et la paléontologie deux secteurs très riches en images. En tout cas le travail est impressionnant il faut continuer. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Merci pour tes reponses.

Je ne comptais pas enlever le lieu d'origine de la description ni des catégories. Je vais essayer de l'ajouter au titre, maissoius quel format ? "Axe - Colommier - MHNT XXXX ? J'ai regardé comment c'était fait dans Joconde et dans la très impressionnante base de donnée du British Museum, mais il ne mettent rien juste "nucleus", voir "artefact".

Pour avant le présent, tu pourras vérifier qu'il n'y a pas d'erreurs ? (Juste pour être sûr, tu décales bien de 20 siècles, pas de 2?)--Zolo (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Le "présent" est référencé à 1950. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

J'ai créé un inventaire automatique, ça peut toujours servir (je n'ai créé que la catégorie préhistoire, mais on peut faire les autres pareilles).--Zolo (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Il ne reste plus que six fichier dans Category:Museum Toulouse Neolitic. Pour deux d'entre eux je pense qu'il faudrait quand même plus d'informations. Les quatre autres ont une faute de frappe ("plange" pour "plagne"), il faudrait renommer, mais comme les images sont très utilisées, je ne suis pas très sûr de la marche à suivre.--Zolo (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Pour la faute d'orthographe je propose de la laisser en place, elle ne gène pas : le tire n'ayant qu'une importance relative. Sinon il faut que je refasse les redirectiosn à la maisn et s'est fastidieux. Pour les deux objet qui ne sont pas référencés je vais le faire même si je ne suis pas l'auteur. Par contre je dois passer au Muséum pour relever les N° qui ne l'on pas été...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oui les fautes d'orthographe sur les noms de fichier n'ont pas grande importante, mais apparemment il y a une nouvelle option "rename and deplace" sur les fichiers (il faut avoir les droits de renommeur). Ca renomme le fichier et fait une demande pour remplacer les liens Visiblement ce n'est pas complètement au point, mais ça peut être bien pratique.

Pour les deux photos où il manque le numéro, ce n'est pas bien urgent. Je pense qu'il y a des photos de la même hache quelque part, mais l'inconvénient de mettre dans des catégories, c'est qu'on ne voit pas tout de suite les photos donc c'est moins facile de trouver. J'espère qu'on aura bientôt un gadget pour corriger ça. Le lgoiciel MediaWiki a été rénové la semaine dernière, il n'y a pas de grand changement mais je crois que ça va rendre plus facile certaines améliorations.--Zolo (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Pour les noms de catégorie "Biface from Algeria - MHNT PRE.2009.0.196.3" c'est mieux que "Chert Biface - MHNT PRE.2009.0.196.3" ?--Zolo (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolument vrai, surtout si tu peux faire une mise à jour comme celles qui ont été faite par ZooFrari c'est parfait!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

J'ai recréé des catégories au nouveau nom. Je ne peux pas faire la mise à jour moi même (il faut être administrateur. Le redirects de catégories sont plus embêtants que ceux de fichier donc les catégories vont être un peu désorganisées pendant quelques heures/jours? le temps que quelqu'un s'en occupe. En fait j'aurais pu faire ça beaucoup plus vite et en évitant les doublons mais j'ai bêtement créé les catégories avant de regarder la documentation de User:CommonsDelinker/commands.--Zolo (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, je me demandais si le musée avait une manière particulière de classer les objets (à part par grand département, préhistoire, zoologie etc.). En fait, je me rends compte que la classification actuelle de la préhistoire n'est pas très facile à gérer, parce qu'elle n'ets pas très harmonisée, et consiste en catégories "d'intersection", par exemple "neolithic necklaces in the Muséum de Toulouse" est l'intersection de néolithique, de "muséum de Toulouse" et de "necklaces". J'ai fait ça souvent aussi moi-même mais en fait ce n'est pas très pratique. Le principal problème c'est que certains objects risquent de se perdre. Par exemple si on a un collier en os néolithique et qu'on l'a déjà classé dans "Categorie:colliers", on risque d'oublier de le classer dans "Categorie:objets en os". Idéalement, il faudrait avoir des gadgets pour rendre les recherches plus intuitives. En attendant, c'est vrai que des sous catégories peuvent être utiles, mais je pense qu'il faudrait au moins harmonisze les choses, de préférence en utilisant la classification du musée, ou sinon en ne retenant qu'un seul critère (par exemple le type d'object ou la période). Des suggestions ?--Zolo (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

La catégorie 'neolithic necklaces in the Muséum de Toulouse' est une mauvaise idée. Dans les collections la préhistoire est classée PRE et c'est tout. Il faut choisir la culture c'est le plus sûr  ; donc Néolithique, Paléolithique ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

D'accord, je peux effacer "ivory and bone objects" donc ? Je laisse un message à Rama pour lui demander s'il a quelque chose contre l'effacement de la catégorie collier.--Zolo (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cette catégorie peux être effacée et ventilé en fonction des cultures néolithique paléolithique etc, sauf si Rama émettait des réserves. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

D'accord je vais faire ça.

J'ai enlevé Category:Diorite de file:Diorite-Reims-Damour.jpg et l'ai rajouté dans Category:Axe from Reims - MHNT PRE.2009.0.215.1. L'idée est que tout ce qui concerne l'object en lui même doit être placé sur la page de l'object lui même pour ne pas avoir besoin d'écrire plusieurs fois la même chose.--Zolo (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok c'est mieux que le rajout hâtif que j'avais fais ce matin. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

J'ai créé un modèle {{Period}} pour permettre des traduction rapides des dates, mais je ne sais pas trop quoi faire pour l'âge du bronze moyen. Les dates sont -2200 -1550 sur en.wiki et -1500 -1100 sur fr.wiki. J'ai bien peur que ça ne puisse pas être complètement standardisé.
En cherchant quelques information sur le collier, je suis tombé sur un beau poster...--Zolo (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Merci de cette trouvaille! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Surenchère !!

Tu avais sa dernière demeure, j'ai trouvé dimanche l'avant-dernière !! Qui dit mieux ? Amitiés--Jebulon (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bon s'est décidé je monte à Paris pour piller tes filons!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Howlite - turkenite.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good (except for the blur on the left) IdLoveOne 10:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Dinosaur Barnstar

		The Dinosaur Barnstar
		I herebry award You The Dinosaur Barnstar for excellent work on many high-quality photos of fossils and bones. Thank You for all Your uploads! Très amical --George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday to You!

Bonjour, mon ami!
Je te souhaite bon anniversaire!
Je te souhaite les succès créateurs et le bonheur!
Très amical, Georges George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

J'ignorais la chose !

Je m'associe à Georges de grand coeur (de grand choeur ?)

Tu ne fais pas tes 35 ans, tu sais ?!

Moi, c'est dans quelque jours seulement que je fêterai mon anniversaire... de "Commons". Le premier !

Pour le demi-siècle, ce sera à la fin du mois prochain.

Je ne te souhaite rien, vu que tu as déjà tout !

Amitiés, --Jebulon (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A mon tour de te souhaiter un très joyeux anniversaire ! Je te trouve très bien pour un sauropode de ton âge :-) Garde toujours cette belle énergie qui rayonne dans les projets auxquels tu participes. Amitiés, --Myrabella (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Merci à tous… C’est la première année, depuis bien longtemps, que je n’ai pas le cafard le jour de mon anniversaire. Et tout les 3 vous y êtes pour quelques choses. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2011 (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:
Cryolite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very hard to decide when only regading the pictures. But this has the best description and it is a topotype. --Llez (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cornetite.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. --Mbdortmund 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

image du jour

À mon tour de te féliciter !--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Pendant que tu m'écrivais, moi, je promouvais ton poisson ! Oui, j'ai vu les CA, mais même avec le RAW (je n'utilise plus que ça) je ne sais pas comment les rattraper. J'ai pourtant coupé des arbres... Je vais m'acheter un filtre polarisant, c'est promis. Dommage, je trouve cette vue bien "parisienne". Je la referai par beau temps. Pour les VIC, ce n'est pas si cassé, j'ai passé outre la première phase sans me préoccuper de ce qui était écrit, et j'ai retrouvé mon cochon (Hyotherium major) bien installé pour la r'vue ! En attendant, je te dédie mon rhinocéros laineux. Moins beau que le tien, mais de Teilhard de Chardin (tiens, ça rime). Je vais mettre un poisson aussi, si j'arrive à en tirer quelque chose (faut que j'étudie la photo). Au fait, j'ai envie de faire un "template" pour le MNHN, où puis-je apprendre (ou recopier le tien de Toulouse) ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Merci pour mon poisson;recopie mon templete de Toulouse et du l'adapte à Paris, c'est très simple comme tu verras. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your question on my talk page. --Kevmin § 19:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied again. -Kevmin § 20:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Petit poisson deviendra grand...

...Môssieur ne se refuse rien, Môssieur se paie des petits week-ends de pêche à la ligne dans le Wyoming ??...

Et en plus, ça mord ?! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Je n'ai hélas jamais trouvé les câpres fossiles qui aurait du l'accompagner... La science s'interroge... est-ce un faux? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

crânes

Salut

merci pour tes commentaires.

Je montre les crânes ainsi parce qu'il s'agit de squelettes complets montés dont j'ai isolé cette partie. Je voudrais bien faire une bestiole entière, mais ce n'est pas possible, il n'y a pas de recul. Pour les petits spécimens, ils sont toujours derrière des vitres (mandrill, lagotriche), et c'est déjà bien compliqué de parvenir à trouver une façon de faire sans reflet, et avec le moins de "bruit" possible. Pas de deuxième chance. Alors je donne le max de ce que je prends, ça m'a paru intéressant de montrer aussi l'avant-train... Si je fais comme tu dis pour l'hémione, alors je dois non pas détourer, mais supprimer les vertèbres, car ça n'aurait plus aucun sens. C'est peut-être un choix à faire, mais alors je me retrouve confronté à un problème de format. Le tout sans flash ni trépied...

Je suis quand même assez content de mon rhino, je l'ai même proposé en FP et il a l'air bien parti.--Jebulon (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Priscacara liops Green River Formation.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 Very good --Llez 11:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Diplomystus dentatus Green River Formation Wyoming.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 and interesting--Jebulon 18:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Controverse

Le temps se brouille

Non seulement il s'oppose, mais en plus il patrouille sur nos pages de discussion...

Et il vient importer ses commentaires jusque "chez moi"...

Je me garde bien de répondre ou d'intervenir, et la polémique enfle sous mon rhino...

Moi je vois une chose, chacune de ses oppositions est immédiatement suivie de deux ou trois votes de soutien. Donc il n'obtient pas le résultat escompté. En plus, la règle des promotions rapides avec dix votes pour ne peut s'appliquer, donc la photo, si mauvaise selon lui, reste plus longtemps à l'écran...

Je suis bien content, ce sera ma vingtième FP, et je l'ai proposée juste le jour de mon "anniversaire de Commons", exprès.

Pas si mal pour seulement un an de participation, je trouve (surtout qu'entre temps, les règles ont durci...)

J'aime bien me faire un coup d'autosatisfaction de temps en temps, merci de me permettre de me pavaner sur ta page

(bon d'accord, tu n'as pas trop le choix)...

Amitiés,--Jebulon (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heliobatis radians Green River Formation.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 Wow. --Qiqritiq 20:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Cymbium marocanus 01.JPG

Merci beaucoup. J'ai corrigé. --Llez (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hallo, I just noticed some dustspots near the left inferior edge of your Cerussite --Llez (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Bien vu je corrige! Merci --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Criton"

J'ai créé Category:Levallois Point - MHNT 2009.0.204.1 mais lieu de découvert: "Criton" c'est quoi ?--Zolo (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Je te confirme que c'est une énigme. Il n'y a rien dans les registres du Muséum qui nous ai permis d'en savoir plus. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

J'ai terminer la deuxième photo du néolithique il reste dans cette category seulement une vue de la hache de plagne qui fait partir d'un autre ensemble que tu as traité.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bon ben alors j'ai mis Criton dans le champ "inscription" avec en commentaire "sens obscur" j'espère que ça va.

L'image a été bougée maintenant, elle aurait du bouger toute seule mais les catégories ajoutées indirectement ne se mettent pas à jour tout de suite. Normalement il faut attendre quelques heures mais en ce moement ça semble être quelque jours.--Zolo (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2011 (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:
Sillimanite, cut.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Better than File:Sillimanite cut.jpg, I think. Please consider rotating the image a few degrees clockwise. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Done with pleasure --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:36, 23 February 2011 (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:
Siderite, cut.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Better than File:Siderite cut.jpg, the only competition that I could find. It may be helpful to create a subcategory for the cut images. They are hard to find among the hundreds of uncut ones. No geotag, but is a studio shot. Used by 21 projects. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:37, 23 February 2011 (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:
Diplomystus dentatus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 23 February 2011 (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:
Priscacara liops.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Most detailed and best in scope --Llez (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:00, 24 February 2011 (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:
Heliobatis radians.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

This one is technically good too, but no geocoded nor claimed for geocode exception, and the resolution of yours is far much better. Yours is therefore much more educative and useful. The "dental pad" & the very visible sting complete the point. Then best in scope IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cerusite Les Frages.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. --Mbdortmund 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Species-level in fossils

Hi, Archaedontosaurus, I found a message on my talk page from Kevmin:
"Hi Llez, in regards to the Pleuroceras categories, could you visit and comment on the Species level categorization of extinct taxa thread at the Tree of Life wikiproject. Also when you do create categories it would be very helpful if you would fully complete them such has been done at Category:Pleuroceras by including the taxonavigation and wikispecies tamplates. Also a Paleobiology Database (for fossils) and/or World Register of Marine species for marine taxa link is preferred if the databases have an entry for the taxon. --Kevmin § 17:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)"
I splitted Pleuroceras into species for nominating a VIC. This is only possible, if we have species level. Kevmin wants all to have in the category Pleuroceras. The effect: The VI-link from your Pleuroceras spinatum to the Category Pleuroceras spinatum isn't still valid. What can we do? How to nominate a Ammonite (or other fossil) species as VIC, if it not possible to create a coategory for it? Or can we have several VIs within the category Pleuroceras, like Pleuroceras solare, Pleuroceras spinatum and so on? What do you think about it? See also Kevmin's talk page --Llez (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. In recent taxonomy we have the same problems as in palaeontology. In both we have good species, in both we have discussions. Why then species-categories in recent, genera-categories in fossil forms? I think at the moment the species is a good level and it doesn't matter, if a species is extinct or not. In addition, we have genera, which contain recent and extinct species. How to deal then? We should keep the good species, and we know, everything is changing. Also genera are not stable and are discussed (so also genera would be not suited as category - the families? the same!). If a genus is splitted, it is easier to divide the species-categories which belonged to the "old" genus, than to reorganize all the pictures of the complete genus-category. PS: BTW, I think it would be better, if you re-establish the category "Pleuroceras spinatum" ;-). Salutations. --Llez (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We must first discuss. Give your opinion on the discussion page, which is open. I'm pretty sure we are right because it is the logic. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Détourage pyromorphite

Salut.

tu as un petit spot de détourage dans l'angle inférieur de ton caillou, là où il y a un retrait.

je suis avec intérêt le débat que tu mènes avec Llez ci-dessus.

L'avis d'un ignorantus ( genus) n'a surement pas d'importance pour les spécialistes que vous êtes, mais celui d'un Ignorantus jebulonis (species) qui participe parfois àvos jeux, peut-être.

Voici:

-quelle est la justification scientifique à ne pas descendre au niveau de l'espèce pour les fossiles, si on le fait pour le vivant ?

-ça change tout le temps, ok. Il n'y a qu'à suivre l'actualité et gérer les difficultés au cas par cas.

-s'arrêter au genre pour les fossiles va mettre le bazar dans la catégorisation, et subsidiairement être gênant pour les distinctions (QI, mais surtout VI pour les scopes)

-n'y a t- il pas des genres dans lesquels il y a à la fois des espèces vivantes et d'autres fossiles ? alors on fait quoi ?

-dans le cas ci dessus, on aura des domaines de VI de plusieurs espèces dans un même genre ? Seulement pour les fossiles ?

-si Commons se veut scientifique, n'a t- on pas l'obligation d'explorer jusqu'au plus loin des données à notre disposition ?

Pardon, j'enfonce peut-être des portes ouvertes, mais j'espère que cet avis de profane contribuera à vos réflexions.

et n'oublie pas ton petit 'spot', Llez a déja corrigé celui que je lui ai signalé. D'ailleurs, j'en ai aussi un vers les cornes de mon rhino, personne ne l'a vu...

amitiés,--Jebulon (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2011 (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:
Nematonotus longispinus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Criteria met for a studio photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

focus stack

J'ai ajouté un modèle {{Focus stack}} sur une File:Harpon 2010.0.3.5. Global.JPG. Il me semble que c'est plus sobre, et linguistiquement plus correct que de mettre le gros modèle {{Retouched picture}} (en fait ce n'est pas tellement une' image qui est retouchée). Mais si ça va pas, tu peux l'enlever bien-sûr. Ca fonctionne comme ça:

{{focus stack}} -> Focus stacking. {{focus stack|3}}-> Focus stacking of 3 pictures.

(pour le harpon, je ne pensais pas qu'on pouvait mettre un bâton dans la petite encoche)--Zolo (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)modifié--Zolo (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

J'ai aussi ajouté des liens dans les modèles pour essayer de rendre les modifications sur la description de l'objet plus plus facile (voir File:Harpon 2010.0.3.5. Global.JPG également). C'est assez moche, mais est-ce plus simple à utiliser ?--Zolo (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

J'adopte immédiatement le modèle focus stack. qui est parfait, je vais au fur et a mesure reprendre mes photos pour l'insérer. Le harpon est fiché dans une hampe en bois ouverte qui est coupé à son extrémité en quatre et qui vient enserre la moitié inférieure de l'objet l'ensemble est collé et ficelé. Nos ancêtres étaient extrêmement ingénieux. le lien pour modifier n'est pas si moche et il est surtout utile. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah d'accord, merci pour l'explication. Finalement, j'ai enlevé le "cette image est" dans le modèle focus stack, c'est plus souple d'utilisation.--Zolo (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyromorphiteussel1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good and useful. --Cayambe 14:59, 26 February 2011 (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:
Acca sellowiana (Pineapple Guava), Flower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support This candidate far more illustrative IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I find this one more illustrative too.--Myrabella (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Acca sellowiana 002.JPG: +1
2. Feijoa sellowiana_.jpg: +2
3. Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Acca sellowiana 002.JPG: Declined 
File:Feijoa sellowiana_.jpg: Promoted.
File:Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Elbaite.jpg

Hi, thanks for adding this file to articles in the Hebrew Wikipedia. In some places I had to cancle the addition since the oroginal photo showed zoning in cross-section in Tourmaline, and you photo collided with the description. Thanks again. דקי (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Elbaite.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 --Llez 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Vivarium

pas facile, la photo en vivarium ? Ah ça, tu peux le dire! Il y a des lampes pour chauffer, d'autres pour éclairer, des reflets, des vitres sales, des "fonds" affreux et des bestioles parfois peu coopératives, sans compter les autres visiteurs !!!
Mais bon, je trouvais amusant d'essayer. Je m'intéresse de plus en plus à mon appareil, et je le teste avec son nouvel objectif (qui me colle de belles aberrations chromatiques...). J'ai enfin acquis un filtre de polarisation, il faut que j'apprenne à bien l'utiliser. J'ai un problème pour retraiter les fichiers RAW, je ne comprends pas bien le logiciel (UFRAW), et n'obtiens pas les résultats que je souhaiterais. Là aussi, il n'y a qu'à essayer. J'ai des contacts techniques avec Peter Weis, qui est très disponible et très aimable, alors que je pensais le contraire au départ, dans ses revues de FPC. Comme quoi...
Merci de tes commentaires. La queue du "Chalcides" est dans le sable, rien à faire. Mais je reviendrai là, il y a des petites grenouilles vénéneuses de toutes les couleurs, il faut que j'essaie. J'ai pris aussi un varan des palétuviers en proxi, il pourrait n'être pas mal s'il n'était pas si sur-exposé... Je ne l'ai pas proposé, mais quand même mis dans des articles... Le croco était plus facile.--Jebulon (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Les dendrobates, elles sont aussi jolies que venimeuses. Ok pour le Chalcide --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. J'ai désaturé mon python, tu as (comme toujours) raison, c'est mieux ! Si tu as deux minutes va voir si ça te plaît, stp. Merci.--Jebulon (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salix caprea Male.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Holleday 11:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg

Hello Archaeodontosaurus, thank you very much for you post! I´m a shutterbug and I was not sure whether the skullpicture is good enough for a quality image because there came many critique. Therefore I removed it. Many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Or

Tu es sûr que ta profondeur de champ est bonne ? ça me parait un peu flou à haute résolution.--Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tu as raison il manque un plan mais cette pièce qui m'a été prêtée quelques heures est déjà repartie en Allemagne. J'ai modifier les paramètres pour la rendre QI mais elle ne ne sera pas FP. J'ai une autre version que je n'ai pas encore vue... dommage s'était un bon sujet. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

c'est ça l'économie de nos jours, l'or finit toujours par repartir en Allemagne...--Jebulon (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Or 2

There are several unsharp areas in the left one (caused by focus stacking?). As I saw above, you can't obvously repeat he shots. What a pity! --Llez (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My picture is missed. I'll upload a new version in a few minutes. Thank you, it is these comments that we recognize these friends.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Limule(dD).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 *sharp, perfect details and arrangement --Mbdortmund 12:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)* Info Almost perfect except for some white dust which must be cleaned before promotion --Croucrou 22:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)*  Done (il manquait une fusion de calque) Merci --Archaeodontosaurus 07:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Comment maintenant c'est parfait bon travail --Croucrou 11:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2x5 Or Venezuela.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 --Llez 17:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

C'est Goffin

OK, la commande est enregistrée. Il ne fait pas très beau. Il faut que j'aille au lycée un jour ouvrable (ça me rajeunira).
En vacances ? Tu rigoles ! J'avais programmé un petit séjour à Florence il y a peu, annulé cause de maladie. J'te jure...
Dommage que tu ne sois pas venu à Paris, je t'y aurais bien volontiers accueilli. Mais préviens désormais: je change prochainement d'affectation (et donc de bureau) pour aller du côté des Batignolles...
Je viens de passer le cap des 400 QI. Et le prochain coup, ça fera 40 VI... --Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

je reviens du lycée Voltaire.

pas plus de buste dudit Arouet dans la (les) cour (s) que de beurre dans le placard...

j'ai pourtant interviewé le gardien et des profs.

on nous aurait donc menti ?

j'ai mitraillé le buste sur la façade au cas où (et celui d'Ampère qui fait pendant)

j'ai découvert qu'il y aurait un groupe "la Victoire" de ce sculpteur au monument aux morts de l'ancienne Ecole Polytechnique.

c'est à côté de chez moi. Ça t'intéresse ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Mais oui absolument, nous sommes pauvre en belles photos pour ce pauvre Ségoffin. J'ai obtenu le transfert du serpent "Eupodophis" à Toulouse, où nous le prendrons définitivement en charge au MHNT. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Et Voltaire ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

J'ai demandé le transfert des cendres à Toulouse aussi... mais je l'ai pas de réponse pour le moment. Sinon je n'ai pas résisté à ta photo que tu lui as consacré. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eryon cuvieri Solnhofen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me -- Holleday 17:57, 10 March 2011 (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:
Trilobita ventral side.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support criteria met for a studio photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:34, 14 March 2011 (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:
Eryon arctiformis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Criteria met for a studio photo.  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:37, 14 March 2011 (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:
Stylemys nebrascensis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Astropecten lorioli.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 Impressive thanatocoenosis --Llez 12:28, 12 March 2011 (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:
Emile Cartailhac Photography.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Good. --Mile (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pyrite elbe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Holleday 16:52, 13 March 2011 (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:
Astropecten lorioli.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ephippiger

Gratulations retour pour le POTD! --Llez (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

J'allais le dire , je te gratule aussi.--Jebulon (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Merci... nous ferons mieux la prochaine fois --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2011 (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:
Captorhinus aguti.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope Kersti (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tu crânes avec ton mandrill !!

Salut !

Bravo pour ton mandrill, surtout le dernier posté, qui me plaît beaucoup.

J'ai fait quelques aménagements dans la page de description, tu avais laissé quelques erreurs d'orthographe ou de syntaxe wiki, que j'ai corrigées.

Tu devrais faire une MVR avec le mien. A mon avis le tien, sous toutes ses formes et quelle que soit la version, est bien le "most valuable" et devrait supplanter aisément son prédécesseur, fût-il de moi.

Et merci pour le minaret, je ne comprends pas cette histoire de perspective, je ne vois rien qui cloche...

Amitiés.--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Un Minaret ne peu pas "clocher"! Bonne Idée pour le Mandrill je vais y réfléchir pour demain. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ursus

Hello Archaeodontosaurus, sorry my late answer and thank you very much for your proposal! Unfortunately I have no raw picture of the ursua skull because I took the photo in .jpg. This morning I try to edit the picture with no really good success (I work with photoshop CS2) and therfore I withdraw my nomination. Many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Hello Archaeodontosaurus, thank you very much for your tips! I will try it to make photos in RAW-format. Can I edit the pictures in Photoshop, too? I will read something about the work with this format! Many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Hello Archaeodontosaurus, I send you a email with the picture! Thank you very much and many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Mr User: Wetenschatje always hidden? Will you show us, finally, a photograph taken by you? But Mr. User: Wetenschatje can not do : because Mr User: Wetenschatje is a sock puppet! --Archaeodontosaurus (d) 13:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Archeodontosaurus, meatpuppet of user Llez, welcome to my talk page. Have you read the definition of a sock puppet? Why should I upload images? That's not my role here. It is to prevent substandard or mediocre images to pass so that later you don't have to go through the delisting procedure. Would you not better stick to your own business instead of accusing others of stuff you don't know about? W.S. 13:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

nouvelles versions de fichiers

J'ai vu que tu avais téléchargé une nouvelle version de File:Limule(dD).jpg. Le nouveau fichier est clairement meilleur que le premier, mais l'angle de vue n'est pas le même. Dans ce genre de cas, je crois qu'il est mieux de télécharger le nouveau fichier sous un nom différent, car les deux peuvent être utiles. Ca semble être la politique officielle et l'on voit parfois des gens réverter des changements assez similaires. En tout cas, je ne vois pas beaucoup d'inconvénients à avoir le choix entre les deux images.--Zolo (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ne t’inquiète pas je fais bien la différence; je suis amené de temps en temps à réviser certaines photos, s'il y a perte d'informtion je laisse la vieille s'il n'y en a pas j'écrase l'ancienne. Pour la limule l'ancienne n’apporte rien, elle peut passer à la trappe. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, efin personnellement je trouve que la première version de la limule peut apporter quelque chose esthétiquement, même si elle n'apporte rien "éducativement".

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mandrilperspective6.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 Far much better than others in his category, if you see what I mean !!--Jebulon 16:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mandrill face4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very detailed and well focused. Иван 13:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid commenting on other editors in your reviews

I removed your personal attack on Wetenschatje. Please see fr:Wikipédia:Pas d'attaque personnelle (en:WP:PA). Allegations of faux-nez (en:WP:SOCK), with evidence, may be made at COM:RCU. Wetenschatje has not denied that s/he has edited under another name. S/he may use sock puppets if s/he does not use them in an abusive manner. Please do not guerre d'edition (en:WP:EW). Problems with other users requiring administrator intervention may be discussed at COM:ANU. But, COM:FPC is not the place to discuss the behavior of other users. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• :fr:Walter, je connais ton travail et je te respecte. Je me range à ton avis. Mais il n’y a là une grand injustice qui est faite à ceux qui travaillent dans le respectes des règles et de l’éthique qui est la notre dans Commons. Le personnage dont il est question n’a pas d’éthique. Il est un danger pour la communauté. Je le dénoncerai à chaque fois que je le croiserai. Pour cette fois ci j’ai bien travaillé. C’est les mettant en pleine lumière que l’on démasque les imposteurs.

  en:Walter, I know your work and I respect you. I agree with your opinion. But there is a great injustice done to those who work in compliance and ethics that is ours in the Commons. The person in question has no ethics. There is a danger to the community. I denounce every time I think so. For this time I worked well. It is putting them into the light that we unmask the impostors. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gorilla Male perspective 5.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 upper front partially overexposured --Mbdortmund 05:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)  Done absolutely true, correction made --Archaeodontosaurus 08:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC) very good now --Mbdortmund 14:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

for the picture of the day! --Llez (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Merci. J'ai encore deux crânes à finir et je vais essayer de faire autre chose que des crânes... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Je me joins. Et j'ai eu aussi, récemment, cette grande lassitude des crânes !!--Jebulon (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Garniérite Camp Des Sapins.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 Meets the criteria imo.--MrPanyGoff 18:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gorilla Male Global.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good -- Holleday 18:57, 24 March 2011 (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:
Garnierite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:07, 27 March 2011 (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:
Gorilla gorilla (Gorilla), male skull.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo du jour, re.

Merci de tes félicitations

Je me souviens qu'il y a eu des débats sur cette photo, et quand je la revois, je me dis que si ce n'était pas moi qui l'avait prise, je la trouverais digne d'être une FP !!

Vraiment je l'aime beaucoup.

Pour ce qui est d'aider les moins anciens, c'est un plaisir, et c'est aussi surtout le moins que je puisse faire: rendre un peu de ce qu'on (tu) m'a(s) donné quand je suis arrivé et encore maintenant. Je veux juste que ceux dont j'écarte les images ne se sentent pas découragés, tout en n'étant pas trop pétri de certitudes moi-même, au contraire de certains...

Ainsi, je galère pas mal avec le traitement en RAW des photos, je n'y arrive pas bien. Si tu as des "trucs" n'hésite pas !!

Amitiés

--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

oui, j'ai corrigé la perspective de la châsse. Pourquoi ?

info: je viens ce soir de m'acheter un déclencheur télécommandé. Spectaculaire ! --Jebulon (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Je trouvais que pour 17mm il ne déformait pas! Je vais l'acheter tout de même. Comment te sert-tu d'un déclencheur télécommandé? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

je n'ai que peu corrigé. Par ailleurs, Le lieu est très compliqué, pas de recul, très mauvais éclairage, presque impossible d'avoir l'objet en entier proprement.

La télécommande évite tout bougé sur trépied, c'est mieux que le retardateur, mais tu peux cumuler les deux. Ça fonctionne très bien. Moins de 30 € à la boutique Sony ( pas àla FNAC).--Jebulon (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2011 (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:
Gorilla gorilla (Western Gorilla), skull.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope and very useful -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 18:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Caillou aurignacien

Juste pour te rappeler que je ne te néglige pas, j'ai noté deux petites erreurs de détourage sur ton caillou cro magnon (figure centrale, j'ai encadré).
Amitiés.--Jebulon (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Je te remercie au contraire de tes bons soins, surout pour mon hervivore au longue canines. J'ai corrigé le grattoir de Cro-magnon tu avais parfaitement raison. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Drawing vs photograph vs naturalized subscopes

Bonjour cher ami, Comme tu ne t'étais pas résolu à la même chose il y a quelques mois (Commons:Valued image candidates/Pseudimbrasia deyrollei.jpg), il faudrait que tu expliques ton changement d'opinion (Commons:Valued image candidates/Mirza coquereli 1868.jpg). Note que sur cette VI, Commons:Valued image candidates/Coreus marginatus Global.jpg, on n'a pas ajouté de subscope "naturalizd" ou "entomological"... En espérant n'être pas trop impertinente :-) --Myrabella (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Silex cromagnon noir.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 Only a question: Is it really that kind of red? --Mbdortmund 17:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC) On the label? --Archaeodontosaurus 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Because of the title "silex" I thougt the stone would look grey, but I see, the Category:Flintstone shows red variations, too. --Mbdortmund 23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC) The flint can have a large variability in composition and color: white, pink, brown, and sometimes bluish. This peculiarity has shown that the flint, as materials, travel a lot. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued image

Hello, moi je m'en fiche un peu, je voulais juste mettre un peu en valeur ces images, qui sont actuellement assez uniques pour illustrer leur sujet. Ne sachant pas sur quel pied danser, j'ai supprimé en voyant ton "I am convinced that this opinion wise" faisant suite au commentaire de Myrabella sur Commons:Valued image candidates/Pseudimbrasia deyrollei.jpg, et puis en me disant qu'il serait toujours temps d'en discuter si une photo venait à émerger (même pour les photos promues, il y a toujours la possibilité qu'une meilleure soit téléchargée par la suite, et puis le in vivo n'y est pas légion). Je ne sais pas si une des deux philosophies de l'histoire finirait par tuer le label, mais en tout cas l'affrontement des deux le pourrait. Que je mette le drawing ou pas, il y aura toujours à redire, c'est un peu démotivant... Je ne sais plus trop quoi faire, et je n'ose pas changer le scope sans arrêt pour suivre la majorité, le vote est déjà assez raturé et puis ça peut passer pour du suivi calculateur de sens du vent.
Puisque tout le monde cherche à garder pérenne le label le mieux serait peut-être de discuter sur une page à part (notamment avec Taxocat) de la façon de faire la plus adaptée, sur la validité dans le temps du label VI (n'est-il valable qu'au moment où il est décerné jusqu'à celui où il peut-être remis en cause ? — Une photo et un dessin sont-ils comparables ? — Une photo médiocre in vivo vaut-elle mieux qu'un dessin ?) Je connais mal le fonctionnement de Commons, mais peut-être qu'une prise de décision (à petite échelle) pourrait régler le problème. Quand le consensus est dur à atteindre, un vote à la majorité fait des mécontents mais peut résoudre les problèmes pratiques en dépit de deux argumentaires tout aussi valables l'un que l'autre.
Si tu as des idées ou conseils sur la démarche à adopter, je suis preneur. Totodu74 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Je trouve tes dessins à la fois bons et utiles. Je veux qu'ils soient promus et je veux qu'ils aient leur place y compris quand nous aurons des photographies de ces animaux. Et je souhaite aussi que, dans leur catégorie, ses photos puissent être vues et promues. Je ne veux pas avoir à choisir entre un dessin et une photo, chacun apporte quelque chose. La discussion à commencée sur la page de discussion (en anglais que je maîtrise très mal) tu peux aller voir. Je pense qu'il est possible d'arrivée à une compréhension des différents points de vus. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re, j'ai regardé de loin la discussion, mais finalement il n'y a pas vraiment de convention fixée... Je suis d'accord avec toi quand tu dis que différents types de représentation d'un même sujet doivent pouvoir être tous considérés comme de valeur (en l'occurrence dessin vs photo) mais j'ignore si un procédure existe s'il faut renommer le scope et si oui si c'est facile et rapide. Sais-tu si l'on peut lancer deux procédures simultanées pour une même photo ? Concrètement j'ai ce dessin de Baza malgache que je proposerai au VI avec et sans le (drawing) : c'est possible ? Pas trop « politiquement incorrect » ? Totodu74 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Non un double procédure ne me parait pas une bonne idée. Si l'animal n'a qu'un dessin présente le sous son nom. La discussion eu pour effet d’atrier l'attention sur ce point, si une photo arrive on la mettra dans un scope 'Animal photo' et çà ne sera pas plus compliqué... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Archaeodontosaurus; Thank you for commenting.[1] I was relying primarily on the judgment of the editors of our sister projects.[2] May I ask which one you would choose? Merci, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Me, I chose Rubus spectabilis 1564.JPG (more appetizing).

You told me how it made ​​your choice. But you did not say what you would have chosen if you had not looked at the statistics .

For VI discussion; I be very happy with what we have said, I will remove my negative votes to avoid penalizing the author. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up the issue. I think it was helpful to have the discussion. On the Rubus, I think you may be right. Amicalement, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I made Commons:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list#Rubus_spectabilis_.28Salmonberry.29.2C_fruit. Your nomination satisfies criterion 3 better. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Info: oppositions removed, due to the interesting discussions and debates. All drawings are now "supported" (no opposition votes anymore). --Jebulon (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine du Burcq

Salut.

Pardon d'avoir l'air de passer derrière toi, mais ton image s'intitule "fluoriNe" alors qu'il semble s'agir de "fluoriTe". Comme je n'y connais rien (mais que je te connais, toi, un peu...), je te signale juste la chose, c'est peut être normal (c'est du Burcq, ou du Burg ?)

Je trouve cette image magnifique, j'adore le focus stacking, tu le réussis très bien.

Pour info, comme je trouvais que c'était un peu bruité, j'ai confectionné une image dérivée, en accentuant d'abord un tout petit peu la netteté, puis en "débruittant" très légèrement. Je trouve que c'est un poil meilleur, sans perte de détail. Dis moi si je me suis complètement trompé.--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Si le terme international est fluorite les français suivent Sulpice Beudant et parlent de fluorine. Je me suis un peu pressé et j'ai versé une mauvaise version, tu me l'apprends en arrivant à mon bureau. Pour la journée j'ai rétabli le titre (qui doit pour les pièce du MHNT porter le n°) et je versait la bonne version ce soir. Ton oeil de lynx a bien vu qu'il manquai quelques calques... Ceci dit tu commences à maîtriser la post production ce dont je te félicite bien vivement.

Si tu as un moment peut être pourrais-tu voir VI où je pense que nous pourrions lever nos votes négatifs, enfin Alvesgaspar à quelque soucis avec une image que l'on veut lui supprimer peut être que tu pourrais l'aider, tu es fort en droit français...

 Done pour les images en VI. Message ajouté chez Alves, mais sans espoir hélas... --Jebulon (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fluorine du Burcq (6).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. --Mbdortmund 22:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Porte musc perspective 5.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porte musc perspective 5.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hache ariège MHNT PRE HAR 8 global noir.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. --Cayambe 07:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Merci beaucoup pour les félicitations. --Llez (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Merci

Merci pour tes commentaires sur ma page de discussion, cela m'a fait du bien. De mon côté, je suis avec plaisir l'apparition de tes photos. Cela me fait chaud au coeur de voir ton travail de naturaliste. --Cayambe (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2011 (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:
Glaucophane.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support criteria met for a studio photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fluorine Peyrebrun.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, small masking rest marked on the left --Mbdortmund 11:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porte musc Profil 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Tu t'es surpassé, là, à mon avis.--Jebulon 14:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Pas tant que çà, c'est plus facile de faire un profil qu'un 3/4 --Archaeodontosaurus 07:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glaucophane bleu de Groix.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and informative --Llez 05:56, 11 April 2011 (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:
Moschus moschiferus Siberian Musk Deer, Skull.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:12, 13 April 2011 (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:
Ceratites nodosus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support-- Very nice and usefull --H. Krisp (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:42, 20 April 2011 (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:
Anacamptis morio (Green-winged Orchid), Habitus plant.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

High resolution - Geocoding - Caption unambiguously for synonyms.

•  Best in Scope This is a rich scope, but I agree with the nominator. Good background and almost unobstructed. Good composition. Well-exposed. Metadata such as the f-stop and shutter speed seem to be missing but that is not a criterion for promotion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cypraea tigris

Thank you for your comment. I used a polarising filter and no lamps. The photo was taken in the shadow without direct sunlight. Nevertheless I had reflections. When I tried to reduce the light so far, that no reflections where visible, it was so dark, that it was nearly impossible to make a photo (at least without a lot of noise). I think, the reflections belong to the shell for one has an impression of the glossy consistancy of its surface. Or, as Alchemist said some time ago to one of his pictures (no word-for-word citation): Try to make photo of thousand mirrors... --Llez (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I gave you a wrong information: I used an UV- not a P-Filter --Llez (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Image du jour

Merci pour tes félicitations. Je n'étais pas en Crète, mais à Rhodes. Tu en as d'ailleurs récompensé les murailles... J'ai du prendre environ 500 photos, vous allez vous lasser...--Jebulon (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Tu nous les distillera au fur et à mesure. J'ai acheté le même objectif que toi et ... je l'ai renvoyé: il ne s'adapte pas sur mon boitier. J'ai racheté le 24-70 que j'avais avant. Dommage le 17mm m'aurais bien arrangé.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment ça se fait, ça ? Il y a des différences de bague entre les Sony ? Ce n'est pas une erreur ? Dommage en effet, car je commence tout juste à apprivoiser l'engin, et ça me plaît de plus en plus, même si je n'ai pas encore tout compris...

J'ai lu que tu te fais influencer par notre ami lusitanien et que tu as décidé de faire dans la sévérité ? ;) Tu as peut-être raison... Je n'ai rien contre les revues "sévères", du moment qu'elle ne sont ni dédaigneuses, ni arrobngantes, ni méprisantes, et qu'elles restent amicales dans le ton. On a assez de la "vie" hors de "Commons" pour se faire engueuler, c'est pas la peine de poursuivre ici... Et je dois dire que parfois, à mon grand regret, je suis étonné des flots de testostérone puante incontrôlés qui se répandent, particulièrement en FPC... Je n'ai pas d'inquiétude en ce qui te concerne, naturellement...--Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

J'ai eu mauvaise conscience de le laisser seul. Je resterai toujours en dessous du sévère. Et j'argumenterai toujours les votes négatifs. Pour l'objectif s'est un problème sur les 850 et 900 le capteur est le double des autres et donc il y a un vignetage de prés de 45%. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

QIC

Hello and thank you for your review of Orchis punctulata 1.jpg. I uploaded a new version of the image, just to remove some dust particles with GIMP. I don't think it's a significant change, but just to let you know, if you want to reconsider your review. Thanks. Gidip (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem for the orchid, it is better. Campanula erinu is a bit underexposed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

QIC Metatorbernite

I think there is a possible masking error. I made an annotation. As far as I can see there is the background visible in high resolution. --Llez (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Merci pour ta vigilance. Le Masking est juste mais le cailloux est peu esthétique. Je vais plutot le mettre en VA, car cette espèce est rare. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2011 (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:
Zinnwaldite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nachet Microscope

Very many thanks for this very fine image used here [3] Notafly (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ô, culus !

Mon oeil !!

Oui, elle est amusante et originale. Figure-toi qu'il y a un autre oeil peint de l'autre côté du tronc, et que ça donne encore une autre impression de visage. Mais je ne l'ai vu que trop tard, et la lumière n'était pas bonne du tout. je ne l'ai pas photographié, ça n'aurait rien donné.

J'aime bien essayer d'être "divers" autant que possible, et montrer des choses un peu différentes, plutôt que les sempiternelles églises locales qui sont certes souvent "de qualité" techniquement, mais parfois un peu "boring". Je vais arriver à 500 QI, et je crois que je peux me permettre, désormais, de sélectionner plus rigoureusement les images que je soumets: je voudrais ne montrer que des choses qui, à un degré ou à un autre, présentent un intérêt un peu particulier. C'est pourquoi j'aime voir ce que tu proposes, ce que Llez offre, et je me régale avec la série lyonnaise de Rama en ce moment (par exemple). Ce qui serait sympa, ce serait de pouvoir supprimer de "Commons" un certain nombre d'images de vraiment mauvaise qualité...

Autre chose, je regarde beaucoup les pages de description quand j'examine une photo, et je m'aperçois que les gens ne prennent pas beaucoup de soins, ni pour décrire correctement leurs images, ni surtout pour les catégoriser utilement (et je ne parle pas du géocodage). On prend trois photos d'un site, et hop, on créée une catégorie, en général géographique, sans la relier à des catégories déjà existantes. Quelles pertes pour le chercheur, et quel maquis insondable ! Par ailleurs, on exige une identification claire pour les espèces vivantes, on devrait en faire autant pour d'autres images "en série", (je pense par exemple aux blasons, mais il y a d'autres cas). Bref, je trouve que c'est un peu le b...l. Je m'efforce de re-catégoriser autant que possible, et je dois dire que j'aime bien ça, ça m'intéresse. Je le fais presque pour chaque photo que je juge (j'essaie aussi d'ajouter une légende en français). Mais quand même, "ils" pourraient faire un effort !! --Jebulon (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Et merci pour la promotion !--Jebulon (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Metatorbernite sapin.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good and useful. --Cayambe 08:36, 24 April 2011 (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:
Metatorbernite.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anacamptis Fleur global.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Llez 15:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Appendicetomie

Salut doc.

Par simple curiosité et pour mon édification personnelle, j'ai un petite question médico-chirurgicale.

On nous présente ceci comme une appendicetomie. Je trouve que l'incision est bien longue, on fait de bien plus petites boutonnières désormais, non ? Qu'en penses-tu ?--Jebulon 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

C'est bien une appendicectomie, comme on nous le montre, mais ton étonnement est justifié, l'incision est très large. Il est plausible qu'il y a aussi une complication qui justifie cette voie d'abord large. Une autre théorie c'est que le chirurgien voit mal. Enfin la théorie dit de Pierre Dac, qui consiste à agrandir les petits trous pour les trouver plus facilement par la suite... --Archaeodontosaurus 05:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Studio lighting

For your type of shots I recommend a two light set up. One main light and one fill light. Set up the main light according to the diagrams attached. According to need, adjust height of both main and fill light. General technique: 1. Set up camera and subject, determining first what you want to show. 2. Set up main light, move it according to diagram, adjust height, always looking at subject from camera position, look where the shadows fall. 3. Set up fill light. The fill light can be at the same distance than the main light, the overlap of the light in itself will create a differential lighting, but this is generally no the way you want it. 4. Move the fill light back in order for it to lose intensity, that way you will have 3 lighted areas, in order of intensity: Ovelap light area, main light area and fill light area. So this will give you nice light differential that will enhance both texture and volume. 5. Light height: Generally you start at 45º-45º on the camera-subject axis looking from the top and looking at ground level, but you adjust as necessary. 6. Remember that there are 2 axis. From the top that gives you a semicircle displacement and from the camera-subject level, that will give you the height of the lights. 7. Once you have your main light set up, that will give you the best shadows, use the fill light to control the intensity of the shadows by moving it away from the subject. I uploaded a lighting schematic for you: #REDIRECT[[4]] --Tomascastelazo 12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explanations, I will photograph the object as I could access it (it is currently on display). I will abandon the technique of multiple lamps. The advantage is that there was no shade, but the big drawback is to give objects without relief. Thank you for your patience you have deserved well of Commons. --Archaeodontosaurus 16:57, 30 April 2011 (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:
Anacamptis morio Green-winged Orchid - Flower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Very good and detailed --Llez (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Split - Harbormaster's office and boats.JPG

Hi, can you please sign here? Cheers, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oups, Thanks--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2011 (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:
Vespa crabro (European Hornet), head.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fleche Font Robert 231.4 (2).jpg

Bonjour, Tu as enlevé en partie le Langswich pour cette image. Y-a-t-il un problème avec le langswich? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

J'ai deux problèmes avec Langswich :

1. Cette fonction n'est pas utilisée couramment dans les autres descriptions d'image de valeur

2. Je suis enregistré comme utilisateur français, et je ne vois apparaitre que les descriptions en anglais. Lorsque l'on utilise les templates linguistiques "classiques", l'utilisateur a la possibilité de ne voir des descriptions que dans sa langue. Et ça marche. Et s'il veut changer de langue, ou toutes les voir, c'est possible d'un clic.

De façon plus générale, les descriptions de ces spécimens préhistoriques (ils viennent du Muséum de Toulouse, je crois ?) utilisent lourdement des templates, ce qui n'est pas mauvais en soi, mais rend les modifications/ajouts postérieurs plus difficiles, et plus sujets aux bugs (d'ailleurs cette description là buggait, dans mon souvenir).

Enfin voilà, j'ai peut-être eu la main lourde aussi...

Cordialement,

Berru (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Je te remercie de ton intervention et de tes explications. Je vais au fur et a mesure enlever les langswich et je limiterai l’usage des templates (qui ne sont pas de mon fait) pour les images du projet Phoebus. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Juste quelques remarques. Pour les langSwitch, c'est vraiment bizarre, ça marche avec moi et je n'ai jamais entendu de problème avec ce template, en tout cas, pas quand il est utilisé directement comme ça. Tu es sûr que tu étais loggé, parce quand le suis, je n'ai pas la possibilité de changer la langue d'un clic (d'ailleurs quand je suis en anonyme je peux changer facilement de langue, mais pas toutes les afficher d'un clic). Cela dit, l'usage des langSwitch ne s'impose pas ici. C'est plus joli mais ça a des inconvénients.

Pour les reste, utiliser des templates pour les choses simples (époque, matériaux etc) permet de générer automatiquement de nombreuses traductions et facilite la maintenance. Toutefois, c'est vrai que c'est moins intuitif. On essaie de rendre les templates assez faciles à utiliser, mais ce n'est pas toujours ça.--Zolo (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

J'ai un peu changé l'usage des modèles. Ca permet par exemple d'avoir gravettien traduit en 15 langues. J'étais juste plus très sûr pour la date, c'est celle de découverte ou d'entrée au musée ?--Zolo (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

La date est celle de la découverte. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Je ne sais pas si mon intervention d'une fois mérite de faire tout changer. Mais je suis d'accord sur un point: il faudrait alléger pour rendre les traductions et les modifications plus intuitives. Berru (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

en Fait nous sommes en train de faire de l'expérimentation... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dans certain cas, on peut essayer d'indiquer l'endroit où aller pour traduire (quelque chose comme la version grecque de focus stack ?). Il existe un projet pour centraliser les interwikis. Ca traine depuis des années, mais cette fois les choses semblent bien lancées. S'il est fait de la bonne manière ça pourrait simplifier très nettement bon nombre de traduction par templates.

Pour vraiment simplifier l'usage des templates eux mêmes, il faudrait d'importants changements dans le logiciel. Les parsers ("if", "ifeq" etc.) sont en cours de restructuration. Je ne sais pas ce que ça va donner. Si on obtient de nouveaux outils pour gérer les textes, ça pourrait être une grande avancée. On verra dans quelques mois sans doute.

Pour le format spécial de la préhistoire toulousaine (avec {{Object photo}}) : comme Archaeodontosaurus l'a dit c'est encore de l'expérimentation, mais à vrai dire il n'y a plus grand chose à expérimenter avant les changements mentionnés ci-dessus.--Zolo (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2011 (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:
Santa Elena di Zerman - Exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Meets the criteria. --Coyau (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:55, 14 May 2011 (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:
San Giovanni Gristostomo (Venice) - interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support -Good photo, actually it is the only image of the interior of this church.--MrPanyGoff 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:56, 14 May 2011 (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:
San Pantaleone (Venice) - exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support.--MrPanyGoff 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Saint Jean Bouche d'Or

Salut mon ami.

Chrysostome ? Grisostomo ? Gristostomo ?
On trouve les trois graphies dans la même catégorie...
Tu crois que quelque chose est possible à cet égard ?

"Chrysostome", c'est bien, c'est la transcription en alphabet latin du mot grec d'origine, alors que "Grisostomo" n'est qu'une déformation italienne... Only an opinion.
Bien à toi.--Jebulon (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Grisostomo" est, dans le cas qui nous occupe, l'orthographe exacte. Je vais demander le renommage des deux catégories mal orthographiées. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Il Sile a Treviso.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI--Jebulon 09:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tooth of the day

Félicitation pour l'image du jour !--Jebulon (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Je te remercie. Je dois dire que, ce matin, en ouvrant ma machine cette dent m’a ravi. Mon emploie du temps devant s’alléger je devrais dans les semaines à venir être plus assidu sur COMMONS, en tout cas je l’espère… Les categorie de San Gisovani Grisotomo ont été harmonisé, grâce à ton intervention. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Facciata del duomo.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. --Raghith 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tooth of the day II

Félicitations aussi de moi --Llez (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Je te remercie d'autant plus, que hier, je n'ai pas eu le temps de te féliciter pour ton image! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2011 (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:
Santa Sofia (Venice) exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --MrPanyGoff 20:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:38, 19 May 2011 (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:
Duomo (Treviso) Exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support - I have a hesitation considering this image also. But support the nominated because a bit more of the dome is seen and somehow the light is better.--MrPanyGoff 06:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

merci

 Done. Comment as-tu deviné que c'était moi ? --Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bonne fête !!

Aujourd'hui, c'est la fête de Saint-Archaeodontosaurus. Bonne fête à tous les Archaeodontosaurus, dont toi !! --Jebulon (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Je te remercie, tu as le don d'arriver comme la cavalerie, au bon moment, j'ai eu une journée très lourde professionnellement. T'en que je te tiens j'ai bien aimé cette image Odos Ippoton, Rhodes, mais à 100% il y a des points blancs bizarre... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tant mieux si mon clin d'oeil est tombé comme il faut, j'en suis ravi !! Je vois ce que tu signales sur ma rue des Chevaliers, mais je ne sais comment résoudre le problème, et je ne sais pas d'où il vient, je n'ai pas (ou très peu) manipulé cette photo. Tu as une idée ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

D'une façon générale je captures les ciels et je fais un débruitage systématique se qui améliore sensiblement les micro anomalies, çà devrais marche aussi pour le ciel de Rhodes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2011 (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:
Acheulean- Stone hand axe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Ponte San Martino (Treviso)

Ciao, non preoccuparti perché è un'operazione che fanno gli amministratori di Commons. :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Un bienveillant sévit

Mon ami, je sens un problème en QIC.

Un "gentil" y sévit désormais, qui promeut à tout va, à coup de "good quality" à mon avis indifférenciés.

Certaines de mes photos font partie du lot, du coup je ne suis plus sûr de leur réelle valeur.

Serais-tu assez aimable, à l'occasion, pour repasser discrètement derrière lui pour mes images, d'un coup d'oeil rapide ?

Ne fais rien si ça te parait convenable, mais n'hésite pas à jaunir les cadres de celles dont tu estimes qu'elles doivent être revues !

Merci !

A propos, je vois que tu as changé un peu de style pour tes images, notamment d'insectes. J'apprécie beaucoup le centimètre, et je trouve que la qualité de tes productions s'améliore, alors qu'elle était déjà très haute !!

Moi, je découvre la complexité de la poterie grecque, et je m'amuse bien à essayer de classer tout ça comme il faut, pas si facile de mettre des légendes correctes.

Quand je vois le mal que je me donne à légender et à catégoriser, et le peu de soin que d'autres y mettent...

Tiens, demain, je vais faire peut-être la connaissance d'une amie commune à Versailles !

Je te raconterai. Amitiés --Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

J’ai effectivement remarqué un nouveau météore dans le ciel de Commons. Comme je suis pervers et que j’aurais fais un bon douanier, j’ai suspecté quelques nouvelles turpitudes de l’un d’entre nous. Je ne le crois plus. Nous avons à faire à un enthousiaste. L’enthousiasme est une fièvre qui monte vite mais qui diminue aussi rapidement. Il va s’affiner avec le temps.

Tu n’a rien volé dans ce qui a été promu. Pour ma part je suis mon premier censeur. L’église de St François de Trévise, je ne l’aurai pas proposée, car je confirme cette distorsion du mur. Je n’avais qu’un 24 un 20mm aurait été plus adapté… Je la referai. Très curieusement les insectes sont bien moyen à mon gout, il s’agit en fait d’une série de « travail » d’où le « cm » visible. Il apparait toujours sur les photos scientifiques mais je l’enlevai sur COMMONS. Comme tu lui fais bon acquis je le laisserai. J’ai 450.000 insecte à faire. Si le cœur t’en dit, il y en a 6.5 millions répertoriés au Muséum National.

Je pense bien à vous et à toutes les folies que vous faites, en ce moment même, dans les petits appartements de la Reine… --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2011 (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:
Metaxymorpha gloriosa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biface Micoquien MHNT PRE .2009.0.193.1 (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 15:46, 22 May 2011 (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:
Micoquien Stone hand axes.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support The only picture in scope which shows 3 sides ot a tool. --Llez (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nemoptera sp. MHNT.ZOO.2004.0.736.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 The symmetry is wonderful. Well done. --Saffron Blaze 20:43, 23 May 2011 (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:
San Pietro di Castello (Venice) - Facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best out of three in the category for now.--MrPanyGoff 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:14, 26 May 2011 (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:
Hiperantha testacea.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support criteria met for a studio photo. Well done picture -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gymnetis stellata MHNT.ZOO.2004.0.429 .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 Pinsharp and magnifique.in general. --Cayambe 15:34, 26 May 2011 (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:
San Francesco (Treviso) (Exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support sadly lacking sharpness at the edge, but anyway best picure in the scope --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Statuto di bronzo di San Francesco d'Assisi (Treviso).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 And why not a crop left and right, almost like it is annotated ?--Jebulon 08:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)  Done --Archaeodontosaurus 12:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Far much better IMO, thank you.--Jebulon 14:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chrysochroa rajah thailandica MHNT.ZOO.2004.0.520 .jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

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:
San Pietro di Castello (Venice) (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

best image in scope --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)