User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive7

Image:Pilatus_PC-6_SkydiveLillo_JD18032008_edit.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Pilatus_PC-6_SkydiveLillo_JD18032008_edit.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

JDrewes 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fly March 2008-6.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 --Richard Bartz 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fernão Vaz Dourado 1575-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bee March 2008-14.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 fine though I find the light in your pictures (like this one) makes too often shiny spots on the vegetal surfaces --B.navez 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bee March 2008-13.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 IMO the best of the 3, fine details, nice light and well visible buccal pieces --B.navez 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trifolium March 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments It's cropped a bit close at the stem IMHO, but still a beautiful shot. Great DOF. —Fvasconcellos 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Geranium February 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks good to me. Dori 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Um desafio :)

Olá, e prazer :) Realmente, a comunidade lusófona do Commons me parece pequena—ou talvez todos se comuniquem apenas em inglês, como eu... Quanto a sentir-me tentado a contribuir, é claro que sim, mas não com minhas imagens :) Infelizmente, a produção da maior parte de minhas imagens envolve pouquíssima criatividade, embora algumas (como a que coloquei como candidata a QI) tenham sido bastante trabalhosas... Talvez quando o processo de Valued images for efetivado? Pretendo contribuir mais ativamente, mas, por enquanto, apenas dando minha opinião sobre o trabalho alheio! Abraços, Fvasconcellos 19:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

An image was bot-ported from the Portugese Wikipedia and it looks like a probable copyvio: no camera metadata, professional composition. What do you recommend? If it ought to be deleted, should I nominate it for the formal deletion process or just delete it myself? Image:Vestuario_artesanal_em_algodao_bordado.jpg Would appreciate some good advice here. Regards, Durova 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, Durova, but I have no idea what should be the right thing to do. Did you as some experienced admin, like MichaelMaggs?

FYI

FP on turkish WP --Richard Bartz 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flower March 2008-13 edit.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flower March 2008-14 edit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ladybird April 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments It's very good one. --Lestath 13:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galactites March 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good details, colour and sharpness. Of course QI. --Lestath 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Bee March 2008-10.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bee March 2008-10.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wasp March 2008-7.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 Slightly shallow DOF, but nice cooling action, and technically OK. Lycaon 07:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Idea

How about Master Photographer on Commons ? Not on a userpage maybe official. Lady of Hats could do the graphic--Richard Bartz 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is similar to our own Meet our Photographers, is it not? Frankly, I did not like the idea when Fir proposed it as I felt it was a self-promoting initiative. Are you thinking of some new and even more restrict club? Well, i don't think we should make that kind of proposal ourselves -- Alvesgaspar 21:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spider and fly April 2008-3.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 Really good. Lycaon 09:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spider and fly April 2008-2.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 Really good. Lycaon 09:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spider and fly April 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Really good. Lycaon 09:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPFP

Hello Joaquim, I'm inclined to propose this template for deletion, as it is currently only used by you and there already is Template:Featured_picture_on. What do you think? --Dschwen 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to keep it as a user template, like someone did in the en:WP with another one ([1])? The other one is too large for my purposes -- Alvesgaspar 09:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, but it isn't really about your purposes here. By creating a parallel template to Template:Featured_picture_on you are effectively undermining the tagging effort, as we loose machine readability. It gets harder to compile a list of pictures featured elsewhere, as people have to search for two different templates instead of one. --Dschwen 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, that sounds unfriendly, which isn't my intention. I'm just trying to keep up a standardized tagging. --Dschwen 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, let's see if I understand. What is worse: to have a non-standard tag identifying a FP in some non-Commons wiki or to have no tag at all? I suggested the use of my template because I didn't know there was already one, as nobody is actually using it (or is it?). Now it is impossible to compile a complete list of pictures featured elsewhere because there is no automatic process (and no requirement) to tag such pictures. So, deleting my template will be inconvenient for me and neutral for everyone else. I'll be glad to join the effort to tag all FP (and to get rid of my template) when and if that is required inside Commons. And I'll retract immediately if you show me that process has already started... -- Alvesgaspar 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FPCs

What is the "rule of the second day" [2]? Normally FPX images are just moved across to the archive without further comment. I've no problem with the new wording, other the extra work needed for whoever closes the nomination. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is that so? I re-started closing FPC some days ago and was convinced it was normal practise to refer to the 48 hours waiting period. At least, I always did that way -- Alvesgaspar 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calystegia April 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nothing wrong with it --Ianare 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calystegia April 2008-2.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 A nice example of a calyx. -- carol

Mariposa

Hi Joaquim, I think you are just one day early with putting the FP stamp on your butterfly. It was nominated on 7th April. Cheers. Lycaon 14:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I do it frequently, depends on when I have some spare time to do the closing. It was the same with this one and this one and this one. The voting period is 9 complete days, according to the guidelines (in Portuguese we use the word "Mariposa" for the mothes :) ) -- Alvesgaspar 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it then not be consequent to make this not featured according to the rule of the fifth day? Lycaon 10:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well ... yes, strictly speaking. But since we are talking about a couple of minutes no harm is done in interpreting the guidelines in a less strict way. Please feel free to raise the question in the FPC talk page if you want to -- Alvesgaspar 11:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Butterfly April 2008-2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Butterfly April 2008-2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sonchus April 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good composition, sharp, natural colours. --Mbdortmund 17:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Valued images evaluation

Dear Alvesgaspar,

This is a standard message to the 18 different users who so far have been involved in testing Valued images candidates as either a nominator, reviewer or project editor. We are interested in hearing what you think about the project and what your positive and negative experiences have been. We would be grateful if you would voice your opinion here. Thank you,

-- Slaunger 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Help in dragonfly classification (Image:Ricoh Caplio R6 dragonfly macro R0010887.JPG)

I have discovered the titled photo on Commons. Seeing you have taken a photo of a very similar dragonfly (Image:Darter August 2007-8.jpg), do you think the two dragonflies are of the same species?

Thanks a lot. Jeekc 03:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image:Grand Canyon Horse Shoe Bend MC.jpg

It is now at the FPC list, let's see what the other users think... Chmehl 06:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoverfly April 2008-2.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 Very nice--Nevit 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Urospermum picroides April 2008-3.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 nice detail and a very usefull object. But we need a very powerfull aftershave after using this!--Manco Capac 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flower March 2008-4.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  CommentIt would be nice to know the cultivar, as this is not the 'common' (wild) phenotype of Bellis perennis. Lycaon 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC) -- Agree, but I couldn't identify the cultivar. Maybe with some help... Alvesgaspar 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Knowing the cultivar would be nice, but the photo is certainly QI in my opinion. --Bdesham 14:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Hoverfly April 2008-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoverfly April 2008-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Plant in insect image

Can you identify the plant and the location where this image is shot?

--Blechnic 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, the plant is a Hebe sp. shrub (a cultivar, I think). The picture was taken in Lisbon (location was added to the file) -- Alvesgaspar 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on books

I don't know whether or not this is right, but are you sure Image:Books alvesgaspar.jpg isn't covered under copyright? The covers of the books are almost certainly copyrighted, and their presence is not an incidental factor; they're the subject. Thegreenj 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it is OK. In the en:wiki there is a template covering these situations (Template:Non-free book cover) and a lot of book covers are shown in the articles. IMO this is a clear case of fair use, not really different from showing any other common object. Is it a copyright violation to photograph someone reading a recognizable book? Or using a shampoo of some brand? Or showing his watch? -- Alvesgaspar 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • If it's fair use, it's not allowed on commons. The difference between a person reading the book and the book itself is that when a person is reading a book, the appearance of the book in the image is incidental; the subject of the photograph is the person reading the book. The fact that the book happened to be copyrighted is not a problem since the photograph is making a new creation with a different subject. However, since the only possible subject in this picture is the books, their appearance is not incidental. I am totally unqualified to comment on the legal stuff, so you probably should get a second opinion. But there's a possibility that this is a copy-vio. Thegreenj 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FPC flooding

Hi. I don't think it is a good idea to flood FPC with similar images. The only thing that will probably happen is that people get bored and don't vote, or alternatively votes might be spread over all the images and none of them may reach FP-status. Could I kindly ask you to remove those noms and nominate them one by one (say one a week)?. Thanks Lycaon 07:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have spent days asking around over this. No one raised objections and now I deal with this. It is kinda frustrating. I will remove all deep space ones for now except the main poster per below. However I will not spend the next 61 weeks nominating these one by one. That is not very reasonable. Don't you think?

I would however do not object if you took over the nomination thing. I simply do not want to spend so much time on the page. :)

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi White Cat. Please just nominate two or three of your favourites at a time. FPC is not really usable with umpteen similar pictures nominated. I removed them for now. --norro 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You do NOT remove someone elses nomination like that. I am very irked. Do not do it again. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have recentely nominated in COM:FPC 60 images of coliding galaxies. I suggest you to keep only the poster (which has them all), as there is no way each of the pictures can have a fair and accurate evaluation from the usual reviewers and they disturbing the normal working of the page. Alvesgaspar 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lenses alvesgaspar.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, good DOF --Mbdortmund 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grasshopper April 2008-3.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 great details, good choice of background --Ianare 19:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canon FT alvesgaspar.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. --Loadmaster 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tipulidae April 2008-2.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 meets QI-requirements --Mbdortmund 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

An opinion requested

I have some opinions about this document, if you have the time, I would like to know yours on it. -- carol 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Carol, exactly what kind of opinion do you need, are you assessing this report? (as you know I'm not an ecologist) One thing I've noticed just by browsing the document: there are too many pictures. I used to say to my students that if a picture doesn't have a caption and is not referred to in the text than it is mere decoration and may be eliminated. -- Alvesgaspar 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been on my mind some since I first cited it. It was funded by a part of my government I have never heard of -- working with the fish biologists in Michigan, I did hear of or know of more of these agencies/groups than what would probably be typical. I actually first viewed it as html so when I grabbed it and saw the photographs -- they really did help to understand the different regions that they sent this robot (I think that is what a remote sensing thing is) into. I thought it was a really well done translation -- the words at least. Did you see at the very end of the species lists where the listing was like this: second tolast y lastspecies inlist. <-- that has been bothering me. I almost did not cite the paper for it. I ended up citing it anyways because the technology is kind of cool and it is an interesting application for it.

Then I started to think of what the gizzmo might have looked like. My imagination went on without me revisiting the paper to see if they had described it or not. I pictured a tripod on wheels with a radio thingie to drive it with. A tripod with a camera on it with remote panning and turning. My 'invention' surely would scare the wildlife which was the purpose of the gizzmo.

So, I am here trying to get all of this off from my mind "y" stuff. I liked the lists of plants that were living together and the conditions they grew in; I would like to think that the stuff I see and read online is for real. I was also thinking of people I know who could translate that well. I actually know two people who can write English that well. -- </core dump> carol 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heck. I almost wish it was my invention. It is a freaking satellite! Although, I find it extremely difficult to imagine a satellite taking those photographs -- I do not know if it will be a positive evolutionary step when plant species can be identified via satellite information. Now, I am feeling a little creepy. -- carol 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinião

Olá Alvesgaspar. Gostaria da sua opinião sobre essa imagem. A composição está boa? Abraço, -- Mateus Hidalgo 06:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, é difícil não ter algo que não chame a atenção em um altar barroco :). Mas eu entendi o posicionamento. Realmente, estando eu mais de frente à imagem poderia ter cortado melhor o nicho azul à esquerda. A câmera que uso continua sendo a boa e velha Kodak compacta, pode dar uma olhada nas informações exif. Ela não é das melhores no quesito nitidez, e como não podia usar flash no interior da igreja tive que aumentar a exposição. Mas obrigado pela opinião :). Abraço, -- Mateus Hidalgo 15:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion question

Hi Alves, Regarding this. Did you notice that the last voter opposes all versions. I believe that means the original does not pass then...?? Cheers, -- Slaunger 10:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that is not the way things are held here, where each nomination has its own entry. If I had noticed before I could have warned the user but now it is too late. I don't think that any really important opinion was lost though, as Barabas has opposed all but one nominations since he arrived here last month. -- Alvesgaspar 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, its not I want to make a fuzz out of it, but where is it stated explicitly that each edit has its own entry? And even if it was I think it is pretty clear that barbaras intention with the vote is to oppose all versions as it is boldfaced. Strictly speaking I do not think that the fact barbaras is a newcomer and almost consistently opposes all nominations is really relevant for whether to include the vote or not. In principle barbaras is entitled to have that opinion. It would have been different if we had some kind of approval of reviewers. However the fact is that being registered is enough. -- Slaunger 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that Barabas is a newcomer didn't have any weigth in the decision, that was just a personal comment. Each edit having its own poll is a long and consolidated practise here. Anyway, that wouldn't have changed the result since the last oppose vote by Aqwis came too late and didn't count... -- Alvesgaspar 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info -- Moving the discussion to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates -- Alvesgaspar 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bellows macro.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 I like it, sharp, good DOF --Mbdortmund 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

for esthetics only ;)

Joaquim, the unknown plant is probably a Pyracanthus sp. Lycaon 22:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And yep, with the leathery leaves, Cotoneaster even better fits the bill ;-). Lycaon 07:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Hans. Cotoneaster is just the new name of Pyracanthus, I think. But I don't see any red berries. Let's wait for the proper time... -- Alvesgaspar 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wasp May 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I just wanted to nominate it. --Mbdortmund 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fly April 2008-12.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 high quality macro shot --AngMoKio 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

You will pay no attention to what I say right? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm trying to revert the template to what it looked like when you first made it (I mean the "mul" version), so we can calmly discuss the issue and reach a consensus. The size of the barnstar is just one of the details to change. But maybe you are the right person to do it... -- Alvesgaspar 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You already altered that yourself. If you have a suggestion feel free to post it on my talk page or the template talk page. Meanwhile I am replacing all leftovers. Would you like to help? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 23:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New camera...

Hello Joaquim. Thanks for reviewing my image Image:Marsa_Alam_R20.jpg and some others. I really appreciate your comments, which are rather severe but correct and instructive. Of course, you are right: the camera I'm using now is a point-and-shoot Canon Power Shot A620: excellent in its category, but with limited possibilities and mediocre optics. The difference is immense with the Leica R6 (with a marvellous PC-Super-Angulon-R lens) I used in my previous, non-digital life! I have no intention to buy a digital Leica, but I'm thinking of buying a good SLR camera. In the mean time, I'm trying to get the maximum out of my good old Power Shot, with varying succes... Kind regards. MJJR 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merci bien de tes commentaires, Marc (c'est bon de pouvoir parler le français de temps en temps...). Oui, je suis un peu sévère mais ce n'est jamais personnelle et je tente d'être toujours constructif dans mes critiques. Moi aussi j'appartiens à la vieille école, tout ce que je sais de la photographie numérique je l'ait appris ici! J'ai commencé à FPC il y a à peu près une année et demi, et j'était pas três bien reçu... Salut! -- Alvesgaspar 20:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

So why did you revert me? I wasn't vandalizing. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, you insist in changing the FP templates knowing it is against the present consensus and after being warned not do it. If not vandalism at leat trolling. PLEASE STOP -- Alvesgaspar 07:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, taking the risk of sounding selfish, I don't want to see fights and I don't want to see my watchlist spammed with your edit warring. Can I ask both of you to stop reverting each other, and be kind enough to point me to the discussion(s) dealing with this matter? Thank you, Patrícia ^msg 10:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Part of the discussion is here. Please evaluate by yourself -- Alvesgaspar 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Trolling? You are the one covertly reverting my bot. I would have been unconsciously reverting you had I not notice your mini revert war. I was NOT ever told to stop. If there is consensus against the template why isn't it deleted? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason are you reverting my edits without even bothering to discuss it? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• As you well know there is a discussion going on here, and my proposal to revert all changes to the FP files while the issue is not settled, later repeated by Slaunger, has an unanimous support so far. Is this not enough to stop and listen ? -- Alvesgaspar 11:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sigh. OK, I've read that discussion. I don't think White Cat should have been doing those replacements if there was no consensus, but then again, I'm not sure White Cat knew at the time that there was no consensus. Probably, White Cat should have waited for more input from people usually working with these projects, then again it seems that there is general consensus on that it is good with a all-in-one template. Reverting bot edits is somewhat useless, because the bot will just do the edit again; the bot account owner must be warned to stop before reverting its edits.
  • So, the bot owner has stopped, and I beg to not further revert what has been done; if you all agree that the images should be reverted, then the bot will have to do them (it is the owner's responsibility to correct mistakes made by its bot account).
  • Please, both of you, take a deep breath and just discuss the template, as far as I could see the discussion is being very productive and having several people interested in it. When there is a consensus, apply it, but before that, please don't edit any further (unless the template is broken; then again, if this is the case, it's better to simply fix the template).
  • Cheers, Patrícia ^msg 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ass.jpg

Estou grato pelo aviso, já corrigi autoria da imagem, mas tive dúvida com relação aquem a nomeou, então coloquei quem a nomeou à Exzellentes Bild na de:wiki. Creio que isso não mais fará diverença para a votação, já que muitos a concideraram demasiada pequena para ser destacada. Boas contribuições, Econt 12:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing request

Hi Alvesgaspar, thanks for your reviews on my images today. Would you be so kind to review this other edit of one image here on your diskussion page? I've changed some parameters in this edit: Image:XN Leucorrhinia rubicunda 737 ov.jpg. Thanks in advance! --XN 14:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hi XN, I'm sure your camera is capable of taking much better pictures than this! Probably you are using a high jpeg compression option which results in heavy artifacts. Always use the best available jpeg quality your camera can offer and avoid high ISO settings. For certain pictures I even recommend using the RAW format though it takes more work to process. Please compare your picture, in full size, with this, this and this. -- Alvesgaspar 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. For this kind of Images, I'm already using raw-format. Your selection of Images is very impressive. Maybe I have to learn better image processing techniques and to upgrade my equipment (lenses)... Regards --XN 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't blame the lenses...or the camera (same as mine). If you are using raw, then something must be wrong with the post-processing. Two reasons are obvious: the 400 ISO settings (use 100 whenever possible) and the small size of the file (less than 1Mb), which means that a high jpeg compression was used (better use the least possible)-- Alvesgaspar 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It might have been the ISO and post-processing (and wrong monitor calibration - I've seen only less artefacts in the first edit). JPEG-Quality is 92 percent. I'll never dare to blame the Nikon :) but the (macro-)zoom 70-300 Sigma is clearly not the best lense. Ate logo --XN 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why are you doing this? It was additional parameters for the template that is on the page... -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because the issue on what to put inside the template is not yet settled. Please participate in the poll I've just started here -- Alvesgaspar 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this bug?

Hi,Alvesgaspar. I wonder, if you know what is this bug Image:Insect mimicry 1.jpg? If you do not, maybe you know the right person to ask. The image was taken in San Francisco. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I tried to find it in my books but with no success. I suspect it is a moth though -- Alvesgaspar 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for trying. I saw it walking, but I did not see it's flying, but I agree, it does look as a moth. Do you know who might be the right person to ask? Thank you.--Mbz1 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• After all I don't think it is a moth. Most likely it is a plant hopper of the Flatidae family, maybe a Syphanta sp. -- Alvesgaspar 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are absolutely right. That's it. Thank you very much for your time and your help.--Mbz1 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Spider and mites May 2008-1.jpg , that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Spider and mites May 2008-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoverfly May 2008-3.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 Possibly Cotoneaster dammeri?--B.navez 10:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC) -- Yes, maybe. Let's wait for the red berries?... Thanks -- Alvesgaspar 09:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Quality here is great and that's the point of a QI. The hoverfly is identified anyay. Ram-Man 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Hi, would you please do me a favor. Please delete all the images from Category:Istori'a pentru inceputulu romaniloru in Daci'a, all expect number 003. I am the uploader, but there's just too many of them (I think around 400), so I'll upload them as *.pdf. diego_pmc 07:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I like you photos dude! You are one of my favorite commoners :) NOVO-REI 23:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:1545VC068a.jpg

Obrigado, mas como faço para mover a página ou tenho que recarregar a imagem num novo nome,--Econt 00:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Recarrega a imagem com um novo nome e depois pede que a antiga seja eliminada ({{Bad name|nome da nova versão}}) -- Alvesgaspar 12:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bee May 2008-5.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 Good quality. --Dschwen 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with the Valued images project

As you may have seen, this project is going live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC. Before then, there are a few things to be finished off, and any help you can give will be welcome. The latest discussion is at Commons talk:Valued images candidates#Open action items for Valued images.

When the project launches publicly on 1 June, it will need reviewers who are able to jump in quickly and provide prompt feedback. During those critical first few weeks it will be important to have a decent number of reviewers who are prepared to put in the effort to make sure the first nominations are well-reviewed, as that will set the standard for the future.

Would you help, please, with the final tasks now, and also pledge your help with some reviewing on 1 June and thereafter? --MichaelMaggs 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so you don't miss out :) --MichaelMaggs 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invitation Michael. I'm quite busy right now, let's see what I can do. At least, I'll participate with some nominations and help with the reviewing. As a side comment, we really need to robotize the FPC closing, it takes too much work now -- Alvesgaspar 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the encouraging remarks on the discussion page by the way. It is always nice to get pads on the shoulder. You are also contributing massively doing the more tedious jobs at COM:FPC. I am glad there are users willing to carry out these less rewarding tasks. Obrigado. -- Slaunger 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoverfly May 2008-8.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 QI. Patience pays of in the end... Lycaon 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

VI closure

Hi Alves, I have written down a proposal concerning VI nomination closure. You have previously asked how this was going to work. I'd like to hear your opinion on the procedure because you are very much involved in closure. I have tried to find a balance between providing sufficient structure and keeping the workload for the closer down.

In particular, I have tried to lessen the burden of maintaining a monthly log. This happens behind you back in monthly categories, when subsituting {{VI-add}} onto the image page (where it is replaced by a {{VI}} template with some added date related parameters generated during the substitution).

Also I propose not to have a parallel subject hierarchy as in QI and FP (Animals, landscapes, natural phenomena, and so on) as it seems that closers always run into problems that there is really not a fitting category). Rather I propose to weave in the VIs in the normal category/gallery structure, as it is here the editors looking for specific material will notice it.

You may want to review my structuring proposal right above as it gives some further insight. -- Slaunger 12:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

deprecated function in your monobook.js

Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.

This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.

To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Done, I think -- Alvesgaspar 18:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was it. Thanks. --Dschwen 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to translate VI launch announcement to Portuguese

Hi Alves, Sorry for all the VI spamming today... I just realized how large the Portuguese Wikiepdia is. I think it is important to announce the lauch of VI also on the Portuguese Wikipedia. However, besides obrigado and não, I do not know much Protuguese, and I was wondering if you would be so kind to translate this to Portuguese? And if not, try to delegate the translation to another native Portuguese speaking user. Thanks in advance. -- Slaunger 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Done -- Alvesgaspar 08:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fantastic! Thanks! I do not really undersstand though, why you have changed the links to point to the candidate pages instead of the main pages? -- Slaunger 08:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Just a mistake, now fixed -- Alvesgaspar 10:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you. -- Slaunger 04:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical mistake?

Hi!

At the bottom of this page you said "not featured" whereas it should say "featured". Best! 71.135.33.48 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was gonna ask that too. Header says featured at least. Lets just claim it was an office action and blame the WMF. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 06:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for calling my attention, guess I was too sleepy last night ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 06:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing nomination

Hi, Alvesgaspar,
I've just noticed that my nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Acanthurus triostegus and Labroides phthirophagus .jpg has disappeared from Commons:Featured picture candidates. I am not sure how it happened. May I please ask you to help me to put it back. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 00:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is fixed now. I didn't notice all pictures were part of the same nomination and when I archived the first, the two others went along too. Please use the normal way of putting all alternative images side by side in the nomination section -- Alvesgaspar 07:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• You should not have lost your time to put my nominations in order. You should have told me to do it instead. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 12:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Not rouble. But you should use sub-sections of the nomination section: 4 equal signs instead of 3 - ==== edit 1 ==== -- Alvesgaspar 12:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued images test review phase has ended

Dear Alvesgaspar, Thank you for participating in the development of the Valued images project by test nominating one or more candidates. We have used the input from the test reviews to fine-tune the guidelines, process and templates used, hereby hopefully improving the setup. We have now decided that on June 1, 2008 at 0:00 (UTC), the valued image project will be opened for official nominations. To get ready for the grand opening, we will close down the last remaining open test candidates in a few hours, such that the candidates list pages are emptied and ready. Since there has been a certain amount of instruction creep over the course of the test review pahse, we have decided that all promoted and declined candidates from the test review phase will be reset to the so-called "undecided" state prior to the opening. This means that test valued image candidate review pages all end up in Category:Undecided valued images candidates and the test sets end up in Category:Undecided valued image set candidates. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Although all nominations will be reset, you, as a test nominator, will still have the advantage that each candidate can be re-nominated beginning June 1 0:00 UTC. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Click on the links to the aforementioned categories for instruction on how to renominate. In addition, the project has decided to re-nominate all candidates, which were test promoted, unless you tell us not to do so on my talk page. Also, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems relating to valued images. I hope, you will also take part in the project once it goes on the air, either as nominator, maintainer and/or reviewer. Happy editing, -- Slaunger 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wasp May 2008-11.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. -- Laitche 05:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aphid May 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice. -- Laitche 05:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

• Regarding the picture " The photographer" - How old are you ? --Richard Bartz 23:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Wow, I certainly like straight questions! That doesn't mean, of course, that you will get a straight answer. Well, let's see: (i) if I were one year older, then, nine years ago my age would have been the sum of the ages of my four sons and daughters; (ii) when my oldest was born (a boy) I was 28; (iii) One of my daughters has twice the age of another. Now, since you already know the age of my youngest daughter, I believe this will be enough. Did you get a prime number? Good. -- Alvesgaspar 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Around 60 ? --Richard Bartz 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • 60 is not prime: 60 = 2 x 2 x 3 x 5 -- Alvesgaspar 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • 60 + - 1 = 59 or 61 --Richard Bartz 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Not good enough, we don't even need to know it is a prime number. Show me the calculations. -- Alvesgaspar 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
          • (a+b)(a+\zeta b)(a+\zeta^2b)\cdots(a+\zeta^{p-1}b),
          • Bingo! The equation is correct and it is much more elegant than mine! But the age of the "kids" are still missing... -- Alvesgaspar 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Are you regular or irregular ? :-) --Richard Bartz 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You mean "rational" or "irrational"? Or maybe "complex" or "imaginary"?... Alvesgaspar 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Ok i see ... irregular 59! --Richard Bartz 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Can you believe that I've just forget my age (and my kids'?)... -- Alvesgaspar 07:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Did you read the description of en:Tagus#Trivia? -- carol 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did! Well, my hair has been much white for a long time now (a genetic thing for sure). I used to sing (and play) the fado from Coimbra, a kind of romantic balad -- Alvesgaspar 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That was supposed to be for Richard. A "Don't bother asking" answer. How come Ines is so taken with that diver (snorkler) in her photograph? -- carol (tomes) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, she is a kid and the (big) diver is really cute... -- Alvesgaspar 09:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(3000 images/day X N days) uploaded and yet I could not find a good image of what this water tower was painted to look like. Standard fishing gear -- there should be a photograph of one of those real/reel things here. The imagery here (similar to the words on other wiki) have this way of really playing with my mind. The diver did scare me when I was looking at the image at full size (larger than the browser window) -- it was unexpected and got a 'WHAT WAS THAT' from me. It was kind of nice in many ways but also in this one way an additional relief to know that there was a child involved in taking that frightening photograph -- being with the average age of your community and all....

This water tower and what it has been artistically rendered to look like is somewhat under-represented in this collection of images compared to other water towers I know of. -- carol (tomes) 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Question

Something somewhere else made me consider that Lycaon is an upload bot -- possibly being run by those people who showed up in 'the lists' after I nominated my version of the wright flyer.

I understand a 'tight community' but I watched this one for a long while and many in this newish 'tight community' did not exist before.

Also, here is some interesting physics which should be easy enough for botanists, oceanographers and others. Newtons third law, "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." That means that when you step on the earth, the earth pushes back with and equal amount of force. It also means that when you walk through a room, the walls which the air you displaced and sent flying into them pushed back equally. I like this law of force, I like to push back socially when the force being used seems too strong. (or way too tacky)

The formula for work is interesting also. Work = Force x distance. In the basically 'imaginary systems' built by men and women, the amount of work I have done has not acquired me the amount of 'distance' I should have moved. These last few years where I 'stopped working' was because of this equation. Pushing a wall and not moving it means no work has been accomplished. So for me: "almost nothing" = (Usually at least what was expected of me occasionally more) x (a negative number), like I lost ground in my non-aggressive climb.

Interesting how it works the same way here as well.

You should ask me how Walmart took over Michigan, it is interesting and it is happening here as well. -- carol 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ladybird May 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments DOF could be slightly higher, but good enough. Lycaon 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reruns

English Wikipedia is rerunning some (one) of their Featured Pictures; an interesting (memorable to me for being uninteresting) rerun as well. To the best of your knowledge is that typical?

Also, my vote of support for the 'other page' of that set of nominations that said it made me laugh was accurate. It wasn't always the laughter from a joke but the first laugh was from the beautiful use of review systems. Well, there was some comedy laughter as well. That gesture is one of many uses and therefore meanings. It can be a thoughtful stretch -- it can be required for submission, it is a pose that can be frustration at any point of a project. Many other ways the gesture gets used as well. It is much much much easier to laugh at than the one of the older man. -- carol (tomes) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am not going to leave a nice thank you below the notice of the disgusting giraffe image; so with the assumption that Sans Silleart reads this, that was nice of him to fix the template to show the reason of my support of your image. FPC and QIC for me is often like turning a page in a book. It doesn't matter if the page is being turned from left to right or right to left, it is simply mentally dimensional and something like brainfood occasionally. I did not want that message to be hidden, it just was. -- carol (tomes) 03:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, Carol, but this time I have no idea what you are talking about. Rerunning Featured Pictures in the ENglish Wikipedia? What support to what image are you referring to? The naughty giraffe's is not mine. -- Alvesgaspar 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Butterfly May 2008-4 filtered.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 OK for this magnification. --Nevit 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Mwamongu water source.jpg

I have changed the scope on this one and you may want to have a look at it again. -- Slaunger 14:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Star!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Alvesgaspar who seems to single handedly do all the maintenance work for FPC's. --ShakataGaNai Talk 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, ShakataGaNai! It feels really good to have our work recognized. But I'm not alone. If I have to take a break for some time (and that will happen shortly) I know there will be someone willing to take over discreetly. Alvesgaspar 19:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Alvesgaspar, Thanks for the photography tips you kindly provided at FPC. Muhammad 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Wasp May 2008-11.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wasp May 2008-11.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP May 2008-2.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 {{{3}}}

Swallowtail

Image:Butterfly June 2008-2.jpg A lovely photograph. But it is Iphiclides podalirius. Please put the locality and date on the description page. Slainte Robert Notafly 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• You are quite right, thanks -- Alvesgaspar 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nazare May 2008-4.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 Like the colour and composition - Peripitus 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
The use of a marine sextant at sea.

review

Previous reviews

 Info Re-nomination of test-promoted VIC. -- Slaunger 00:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support One of the best animations out there. Adam Cuerden 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa 07:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support A great animation... extremely informative. – flamurai 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratz with your first VI! It is well deserved.-- Slaunger 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
The use of a vernier caliper.

review

•  Oppose A great image, and meets most criteria except #4: the description does not adequately explain the measurement process. It is not self-evident from the animation why the 0.07 is taken. Those looking to use this image would have to know how to use a Vernier caliper already in order to explain what's going on. I will gladly change to support if this minor problem is corrected. – flamurai 08:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree, it's too hard to get why the 0.07 value is selected. /Daniel78 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 Support Issue fixed so changing my vote. /Daniel78 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done - And please feel free to improve my poor English -- Alvesgaspar 11:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support. Now meets all the criteria. --MichaelMaggs 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support per above. – flamurai 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support per above. - Till 11:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support An oustanding example of encyclopedic dynamic documentation --Foroa 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support per above • Rohan ^T 17:48, 8 June 2008

Result: 6 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And other one! -- Slaunger 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
A wasp feeding on a fly.

review

Previous reviews

 Info Renomination of test promoted VIC. -- Slaunger 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment The scope of the nomination is not clear as it is uncertain whether the species name in brackets is limiting or not. The scope could mean either "a wasp feeding on a fly" or "Bembix oculata feeding on a fly". I would suggest changing the scope to the first of these. --MichaelMaggs 08:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Done Alvesgaspar 11:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support. The best competition seems to be Image:Wasp and meal.jpg and Image:Wasp and meal 2.jpg, but they are not quite of the same scope, and in any case this nomination has the edge photographically. --MichaelMaggs 13:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And another one...this is VI no. 13 on Commons. -- Slaunger 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Animated proof of Pythagorean theorem.

review

•  Support It satisfies all the criteria 1 to 6. --MichaelMaggs 07:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Agree... very clear animation. – flamurai 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support You have created several quite similar animations of the Category:Pythagorean theorem, which are all among best in scope, and I agree this one probably have a slight edge over the other variants. -- Slaunger 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support as MichaelMaggs • Rohan ^T 17:55, 8 June 2008

Result: 4 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are getting used to this now, I guess... -- Slaunger 13:30, 10 June 2008 (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:
A pocket stereoscope.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info Pocket stereoscope from Zeiss, with original test image. Unknown date, but probably from the fifties. This type of instrument was used by military to examine stereoscopic pairs of vertical aerial photographs.

•  Comment I am unsure about this one. This photo shows the original test sheet but Image:Stereoskop.jpg shows a similar instrument in actual use. --MichaelMaggs 15:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral The scope is relevant, the photo illustrates the subject well, especially I think the test sheet adds value. Is it the most valuable illustration of its kind (within the scope)? Yes, I think so. I do not think the image mentioned by Michael is on par with this one. Other competitors are Image:stereoscope hg.jpg, which seems to be a pocket version also. For this one, the manufacturer and date is also known, but it is less valuable because it is stand alone and not showing the stereoscope in a context where it is used. Another competitor is Image:Sterosco.jpg, which also shows a pocket stereoscope with its cage. However, the resolution is really really bad on that one. The only criteria I have a problem with is #4 concerning the image page. Here I miss more exact information about the model and a more exact year. For this reason I vote neutral. If this information is found I would be happy to support. (I am very close at supporting already). -- Slaunger 22:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment And a last comment. A perfect illustration of a pocket stereoscope would show it together with stereographic maps in it working environment. So, in any event, there is room for improvement. -- Slaunger 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK, you have convinced me. --MichaelMaggs 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 1 neutral =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

-- Slaunger 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Crab spider paralyzing a fly.

review

Previous reviews

 Info Renomination of test promoted VIC. -- Slaunger 00:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Suggest changing the scope to "a crab spider paralysing a fly". --MichaelMaggs 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Done -- Alvesgaspar 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Meets all the criteria 1 to 6. I have added another category. --MichaelMaggs 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support A rather good shot of the event - I support the nomination. --EPO 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

-- Slaunger 20:26, 11 June 2008 (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:
sunset at sea.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

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

★ 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:
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), clock.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Looks like...

...your wishes for luck have worked. :-) Thanks! It was a pretty exciting game. --Dschwen (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Best of lucks for today, though I'm tempted to believe it will be a piece of cake! -- 80.33.141.3 17:27, 25 June 2008 (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:
bellows (photography).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Fantastic photo displaying a Bellows. Bidgee (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support All looking good. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2008 (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:
ׂ Female Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii)'.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best of the bunch and meets all criteria. The only remark I'd make is should the same crop of the highest available version not be nominated? At this resolution it wouldn't make much difference, but the image might have an intrinsic higher value. Lycaon (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2008 (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:
Male Red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support It is hard to choose from among such good pictures. Image:Darter August 2007-18.jpg and Image:Darter August 2007-21.jpg show the yellow-coloured pterostigma better, I think. But, I'm inclined to support the opinion of the nominator that this is the best overall picture. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2008 (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:
Umbel.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info A typical umbel of a Daucus carota (Wild Carrot), a type of inflorescence where the pedicels are of equal length and spread from a common point
•  Support Would be nice to have an idea about the real size. --Foroa (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposition for common map conventions announcement

Hello Alvesgaspar.
I come again to you for your advises on cartography.
We had on the French-speaking Graphic lab a discussion about the creation of a colorimetric convention for geopolitical and topographic maps for a common use in the Wikimedia project.
Now we make this proposition on Commons talk:Project Mapmaking Wiki Standards.
I know you create few maps here but your opinion as professional is welcome and I invite you to take a look at that page and participate so we can harmonize the aspect of our maps, have common conventions and ease their creation.
Note also that I initiated on the same page a discussion about the choice for a recommended projection to be used for world maps.
Thanks for your participation. Sting (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)