User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive14

Happy New Year from cold Denmark

New Years morning at my home

Dear Joaquim,

A slightly delayed New Years greeting from Denmark. Wishing all the best for you and your family in 2010! --Slaunger (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocking instead of crosslinking

So you'd prefer that Estrilda be blocked, then? You can answer that on my talk page but I did want to ping you... ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A concern with one of your POTD images

Hi - I came across an edit removing one of your images from being featured which concerned me. You will find the basic information here. Kallerna initiated a de-listing request here which was not successful. It seems to me he is now taking other action to effectively delist the image without consensus. I apologise for troubling you however if it were my image I would wish to know. I will consider posting on a community page in due course but if you are not concerned maybe you can let me know. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your concern, Herby. As you probably known I have been always against delisting ANY image, except for obvious errors of judgement. As for the replacement of pictures in the POTD list, any member can do it. However I do think that the alleged reason for this particular one is not formally valid (any FP can be POTD) and so, the edit should be reverted. But not by me, of course. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally I agree with you. In particular I dislike any user becoming judge, jury & executioner as has happened in this case. However the issue isn't quite simple as they appear to have deleted the language pages (I would consider that improper use of sysop rights). Equally I prefer not reverting any established user. I had hoped they would repair the damage themselves, I will give it 24 hours and then take it further. Regards (& I hope you will be back soon :)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For info, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Profile size and activity criterion for Commons:Meet our photographers

Dear member of Commons:Meet our photographers,

Two issues have recently been raised at Commons talk:Meet our photographers:

Profile size creep

The page is becoming increasing cluttered due to a tendency among some members to make personal profiles, which are unreasonably large. You are kindly requested to consider the size used by your profile and consider if it has a reasonable size. Note that the same message is being send to all members, so it is up to you to use your own good judgement in this. We are not interesting in setting up exact quantitatve rules. It should be a matter of common sense.

Activity criterion

It has been suggested to introduce an activity criterion in addition to the minimum 10 FPs criterion to be included on the list. You are kindly requested to voice your opinion on this proposal.

--Slaunger (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Bonjour Joaquim,

Yes, I know you are already following and actively participating in this discussion, but here is the standardised request for comments, that I have placed on the members talk pages.

Salut, --Slaunger (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

--Slaunger (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Prunus spec-1.JPG

Hi. I've chaned the description and category of this image to Pyrus communis. The file name is unchanged. Ulf Eliasson (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grasshopper June 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 Good - Darius Baužys 06:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Guincho February 2010-2.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 good --George Chernilevsky 12:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support All criteria met, good work --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Satyrium titus

Hi Joaquim Alves!
Possibly two VI nominations (or set) are necessary.
Wings from above and from below hardly differ.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alvesgaspar, would you consider setting up a set with two views? It would be a pity if this review was closed as undecided. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

International Photoworkshop

Hello, motivated by the six Fotoworkshops of the German Wikipedia an international Photoworkshop in the Swedish Nyköping will be launched during the Easter Weekend 2010. Nyköping was chosen since Skavsta Airport is a Ryanair Base and very close to Stockholm. Further information can be found on Commons:Photoworkshop_Nyköping_2010.--Prolineserver (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Disneyland_June_2008-6.jpg

File:Disneyland_June_2008-6.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment - I really prefer the alternative because one can see the mouth pieces and the abdomen. But if the consensus decides otherwise... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Should be discussed in a MVR, formally. --Myrabella (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done --Myrabella (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Beetle May 2009-4.jpg: -1
2. Beetle May 2008-1.jpg: +1
=>
File:Beetle May 2009-4.jpg: Declined.
File:Beetle May 2008-1.jpg: Promoted.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info -- The only available picture of this well-known geographer. Yes, I had his permission to upoload the photo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Criteria met, rare photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Valued image nomination

Hey there!
Congratulations on your Valued image set of the butterfly!
May I suggest you withdraw your nomination on the single image candidate, to help keep the records clear and unclutter the page? If you want to do this, the code is status=withdrawn and the {{withdraw}} template at the very bottom of the review page.
Thanks for your time :) --MichaelBueker (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Voyages

Joaquim, je te salut, tu dois me maudire de mes remarques mais tes images sont de très bonnes qualités et dans ma sphère de compétence. Commons est une aventure formidable qui fait se rencontrer un navigateur, qui voyage aux quatre coins du monde, et un naturaliste, qui ne voyage… jamais. Merci à toi de me faire partager ta vision du monde. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Merci beaucoup pour tes paroles sympatiques. C'est drôle de parler en français ici, il semble que quelque chose ne va pas très bien (peut-être je ne suis plus à l’aise...). Oui, j’était un navigateur mais il y a longtemps depuis que j'ai mis mes pieds à bord... Sur les plantes et les insects (bien que sur la Photagraphie), j’ai beacoup apris ici! Je suis d’accord avec toi, Commons est une aventure formidable. On connait toutes sortes de gens intéressants et on apprend beaucoup. Pas du tout, tes remarques sont les bienvenues, elles m’aident à améliorer mes contributions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Disneyland_June_2008-1.jpg

File:Disneyland_June_2008-1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Stifle (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Strongly agree--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction need

Hi Joaquim!
File:Porto July 2009-2a.jpg over 10 dust spots visible at sky, especially at right and at top.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, George, that was clumsy of me! New version uploaded. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Perfect now! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! S. Martinho April 2009-2.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 Nice mystery :) --George Chernilevsky 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Small scope, but good picture.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support The choice is difficult versus Empis March 2009-1.jpg, which you are the author too. I think you've chosen.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Butterfly June 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 QI and Useful -- Archaeodontosaurus 12:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo December 2009-12a.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 11:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto July 2009-2a.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.--PetarM 10:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eristalis 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 quality. --Elekhh 20:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) ; I agree, VERY good quality, I mean --Jebulon 00:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eristalinus October 2007-4.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 Looks good to me --Herbythyme 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC); Looks good to me too. --Elekhh 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoverfly September 2008-1a.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. --Cayambe 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo August 2009-2b.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. If possible please add geocode. --Iotatau 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC) ;  Done -- Alvesgaspar 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. --Iotatau 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo May 2009-1a.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. Elekhh 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Convento Cristo December 2008-9.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 result --Archaeodontosaurus 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Agree, here it works. --Iotatau 18:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Volucella September 2007-3.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 {{{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:
Syritta pipiens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Rich scope. Good choice. Criteria met. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question There should be an explanation what it is, a link to Wikipedia. I can't find it there. What's the difference to Category:Dividers? --Ikar.us (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) --Ikar.us (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Info - This is a special type of dividers used to work on the navigational chart. Notice how the design allows to use the instrument with a single hand. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Don't understand the design, but OK... --Ikar.us (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Acacia_March_2008-1.jpg: +1
2. Acacia_March_2008-2.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Acacia_March_2008-1.jpg: Promoted.
File:Acacia_March_2008-2.jpg: Declined

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fly March 2010-1.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 Not sharp everywhere, but QI imo. --Cayambe 17:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cat March 2010-1.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 quality --George Chernilevsky 13:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo December 2009-5a.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 --Mbdortmund 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo March 2010-1.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 ok, althought I'm not fully happy with the crop. --kallerna 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Freesia alba

Bonjour Joachim, Ton image de Freesia alba est très bien et je voulais la promouvoir mais ... elle a déja la label QI! En tout cas je l'ai versée dans l'encyclopédie. Bien amicalement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ça veut dire que je deviens un peu distrait avec les ans... Merci! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Critera met. Difficult choice but... best in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chrysanthemum February 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 Well done photo --George Chernilevsky 07:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bellis 2007-1.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 --George Chernilevsky 07:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flowers 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 Very good --George Chernilevsky 07:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Papaver March 2010-3.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 QI for me --Jebulon 21:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Poster Butterflies.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 combination. --Alchemist-hp 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification

You may wish to make a comment here. Durova (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Satyrium titus (Coral Hairstreak), female.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Satyrium titus (Coral Hairstreak), female.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo August 2009-4a.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 understand why :) --Herbythyme 18:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seagull July 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 image --Herbythyme 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Strangely :)

At a recent photo group meeting I made a comment about not liking "tight crops". I was told that they were "fashionable" in the Uk. I decided I was not fashionable :). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• We have a saying in Portuguese that reads something like: 'one should not discuss tastes' (gostos não se discutem). I've never agreed with it. On the contrary, I think that we should discuss subjective issues (like beauty or goodness or composition) because the more scientific things are often not susceptible to opinion... As for the tight framings being now fashionable I'm convinced it will pass in little time and 'good taste' prevail in the end... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I would argue that to develop and understand taste it is necessary/important to talk about it. Of course on Commons there are language and cultural issues that may make it a little harder at times but I do love the images and interactions here. I am fortunate that people have been patient and allowed me to learn until I reached a point where I felt I could say things as well as continue listening. In passing I do love some of your coastal images, they capture the mood of such places well. I do like landscape photography but have not yet got anywhere near your level of skills in macro photography (the ones I take are rather abstract and not really appropriate for Commons). The images from my walk along the coast today are now on my hard drive so I must see what I have! Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fully agree on the necessity of discussing 'taste' in order to enrich it and better understand the cultural nuances. As for the influence of Commons FPC and QIC I have said many times that here I learned much of what I know about digital techniques. Yes, it is fortunate that we have this forum available to listen to the opinions of others (not only the 'professionals') and learn from them. In return, we try to be constructive with our own critics and offer our best pics to the community. Not a bad deal at all. Thanks for the compliment. But the very best in those two fields (landscapes and macro) are probably Simonizer and Richard. Go ahead with you own images and show them to us. We'll have no mercy !! :-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Such a kind invitation :). This one is for you then! It might be QI but certainly not FP. However it reflects the moods of the coast which is something I love - I hope you like it. You will certainly see more of mine over time and I look forward to more of yours. It is good to try and help encourage others - some seem to find comments worthwhile. I really do value the feedback I get here although some images are just not destined for Commons. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • You are quite right: maybe a QI but certainly not a FP... A correct picture but lacking excitment: some dark and threatning clouds, a wreck on the sand, a patch of vivid colours in the rocks... In the FPC forum some would say 'no wow' or 'no bells ringing'. Keep trying. The worst years are the first five! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I have been here a while now...;) maybe it will start getting better. The West Country was an area famous for "wreckers" so maybe next time I will take a light out with me in the hope of getting a wreck and a pot of paint for the rocks! I actually do have some of very colourful rocks - the ones at the end of that beach are a very vivid blue but they are not uploaded anywhere at present. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Scorpionfly March 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 good --Mbdortmund 22:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Camelia February 2009-2.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 QI to me --Herbythyme 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Again

Re. I used raw converter to set WB and saturation (as zero-changed saturation always leads to gray, non-essential colours). What colour places of the image look worst? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

!

It's all virtual   • Richard • [®] • 23:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)