User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive16

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Alvesgaspar

Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Hidden image}}

Hi, I've created this template for the whole hiding-explicit stuff situation. Using a javascript box as opposed to having to click on a link is much better for usability, as you don't have to leave the review page to see the image. And of course it allows for a reason - its not just porn that is objectionable content after all. (Discussion of the eligibility probably should go on at COM:FPC, as that's where there has been prior discussion)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The template isn't perfect in that it won't work in the QIC galleries, or perhaps more seriously in a VIC, due to the use of <gallery> at the first and not really nesting well in the VIC template. That said its a start, and it works ok at FPC and in the discussion part of QIC.

As for what should be eligible for promotion and what should be censored on nomination pages: My inclination (which I did express previously) is everything that is within Commons scope and meets our licensing requirements is eligible, and any image that someone has a reasonable objection to should be "hidden". I don't really have time to revitalise the discussion right now, but FPC (or the village pump) seems like the logical place to me; and yes the examples I gave earlier are a decent starting point for that.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm you are right on the QIC criteria not really being up to spec. My oppose is based on reviewing it like a photograph ultimately, to review an image as an artwork, and more importantly as a specific genre of artwork is harder and we don't want to have to define what a quality anime image (or oil painting or sculpture or abstract painting...) is. The comment about the headphone strikes me as simple enough, what artistic reason is there for including something with no apparent value to the composition (but unlike a photograph he has deliberately chosen to include as opposed to failed to remove it)? The other two point could possibly be ok, depending on what typical anime is like - does it have that dreamlike situation with the fake DOP or does it try to emulate photorealism. The QI criteria are restricted to photos, but should probably talk about the general principles of art, before giving more detail on how to apply it to photos. We don't need to broaden it to all art, as we are only interested in stuff that's useful for WM projects which is a restricted set of those. (Feel free to copy this somewhere if you want to start discussion).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Waste July 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 Ok. But I think the piece of garbage should be removed. (best in relity ;-) --Berthold Werner 17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC) --  Info -- Trash collected -- Alvesgaspar 19:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please

Español: Le ruego que si revierte una edición mía en una página de comentario o discusión (File talk:Spider and fly April 2010-3.jpg) tenga al menos la cordialidad de comunicármelo. Gracias

--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mas esse não é o local apropriado para comentar a foto. Por que não o fazes aqui? Parabéns pela vitória de Espanha! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sobre si es lícito su manera de actuar, habría que hablar. ¿Se me censura por decir lo que pienso?--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Não o estou a censurar, somente a informá-lo sobre o local adequado para comentar a fotografia. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

En este momento, yo si estoy a censurarlo y a criticarlo a usted por censurarme a mi al borrar mis palabras: Usted no tiene atribuciones para borrar mis comentarios si no son insultantes. Ni siquiera siendo usted administrador puede borrar un simple comentario. ¿A quien he insultado? ¿No he sido correcto? Por favor explíquese. ¿Sabe lo que hace? --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Que a usted le parezca o no apropiado el espacio es su opinión. ¿Acaso es usted la referencia para decidir lo que se puede o no decir en una página de discusión?--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Deseo que el comentario permanezca. Me parece el lugar adecuado. Pienso que las imágenes de calidad están dominadas por un cierto amiguismo. Aquel que aprueba una imagen de otro, al final, se ve recompensado, por ese motivo me he expresado en el lugar que he considerado, sin hacer críticas mayores (cosa que ahora y por su participación, hago). ¿No tengo derecho a decir en una página de discusión mi opinión (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3ASpider_and_fly_April_2010-3.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=41329045&oldid=41328935 ) y de hacerlo tan comedidamente como lo he hecho? ¿Como puede usted censurarme?--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No hago comentarios donde usted dice porque no sé hacerlos ahí. Lo he intentado, pero no sé. Por no saber, ¿no se me puede permitir expresar lo que considero donde sé expresarlo?

Es evidente que provocaría que esa imagen fuese discutida, ¿puede explicarme usted (entiendo el portugués y sé hablarlo, aunque lo escribo con dificultad) cómo hacerlo?--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sea como sea, su actitud es increiblemente reprobable--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OBSERVO QUE HA VUELTO A BORRAR MIS PALABRAS, NOS VEMOS EN Commons:Village pump (aunque previamente he de buscar si hay un espacio para abusos de administradores). GRACIAS--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Puede usted ver http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACookie&action=historysubmit&diff=41329680&oldid=41062805 para más información--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Al menos yo si informo de lo que hago, no como usted--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Le he respondido a User:Cookie lo siguiente y creo que es lo mismo que le debería responder a usted si me hubiese comunicado en su oportuno momento sus acciones y adjuntase alguna explicación: Comprendo. Gracias. Podría hacer filosofía sobre la cuestión e intentar defender mi postura, pero es absurdo hacer tal cosa, pues lo que dices es perfectamente coherente aunque pueda dejar mal parados a los que no se expresen en inglés, ya que las páginas de expresión de opiniones son en inglés, no así necesariamente otras. Gracias de nuevo y disculpa la molestia--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Obrigado pelas tuas explicações. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps expertise

Hi Alves. Your expertise regarding maps would be helpful to inform this debate, if you're interested. --Elekhh (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Elekhh. I made a short comment there but very much doubt it is really useful -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment and time invested in this: I think is very useful in providing a professional impulse to the debate, regardless of the ultimate outcome. But I believe the general issue is very important, as I've seen the same approach with other countries where ethnic discrimination is fought with manipulative maps. I am sure as Commons will evolve towards higher quality (?!) these issues will need to be clarified anyway. --Elekhh (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoverfly November 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 Good --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spider and fly April 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 Good --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo May 2009-3a.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 06:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galactites 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 Wonderful, very nice.--Jebulon 15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cistus 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 Ok. --Berthold Werner 17:57, 14 July 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:
Aphis nerii (Oleander aphid), exuvia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info -- This is a very small subject, about 2mm long at much. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose There are better images inside the same category. Should we have an Valued image for every insect. Very questionable. --Niabot (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A VI is possible for every visually distinguishable taxonomic species. Lycaon (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Support en:Exuviae of aphids seem to be notable and are visually distinguishable; hence a subscope is merited. Please see http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/338. This is the best image in the scope, in my judgment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose There is no good reason not to have VI for each insect species, however, I think that it fails criteria 3. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support all criteria meet !--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met. Lycaon (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Guincho February 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 The horizon looks a bit tilted cw. --Jebulon 23:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC) --  Done -- Agree, it is fixed now. -- Alvesgaspar 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) It's a QI, with a very nice winter-evening light--Jebulon 21:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flower April 2010-4.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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thistle April 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 for QI--Lmbuga 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Good day!

Is the image that I was nominated so bad that you put on it a pattern? Dear Photographer, I do not believe that you are right. Осенняя мгла (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Осенняя мгла, The FPX template is a way of avoiding a long list of oppose votes in pictures that have little chances of promotion. Anyway, it addresses the picture, not the photographer! In this particular case, the conditions are very difficult due to the lack of good lighting, and the use of a high ISO setting caused strong noise in the darker parts of the image. You should also be more carefull in the framing, trying not to crop important parts of the subject and keep the vertical lines vertical. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not you roll back, sorry.Осенняя мгла (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prunus March 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 --Llez 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hydrangea June 2001-6.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. --Samovary 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hydrangea June 2001-4.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 good. --Samovary 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calliphorid July 2010-3a.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 & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 12:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wasp August 2010-5.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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cat August 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. --PetarM 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabanid July 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 Very impressive and good. --Cayambe 21:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bedford July 2010-4.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 geocoding would be nice --Mbdortmund 07:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC) --  Done -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fly April 2010-5.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 OK for me. --Nevit 23:13, 20 August 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:
Haematopota (Cleg Fly).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - I have decided to keep the scope at the genus level because all Haematopota species share the characteristic features shown in the picture: the patterned wings, the colourful eyes and the blade-like mouth parts, used to draw blood from mammals. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Good depth of field, good lighting, and shows the colorful eyes and wing patterns better than File:Haematopota_pluvialis01.jpg, which is otherwise very good. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 23 August 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:
Rhynchomyia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:06, 24 August 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:
Colpa sexmaculata, male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Not much competition, thus, best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:07, 24 August 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:
Tabanus tinctus (Horse-fly).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo August 2010-2a.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. --Cayambe 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo July 2010-4b.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 10:40, 24 August 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:
Carlina corymbosa (Flat-Topped Carlin Thistle), flower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 06:50, 26 August 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:
Crithmum maritimum (Rock Samphire).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 06:47, 26 August 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:
Exhyalanthrax afer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Good picture, unique in its scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Harvest-field August 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. Please, correct Aegilops in the file descr. :-)--Cayambe 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Serengeti Topi3.jpg

Hi Alves! How are you doing? You opposed this image being FP for the only reason of wrong framing. I uploaded a landscape version. Maybe you review again? Thanks! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cats August 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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo March 2010-3a.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. I'm willing to promote once the small dust spot at left in the sky will be removed :-).--Cayambe 08:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Can you also paint out that tv aerial please? Mattbuck 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC) -- I'll be out of town for some time. Will someone be so kind as to make the job for me?... -- Alvesgaspar 09:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)  Done Dust spots and crane removed from the sky. Tv antenna not removed, as it is a 'permanent' structure there. Needs to be promoted by sb else. --Cayambe 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Promotion it is then. Rama 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks & sorry

(Poor english) I have uploaded another version (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscas. Fecundación. Bastavales, Brión, 090905.jpg). I communicate it to you in case you wanted to vote. Thanks--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lifeguard August 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 I would have cut off some of the sky, but if you like it this way, it is ok.--Mbz1 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lifeguard August 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--Mbz1 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sky August 2010-1a.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 Unsigned, but I suppose the same nominator as before and after (?). Noisy, but all photographs of sunsets are... QI nevertheless.--Jebulon 21:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cat August 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  Support Good. Yann 07:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cat August 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  Support Good. Yann 07:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cat August 2010-4.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  Support Good. Yann 07:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Waves August 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 spots to be removed in the sky --Jebulon 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC) --  Done DOne -- Alvesgaspar 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)I like the swimmer in the composition --Ikiwaner 17:48, 8 September 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: Notodonta ziczac (Pebble Prominent Moth).

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Notodonta ziczac (Pebble Prominent Moth).
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo August 2010-18a.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 done with success, IMO. The canoeists sunk very discreetly--Jebulon 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zinnia August 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 There is a dustspot IMO. Please see annotation.--Jebulon 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC) --  Done -- Thanks, Alvesgaspar 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Delicate & poetic, nice quality even not absolutely perfect. QI--Jebulon 10:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Damselfly August 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. --Quartl 20:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

POTY 2006 tables

Hi! do we need those? File:POTY_Feb_5.jpg to File:POTY_Feb_16.jpg? I'll delete them if not. cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 17:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't think so, the results should be somewhere! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Damselflies August 2010-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Damselflies August 2010-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Araucaria subulata JdP.jpg

Hello ! According to the rules, and as you agreed with the term "branch", I changed the scope in VIC. Thanks for reviewing, anyway !--Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not running for VI, but you opposed to this nomination because of the scope. Following your remark, I changed the scope as requested by you, by adding "branch", then, according to the rules, I informed you (above). No comment nor answer by you here, on my talk page, or in the VIC page. Now time is over. I think it is not very fair. Some are asking about the death of VI, in my opinion your abstention here is a beginning of an answer...--Jebulon (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• You are right and I'm sorry. My excuse is that I'm very busy in real life. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ok. Thank you for answering. No worries.--Jebulon (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mosquito

Mosquito is very good even if our colleagues don't think it is a QI. I have a 100 mm macro and have taken a few photographs of a Culiseta species but nothing approaching the quality of this image. May I ask the length of the extension tube that you used and the f/stop? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks you for your comments and support. I'm glad that someone was finally able to go beyond the surface. This photo was made with a Tokina macro 100mm and a 36mm extension tube (F/16, ISO 125, 1/100). But are you sure it is a Culiseta sp.? Because this was a quite small fly, when compared to the Culisetas I use to shoot. Please check this other view, where the wing venation is partially visible. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't questioning the assignment of the individual in your photographs. I was comparing your pictures to mine. My pictures are of Culiseta impatiens, or so I think. If your insect is smaller than that species, I'm even more impressed. Thanks for the extension tube and exposure information. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The European families of the Diptera

Hi, haven't seen you for a while. I've noticed that you're interested in this book -> The European families of the Diptera <- I bought mine at this webshop. Have a nice day,   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Richard, thanks for the info. A shame it is so expensive! There is an old book with ALL insect families you might be interested in -> Insects (1970), by Donald Borror & Richard White (Peterson Filed Guides). What about the big decison? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the tip. The decision says: Wait! :-)   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I have also retracted from my initial ideas of acquiring a FF (D700). I would have to trash my 18-200 lens (not very good, but quite useful and expensive) and spend too much money just to have cleaner photos. Not worth, for the moment. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Waves August 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 spots to be removed in the sky --Jebulon 22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)-- Done DOne -- Alvesgaspar 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)  Support nice --Carschten 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Macro photos

Hello Alvesgaspar. Just wondering, what lens do you use for macro shots? Do you have a flash? And finally, do use manual focus for most shots or AF? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, Finn Whale! Welcome to the fascinating (and rewarding) world of bug shooting! Yes, I have a dedicated 1:1 macro lens (a Tokina ATX-Pro 100 mm, a wonderful glass) and also use extension rings when necessary. Unfortunately light is seldom sufficient in macro photography and I have to use a flash quite often. There are much better solutions, like dedicated macro flashes and all types of permanent light sources and reflectors (ask Richard, he is the specialist in lighting). As for the camera settings, I have everything in manual mode when in macro, including focus. It is usually much easier to move the camera than to operate the focus ring. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I did, but he retired the day before I asked him! Oh well. Thanks anyways. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mosquito September 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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hibiscus August 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 Very good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hibiscus August 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 Very good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:31, 18 September 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!

84.61.172.89 07:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Cut-Mutiah1.jpg

Thanks for information.. I take this picture with a normal compact Kodak V-10 Camera.. Let's see if I can make a more big pixel picture.. It's nice to know you online.. NaidNdeso (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you are really interested in Photography, it will come a time when a better camera will be needed. In the meantime, you can learn a lot just by observing the FPC and QIC foruns, and training with your camera. Do we know each other in person?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:21, 22 September 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!

84.61.172.89 11:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dragonfly September 2010-1a.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 --Mbdortmund 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Tern

Hello Alvesgaspar, What is the location of the picture? Very helpfull for the id. --Cephas (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is a Black-headed Gull, winter plumage. Here is another individual very much alike. --Cephas (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (p.s.: nice picture)
  • Thank you, Cephas, I would never reach it myself! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FPX and FPD

Hello Alvesgaspar. Relating to our edits here and here, is it really a good idea to add {{FPX}} and {{FPD}}? I think Ghabara had it pretty tough already, with every one of the six nominations FPXed or FPDed. It seems a bid redundant to add them both, IMO. Not condemning your actions, just want a second opinion on this. Thanks, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, there is a fundamental difference between the two templates: while FPX can be removed by anyone with a support vote, that is not the case with FPD. What would we do if someone removed the FPX templates from those nominations? In short, FPX does not replace FPD and FPD cannot be removed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see the point, but it seems a bit harsh to newcomers to get both. And the nomination gets removed by FPCbot in a day anyways, so does it really make that much difference? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it does. Just imagine if someone removed the FPX template with a support vote. While the use of FPX may be considered as to have some subjectivity, that is not the case with FPD (unless is wrongly used, of course). Anyway, no one wants to humiliate newcommers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Waves August 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 Spectacular. Could do with sharpening and some extra contrast, but QI anyway. Mattbuck 16:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dragonfly September 2010-2a.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 The harsh reflection on the wing is disturbing, but the rest of the darter is good. --Quartl 10:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gazania September 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 yes QI for me. --Alchemist-hp 18:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gazania September 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 very good --Ianare 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP September 2010-6b.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 me. Please add a geotag. --Alchemist-hp 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rodão September 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  Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 12:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rodão September 2010-2a.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 composition and quality, IMO.--Jebulon 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP September 2010-4a.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 Good to me. A geocode would help for use in projects, IMO.--Jebulon 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC) --  Done Alvesgaspar 22:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Featured Picture Barnstar
		For having so many (71!) FPs. Keep it up, The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! VV Rodão Setembro 2010-6a.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--Lmbuga 00:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Breves considerações sem importância

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Manuel Reimóndez Portela - A Estrada - Galiza.jpg

(Não tem que você responder esta mensagem) Esteve eu pensando sobre a luz da foto. Ocorreu-se-me que quiçá você não observasse que o granito é branco. É um granito de alta qualidade, muito diferente do da base do busto (granito rosado). A qualidade do granito galego é altíssima e o granito branco reflecte muitíssima luz, pelo que, ao tirar uma foto a esse granito, o ceio sempre fica bem. Veja File:Manuel Reimóndez Portela.jpg

É possível que você já soubesse ou fosse consciente disto. É somente uma reflexão--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Olá Luis, o problema não é a cor do granito mas a luz solar directa. Com uma luz mais difusa e suave (ao entardecer, por exemplo), o contraste seria menor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)