User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive3

Quality images

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo April 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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Immature Hieracium seedhead.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}}}

This image is not a dandelion. Please, check it or I'll nominate it for deletion. Aelwyn 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to the amphiteathre

Thank you. I was waiting for that move because I really didn't see it's distortion. But it's unfortunate the quality was lost and your photo is now pixelated. I wish you upload a better image so I can change my QI photo with corrected distortion. Cheers, --Orlovic (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo April 2007-5.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 {{{3}}}

Image:Reinel compass rose.svg

Why did you change Image:Reinel compass rose.svg from this? It looked much better the way it was before. --Digon3 15:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You really should start archiving --15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! InêsPortoCovo2006-1.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}}}

Thanks for the nomination!

Hi Alvesgaspar,

Thanks for nominating my dandelion image, even if it didn't make it :-) --bdesham 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LantanaFlowerLeaves.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}}}

Comment

I think this edit of yours was for the wrong picture, unless you were making some sort of joke. -- Ram-Man 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

St. George icon

The picture was actually scanned from a wooden souvenir, probably printed on it with some kind of wood-printer (?). Anyway, I fixed a bit it - see. If not enough, please instruct me how to avoid such errors in the future. Thanks, --Orlovic (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Granny Smith Apples.jpg

You might like to revisit this one - the user has provided a credible explanation for the apparent manipulation, and would be good to know if you want to change your vote, or leave it as is anyway. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PortoCovoDec2006-1.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}}}

Hortensia-2.jpg

You uploaded this image which you claim to be your own work. On the upload page you agreed to place it under a Free license but did not specify which one. Please do so by replacing the {{OwnWork}} tag with a suitable copyright tag. Yonidebest Ω Talk 12:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hoverfly_on_flower-2.jpg

Hi,

your photograph doesn't show a howerfly (afaik not even a fly). This is more likely a bee. --XN 02:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrens

'By the way, the author of Image:Superb fairy wrens mark 2.jpg strikes again.' : )
Hi, I have redone this image and I would appreciate your feedback, although perhaps the image would get a fairer chance if you let half a dozen people vote before you (assuming your opposing). I'm pretty sure there is nothing left to oppose except that you might argue that it's unrealistic, thanks --Benjamint444 11:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

com:fpc

Gimp

How do I fix geometric distortion caused by the wide-angle lens in Gimp? --Digon3 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dschwen told me how. Thanks for responding. --Digon3 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

... for the motivating compliment. If it comes from you its a honor for me ... btw. wedding? hopefully just one time and if, then i will do the macro shots of your wedding rings :) --Makro Freak 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Camera thoughts

There have been so many images of yours that have been rejected as quality images or featured pictures because your camera does not render certain color combinations very sharply. It's a shame, really. I was reading what you wrote here and I have to echo what Diliff said. When you do get a DSLR pay most of your attention to getting a good macro lens. I have a Nikon D50, which is only 6MP and is really an entry-level SLR, but for me it works wonderfully. The real difference has been the purchase of the new Sigma 70mm lens. Now there are plenty of good macro lenses, and I'm not tell you to buy that one in particular, but it has made a load of difference! Many of my most recent uploads have been from that lens/camera combination. While having a better body would be nice, it's by no means important for taking good pictures, but the lens *is* really helpful. Perhaps you already knew this, but your work is good and it's in everyone's interest for it to be as good as possible! All that said, I still use point-and-shoots all the time (both FPs are from my non-SLR). There is a time and place for everything, and I enjoy looking at your work. I just love this picture: Image:Hoverfly on flower-2.jpg. It's my desktop background right now on my two high-res monitors. I love big bright orange flowers. -- Ram-Man 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I have not spent much time looking at your work. After your post, I did look through the ones on your user page. Your ocean-themed images are very good compositionally, and that's really what's important. Many of them may not be technically special enough for a FP (but some clearly are), but that doesn't seem to matter to me all that much. I love the pictures I love and no one can tell me otherwise. It is a creative passion afterall. That said, I often wonder if we shouldn't just mutually agree to not vote on each other's photos. I always complain that yours are unsharp and you always complain about tight framing. It's very humorous to me. -- Ram-Man 04:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, increases in camera technology (at least the ones I hear about) seem to be happening more in the digital chip space, so I would expect lenses to hold their value better than camera bodies. Maybe.  :-) Regards, Ben Aveling 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are even some decent ten year old lenses still on the market. I bet you cannot say that about digital bodies ;-). Full ack to Ram-Man, glass is an important investment. --Dschwen 07:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm always hesitant to say what will happen next with technology. I know that optical glasses have progressed a lot recently, so who knows what will happen with lenses. But recent history is that lenses have not changed price anywhere near as much as camera bodies have, and they are going to keep doing so. So if you are tossing up on where to spend your money, probably go for lenses. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

- Alvesgaspar 14:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fotos

Olá, no problem! Quando carregares muitas podes-me deixar uma mensagem se quiseres e eu trato da categorização :) Lusitana 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Carabidae sp.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! Hoverfly on flower-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! Pentatomidae spec.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! White osteospermum.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}}}

Meet our Photographers (answer)

with pleasure:) --Luc Viatour 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me ?

Hi Joaquim. Can you resume the FP Closing process for a couple of days. Iam very bussy at the moment and additional iam on tour at the weekend. I can go on with the FP closing next week from Tuesday on. Thanks! --Simonizer 07:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • No, there is just the result of the votes posted --Simonizer 08:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting my picture

Most of the pictures I upload are for encyclopedic purposes. For European fresh water fish and reptiles and amphibians there are not very many decent pictures to be found. Unfortunately I still have to use the digital super zoom compact and macroconverter, so it is impossible to attain the sharpness that a good macro lens can give. For the moment the quality is still limited. A good flash and softbox will also help a lot improving the sharpness. It's a pity I didn't upload the adder picture in full format, but I noticed many people anyway disliked it for the small branches in the foreground. In my view completely exposed snakes aren almost never to be found in heathland, and pictures of them are of captured animals exposed to a lot of stress. Viridiflavus 12:33, 23 May 2007

FP

Hey, you promoted my image by leaving me a message on my take page, but the image isn't categorized or marked as an FP. As far as I know, it's just tucked away in the archive. -- Ram-Man 12:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Convolvulus arvenvis spiders.jpg

Hi Joaquim, the critters on the flower are not spiders but velvet mites (Trombidium sp.). Lycaon 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NYC Public Library Research

I uploaded an edited version of Diliff's picture, trying to suppress the stitching errors.Would you please have a glance? Vassil 25 May 2007

Red billed gull

Could you clarify your vote at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Red billed gull-02.jpg? I split the voting for the two versions, but it was not clear which picture your vote was intended for, either the first, second, or both picture. If you could update the voting accordingly, that would be helpful. -- Ram-Man 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FPC - Pulteney Bridge

Thanks for the comments. Could you take a look at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pulteney Bridge, Bath.jpg to see what you think of another edited version of the image? --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hoverfly12.jpg

Hi Joaquim. The hoverfly on this Yellow chamomile is a Sphaerophoria scripta (doesn't seem to have an English name, in Dutch: Groot langlijfje). Lycaon 08:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

- Alvesgaspar 10:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I think you're now eligible to go onto Commons:Meet our photographers. --MichaelMaggs 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you, but I don't think so. I only have 7 FP (photographies) and 4 FP (illustrations)... But we'll come there shortly, I hope! - Alvesgaspar 11:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tilia x europea-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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PortoCovoApril 2007-8.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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LadyBug-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}}}

FP promotion

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

Alvesgaspar 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you just tell yourself that you got a featured picture? -- Ram-Man 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's all part of the routine closing process. The records in the nominators' pages help to guarantee that all FP have been well taken care of :) - Alvesgaspar 13:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Calendula spec-1.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calendula spec-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}}}

FP promotion

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

Alvesgaspar 14:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wall hawkweed flower and fruit.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! Dandelion clock-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}}}

Image:Formica high res.jpg

Hello Alvesgaspar,

regarding this picture i have a short question: Is the Highres Version still promoted ? Best --Makro Freak 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure it can be featured. But the 10 day's period isn't over yet... - Alvesgaspar 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC
  • You are smart. Now i remember that the Hires version was placed 3 days ago, stupid Macrofreak! :)) --Makro Freak 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Meet our Photographers (answer)

It is done! Thank you ;) --Luc Viatour 07:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion Image:Giraffe Ithala KZN South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG

Hi Joaquim, i didnt nominate this picture. Its was Digon3. Greetings --Simonizer 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FPC Closing

I can resume the closing process, if you dont want to go on. Greetings --Simonizer 10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Should I? --Simonizer 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hieracium murorum

Hi Joacquim. Don't be to hasty in changing the name of your flowers. I'm afraid you're not just there yet as Hieracium murorum has smaller flowers and fewer florets in the composite head than your specimens. I may not be able to come up with the correct name before mid July as I'm leaving for Namibia in a couple of days and still have a lot to prepare. I 'll be very happy to help on id's upon my return. Lycaon 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Identifying beetles

I'm trying to identify this beetle with no success. It looks like a female Oedemera nobilis but the red colour of the thorax doesn't match. About this one, I haven't the slighest idea. Can you help? - Alvesgaspar 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

... maybe Cerambycidae but i am not shure --Makro Freak 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:White flower with beetle.jpg

I should come and visit you some day. You catch the most interesting insects! This one is an Anogcodes fulvicollis also family Oedomeridae. I had to do a bit of detective work to find it. Nice one again !! -- Lycaon 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Carina moschata-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}}}

Sorry

Sorry, I must admit I was rude, I was in a hurry and my English doesn't help me. I think that images with wrong titles/category are probably to be deleted or, at least, renamed because they create problems on wikipedias. I don't know if it's "normal", but it should for the sake of authoritativeness (btw: is this really English?). Can't identify your plant with just a picture, not even the best botanist would find it easy/possible. Please, if you can't identify it nor provide more pictures remove it from category Dandelion, it's misleading. Sorry once again (next time: assume good faith) Aelwyn 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Qick Closing

Sorry Joaquim but you are wrong!

From the rules: General rules: After the end of the voting period the result will be determined on day 10 after nomination (shown in the time-table below). So the voting period is 9 days (plus the hours until the end of day 9). Votes added on day 10 or after are not counted.

Yesterday was day 9. Today is day 10 so I can determine the result! --Simonizer 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Cichorium intybus-alvesgaspar1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cichorium intybus-alvesgaspar1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oyster/mussel catcher

Re Image:Variable_Oyster_Catcher-01.jpg He's turning the mussel over and wind is rustling feathers so slight blur (slow shutter speed). Were there any other quality issues that you noticed? Thanks. --Tony Wills 12:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm talking about noise and artifacts in the darker areas, which are clearly perceptible in full resolution. I believe that an unsharp mask might solve the problem. The same with the new nomination (also in the beak) - Alvesgaspar 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The feathers? Not much I can do there, filters which hide the noise also blur the feather detail. Better light might help (I chose an overcast day because I went to photograph the white gulls), but the beak already almost seems to glow (I expect that will be worse in bright light). Slight movement blur on the beak, but do you see noise there? --Tony Wills 07:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Colosseum in Rome

I've uploaded a new version of "Colosseum in Rome-April 2007" by Diliff under the name:"Colosseum in Rome-April 2007-1- 2D.jpg" in the category:Colosseum.In this version,I've smoothed out compression artifacts that appeared in the sky in my edited version 2B.Please,could you look at the new version, and if you think that quality is good enough,transfer the featured picture template to this one? I shall ask for the deletion of the 2B version.Sincerely yours.Vassil 2 June 2007.

• I dont know exactly how to handle this! --Simonizer 09:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Colosseum in Rome

Thank you very much for your answer.I hope that Simonizer will finally agree.Vassil 6 June 2007.

Barnstar

When you get one, you should give one or two or three? ;) .. keep the community alive. --Makro Freak 12:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Softer background

I saw that the background of you grasshopper is very noisy because of sharpening, to solve this you should use http://www.neatimage.com/ .. its free, try it and keep it secret ;) --Makro Freak 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! PortraitGirl2005-1.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}}}

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! White flower with beetle.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}}}

Thank you

Thank you for fixing the svg code of my image. This was first drawn in CorelDraw and then converted into svg and verified in Inkscape. Apparently Wikipedia software doesn't deal well enough with this format, whenever there are objects with holes in the picture files. Any suggestion on how to solve this problem in the future? Regards, Alvesgaspar 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you please clarify what kind of "holes" are you referring to? Sorry. --Fibonacci 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 09:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Caliper

Hi, I made some fixes to Image:Using_the_caliper_new_en.gif.
The image featured some bad mistakes that were pointed out at the Commons:Bar_italiano (i suppose you are not a technician :-)

1. the measurement was given in centimeters: this is an error since the caliper is used for technical measurement, and the official standard for technical measurement is the millimeter
2. the measurement reported only one decimal, while the common use stated by ISO wants two decimals

I replaced the image (since the wrong one was linked), if you feel this as an abuse or an error, I will upload your version again and load the correct one with another name. --Jollyroger 11:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the errors are present on Image:Using_the_caliper_new.gif too, but since it is a FP I am not going to change that --Jollyroger 11:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted.

The modified version is at Image:Using_the_caliper_correct.gif.

It is weird that the graduation scale is in centimeters (is it a professional caliper or a hobbyist one?). Precision for an industrial-quality caliper could go down to a hundredth of a millimeter or less (as correctly stated on en.wiki). --Jollyroger 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aesculus hippocastanum-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}}}

FP promotion of IMG 0996 Lhasa Barkhor.jpg

Hi Joaquim, Thank you for nominating my image as FPC. I've just added a complete caption in English. --LucaG 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Descrição de imagens

Olá Joaquim! Se puderes por favor complementa a descrição das tuas fotos com a indicação do lugar onde foram tiradas. Por exemplo Image:Bee on flower-1.jpg (e todas as outros do mesmo género). Obrigada e parabéns pelas óptimas fotografias! Lusitana 09:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Já tentei perceber como funciona esse template, mas ainda não consegui... Quando clico no link fico sem saber onde é o local, porque abre uma outra página com informação (que, confesso, ainda não li). Provavelmente faço quaçquer coisa mal. Se o template tiver indicação do nome da localidade então basta que eu aprenda a mexer com isso, senão então seria útil que o nome estivesse também na parte da descrição. Mas não precisa de ser a correr, claro. :) Lusitana 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Já percebi como fuinciona (foi preguiça de ler). Basta colocares o template! Eu depois coloco as cats dos locais respectivos se ainda não existirem ou não souberes quais são :D Lusitana 10:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Taraxacum spec-1.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Taraxacum spec-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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gazania rigens-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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! LantanaFlowerLeaves-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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oedemera lurida-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}}}

QI guidelines

As a regular contributor to QI and FP discussions you might be interested in the merging of the FP/QI guidelines being discussed at Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates --Tony Wills 12:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:PortraitGirl2005-1.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:PortraitGirl2005-1.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 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

OsamaK 07:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hoverfly_on_carrot-1.jpg

---

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 07:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 08:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Using_sextant_swing.gif

Image deletion warning

Image:Using_sextant_swing.gif 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

84.90.153.236 21:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg

Hello, Alvesgaspar. When I go to that image and click on "nomination", I get an empty page. Could you, please, tell me what I'm doing wrong. Thanks--Mbz1 02:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Lebiskari Fortress

I understood that I could not remove the tag but why did you agree with it? The newer version of the picture is (2578 × 1852).[1] Sosomk 09:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the tag: the newer version of the picture is over 4M. Thanks Sosomk 09:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Updating aesthetic and technical QI categories

On QIC_talk you mentioned "more important and useful that QI serve as examples of quality in the various themes and technical aspects", which reminds me that I have been meaning to ask for your help :-). I have been mechanically filing the QI promotions in the various QI subject categories and circulating the latest QI promotions through the subject categories on the main QI page. But I'm not really experienced enough to confidently add images to the various aesthetic and technical categories so have seldom done so. As you have a good eye for these things, do you have time to occasionally update those categories on the QI pages? --Tony Wills 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The QI filing is certainly a lot easier now that QICbot does most of the work, and could be done by anyone now, I expect people are just leaving me to it because I'm doing a good enough job and if/when I stop or ask for help others will take over. The CR work is a lot more involved and I've been a little slow lately, we probably should work on getting QICbot to do a lot of that too (less chance of mistakes). The updating of the aesthetic/technical categories has no urgency so don't put off other things in order to do it, or if you would prefer I expect a note on QIC_talk will bring forth others to help :-) --Tony Wills 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosa dos ventos

Hello Joaquim, I would like to support your wind rose which is a fine work. Only, as the drawing is more exactly executed than the original, not so "hand-made", I think that the indications of the directions at the outer circle which give the impression to be hand-written don't fit to the rose as well as in the original. Would it perhaps be better to make them a little bit more regular, less hand-written, like a calligraphy which is between written and printed (example: Image:Calligraphy.malmesbury.bible.arp.jpg)? The letters or signs in the inner circle are nice, a bit surprising is that they seem to have nothing to do with the name of the directions outside (O for south, S for south-east). Are they not portuguese? - Isso foi diffícil, não fui capaz de escrever em português. Mas continuo a apprender a sua língua porque vou ir de férias a Portugal por uns días em Novembro. Vamos a visitar a Feira Nacional do Cavalo de Golegã, pois a minha mulher é professora de equitação. Depois vamos passar uns dias em Lisboa, quer dizer vamos dormir na pousada de Queluz, vamos ver ali a Escola Portuguesa de Arte Equestre e naturalmente visitar Lisboa. Espero que eu não tire fotografias ali que sejam suas! Cumprimentos, --wau 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Respondi na minha página. --wau 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

QI

Thx. I nominated the best old (and new too) FP on pl wiki. We want on pl wiki to do something with them, cause the oldest are very poor. So, your opinion on QI will be good argument to removal {{gmedal}}, I think. Best regards. Przykuta 04:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:IMG 0996 Lhasa Barkhor.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:IMG 0996 Lhasa Barkhor.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 08:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead pixel

Cropped part of original img

Hi Alvesgaspar

I think i have solved the mystery of the dead pixel in my photo Image:The World in Aalborg.jpg. It is probably a fender like this one. I think it is being used to hold some kind of net that surrounds the destroyer.

Regards Malene Thyssen 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy on Image:Pyrenees_topographic_map-fr.svg and other maps

Good afternoon Alvesgaspar.
Sorry, I didn't pay attention that you are cartographer. I know your comments are of the highest interest, not specially for that FPC process, but for the general quality improvement you can bring with your advises in that area.
I would like to talk about the accuracy of this map for me to understand better this point.
The full resolution of the SRTM3 map is about 8020x4734 pixels, this for a precision of about 120m per pixel at 42° latitude, am I right ? By the way, is somewhere a table giving the precision of the SRTM depending on the latitude, that's because I forgot how to calculate the length of an arc on a sphere ?
I down sampled the map to nearly 40% the size of the original, which would give a precision of 120 / 0.40 = 300m.
After having extracted each elevation and vectorized them, I simplified the paths in order to get a lighter file weight. Comparing the new paths to the original raster representation, the envelop stays at a maximum distance from the original of 5 pixels, which would give a precision of 5 x 300m = 1 500m.
Following the standard accuracy of the paper maps you give, this would give a 1 500 / 12.5 = 120 times less accurate map, so a precision equivalent to a 1:6 000 000 paper map.
Is my reasoning correct ? Please tell me if I made some mistake somewhere and don't hesitate to correct me as I'm not used with this subject.
Well, if this is the equivalent accuracy of that map, it's harsh ! But it's a small scale map, so… Making one of larger size (in pixels) would not be practical, due to the weight of the shaded relief raster image in the PNG format (for the transparency).

The whole elevation data come from the SRTM3 and the shores, lakes and large rivers from the SWBD, so with the precision mentioned above. For the borders and the smaller rivers, I draw them by hand from other sources and have no real idea of the accuracy. The bathymetry is taken from the Demis add-on for World Wind. They use the ETOPO2 and SRTM data, but I don't know the accuracy their maps displays.

So, and in order to improve the information about the map, would it be better (and correct) if I indicate in the description page something like :

« Approximate precision of the topography and shore / lakes limits : 1 500m ; equivalent printed map scale : 1:6 000 000 »

As general comment, I would like to say that, of course, these maps don't pretend to be of a professional level (which one does in WP ?) but serve the purpose for which they are made : to be a good representation, as accurate as possible at a 1:1 zoom viewing, of an area to illustrate the related article, a higher precision for a same map size being almost invisible.

I hope sincerely that you will respond to this post in order to improve the quality of the information of the maps for the project.

Obrigado pelos conselhos. É bom ter dicas de um profissional. Sting 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I’m not sure of having understood all you said. Let’s try to answer the questions one by one keeping things as simple as possible.

I’m not familiarized with the SRTM3 images but I suppose that, like other satellite Digital Elevation Models (DEM), they are raster images where the value of each cell (pixel) is the elevation of the corresponding terrain spot. The value of 120m you refer is probably the “spatial resolution” of the image, i.e., the distance in the terrain corresponding to the side of each cell. This is a constant value which only depends on the sensor and the altitude of the satellite above the surface, not on the latitude. Also, we can only say that 120m is the accuracy of the image if there are no further errors in the georeferencing process of the image, which consists in assigning geographic coordinates (lat and long) to it. By the way, the linear length an arc of meridian in a spherical Earth is simply M = R x deltaFi, where R is the radius of the Earth and deltaFi is the angular length of the arc, expressed in radians (1 rad = 57,296º and R=6,371,200m). The length of an arc of parallel is simply P = M cos(fi), where Fi is the latitude. For an ellipsoidal model, the formulae are not so simple…

After the downsampling and simplification you made, and assuming that there are no other errors, I agree that the horizontal accuracy of the elevation information is 300m. Let’s also assume that your manipulations have worsened this value to 1500m. No, it is time to think about what should be the scale of the map. What I said is that a value of 0,25mm is usually taken as a reference upper for the map accuracy. This means that the scale of your (printed) map should be, at most, 0,25mm/1500m, the same as 1:6,000,000 (bravo). Because, at this scale, 0,25mm correspond exactly to 1500m. It is important to understand that using a larger scale is to pass a wrong message about the accuracy of the elevation data. (not really serious in this case)

About the accuracy of the hydrography data (rivers, etc), as well as borders, roads, etc, the simplest way is trying to know the scale of the map they came from. If it is smaller than 1:6,000,000, you will have to adopt the new value.

As for the note to insert in the map, I would recommend something like this:

“Approximate horizontal accuracy of topographic data is 1500m. The map shouldn’t be printed at a scale larger than 1:6,000,000, to which corresponds a size of about … (please make the calculations…)”

I’m convinced that we could be a little less restrictive on the scale, since the map is not to be used professionally or for taking accurate measurements. What about 1:2 million, which corresponds to a planimetric accuracy of 0,75 mm (that will also depend on the shading in the relief, so that it won't be pixelated that way)?

I have to insist on the indication of the map projection in the printed map, that is an important piece of information. It will enough to say "UTM projection (WGS84)". As for the representation of the cities, area symbols would be indeed the best way for these scales, at least for the largest ones. Anyway the density of information regarding villages, roads, etc. seems a little low.

Não sei se disse tudo, mas voltarei ao assunto se for preciso. Saudações! - Alvesgaspar 23:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ola. Vou continuar escrever em inglês porque tenho mais vocabulário neste idioma.

Thanks for the formula. Yes, the SRTM DEMs are raster images covering one square degree made from the shuttle by radar interferometry, of 1201 x 1201 pixels for the « 3 » which resolution is 3 arc-seconds corresponding, as they say, to 93m at the equator. This 93 x 93m is the area covered on the ground by a pixel. The SRTM file having a constant 1201 x 1201 pixels size with a geographic projection, the area covered by each pixel decreases at higher latitude (and not the contrary as I wrote it before, sorry), representing about 63 x 63m at 45°. I still don't know if this is the real spatial resolution at that latitude or if the data was simply up sampled to match the 1201 x 1201 pixels size of the file. I posted a message at the SRTM forum to clarify this point and hope getting a fast answer.

At the worse, if the resolution remains at 90m, this would give a accuracy for my map of 1 125m which would be equivalent to the one of a 1:4.500.000 printed map. A bit better…

• • I don’t understand your reasoning. You said last time that you have worsened the original accuracy by a factor of 5, which gives 5 x 90 = 450m. Taking the same value of 0,25mm to the graphical resolution, we end up with a maximum scale of 1:1.800.000. - Alvesgaspar 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's really 1 125m of resolution, this because I donwsampled the original map to 40% its size : 90m / 0,40 = 225m ; then, the vectorization with the simplification at 5px close : 225m x 5 = 1 125m = 450m / 0,40. Sting 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

About the equivalent accuracy between DEM data and printed map, I found the FAQ page of the Spot Image site (in French), where at #10 FAQ, they talk briefly about that subject. For them, a 1 arc-second resolution DEM (30m at the equator, or 21m at 45° lat.) is equivalent to a 1:50.000 printed map. How must I understand that ?

There's something I didn't completely get about the printing size. The width of my map is 3200px. At a photographic printing quality resolution of 300 dpi, it would have the size of 27.09cm, so 1cm equals 118 pixels (3200 / 27.09). On the map, following the distance scale, 100km are represented by 587px, so 45km (for the 1:4.500.000 equivalence told above) by 264px. If on the printed map 1cm must only represent 45km, this means that I have to downsample the map 264 / 118 = 2.2 times which would give a printed width of 12.3cm !?! In this case, the map wouldn't be useful for nothing, even for general purpose.

A printing ratio at 1:1 (27.09cm) would give a scale of approximately 1:2.010.000.

Remember that at a photographic printing quality (300dpi), a pixel has a size of 0,85mm. In photography, we usually say that to print with a higher definition doesn't bring any improvement because the human eye will not see the difference. In magazines, very few are printing at 200 dpi or higher, the usual quality is 150 dpi. About printed maps, I don't know their definition, but I'm not sure they go further than 150dpi because they are printing works using common paper and don't use photographic printers I guess. If I go to a printing house, I would get back on common paper that map with a width of 54cm. Sting 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

About the density of the additional information, I made the choice to let them at a minimum level, only the main cities just to have a reference. This because if I had put more, the legibility of the map would have decreased with too many information with no one really readable due to the small scale of the map. Take a look at Image:Pyrenees_map_shaded_relief-fr.svg on which I put the roads, rail tracks and some additional cities. I think each of them are well balanced for their purpose, the first concentrating on the topographical aspect with only the political / administrative borders and the main cities for reference, the second concentrating on the mankind realisations with the light shaded relief as geographical reference (important here because it's a mountainous region).

• • But your previous arithmetic was wrong… After all, and taking the correct scale of 1:1.800.000, you can even use a printing ration a little larger than 1:1. If the density of information were a little higher, I think that larger scales could still be used on printing. Remember that all our reasoning was based on the resolution of the elevation file and that the terrain relief is represented in a more or less “qualitative” way, not suitable for taking accurate measurements from the map. I wouldn’t be shocked if the map were printed in a A3 sheet of paper… - Alvesgaspar 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Abraço. Sting 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wind Rose Aguiar

I think I need your help again. The svg version of this image (here) does not shown correctly. The origin of the problem is in the colored rings (the "holes"), which are treated as filled circles by the wiki system, although everything seems correct in the svg application. Can you please help? I still do not know how to avoid the problem. Alvesgaspar 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Apparently MediaWiki does not support a fill-rule property on the svg element, so the whole image is drawn as if fill-rule were set to "nonzero" (the default) for all shapes. I'm redrawing it to eliminate the dependance on said property. --Fibonacci 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh ! Posso ver que alguém já esta trabalhando neste problema. Eu mesmo estava começando á olhar nele no meu lado porque é um desenho realmente muito lindo (e que representa muito trabalho), mais valioso do que a versão PNG. Sting 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Não tinha conhecimento destas páginas. Não é somente porque a bússola é no formato SVG, o desenho é já realmente maravilhoso. O fato de ser SVG dá um « mais » por este tipo de ilustração porque é mais prático, o desenho fica mais lindo. Finalmente só precisa de corrigir os problemas, o que é normalmente mais fácil do que desenhar. Pode ser também que eu estava de olho nele porque eu participe ativamente ao Atelier graphique aonde melhoramos as imagens e mapas. Até +. Sting 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Thanks for this beautiful illustration. Nl74 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gratz

• Hey Joaquim! Congratulations to your new camera. I wish you a lot of nice pictures with it. What lense(s) have you bought with it? --Simonizer 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you, Simon. So you noticed, I bought it less than 24 houts ago!... For the moment I only have a cheap second-hand 35-70 lens. I'm waiting for the Nikon 18-200 VR. - Alvesgaspar 08:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah i am fast! ;-) The Nikkor 18-200 VR is certainly a very good allround-zoomlense. What das wait mean? You ordered it, but didnt get it yet? I ordered the Tokina 100/2,8 Macro lense two days ago and i hope i will get it tomorrow. --Simonizer 11:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ok now i understand. Thats unpleasant. Hope you get it soon. I would like to give you some advice for your Nikon. When making pictures use your RAW quality mode when you want get the best out of your camera. Do not use the internal jpg-converter. Postprocess things like whitebalance, contrast, noise reduction afterwards with a rawconverter like rawshooter, Nikon Capture or Adobe lightroom or something similar. That will make a lot of difference --Simonizer 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hey cool. I will be in vacancy too. I will be there from 15. of July until 31. of July. So we miss eachother out on just two days and a few miles! ;-) I hope to make some fantastic pictures there. Can you make the FP closing then? Or should i ask someone else? --Simonizer 12:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Crusada

Olá Joaquim. Bem, 'cruzadas' à parte, poderei ajudar a eleger algumas fotos de Portugal; o que me levou a votar naquela foto, já que nem costumo participar muito nas eleição das FP, foi tanto o facto de ser uma foto PT, como o facto de não ser um pássaro ou uma flor que confesso, acho que se exagera na sua nomeação. Irei tentar acompanhar os desenvolvimentos sobre o assunto, quiçá até, propor alguma imagem para nomeação, excluindo as minhas, claro. Um abraço e bom trabalho. Paulo Juntas 13:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

--Simonizer 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)