User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive17
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! SMP September 2010-7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Latuff image categorisation
[edit]I don't recall previously discussion the Latuff image categorisation with you. As you will realise, it is a controversial issue. I've previously requested that all those involved don't constantly play around with the categorisation and instead resolve any disagreements by discussion. Since some of those I've talked to about this seem to again be struggling to resist the temptation I've blocked them to prevent the disruption continuing. I would therefore request that you also don't continue with changing Latuff categorisation since you should now appreciate it is controversial and seek to deal with any issues with the categorisation by discussion with other interested parties. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've just left a message in your talk page. Don't you think that the issue should be brought to the community? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Considering the sensitivity of the issue I kindly ask you to remove Category:Anti-Zionism that you added to File:BiasLatuff.gif, File:Stopfundingterror.gif, File:Latuff nazi camp 2.gif, File:BabyKillerZiombies.gif, File:Arielsharonsecretlove.gif, File:IsraHellburningbuses.png, File:GlobalIntifada.gif and File:Palestine by Latuff by Latuff2.jpg. If you feel I am wrong please take it up in the talk page of respective picture. I think it can remain in File:WelcometoIsraHELL.gif as it actually can be interpreted that way (even if that probably is exactly opposite of what the artist intended). Thanks! // Liftarn (talk)
- Please let the present dramas be solved before starting a serious discussion on this. I will only say something very general. For me categorizing an image is not, and should not be, a political action. In some cases it is easy and objective, as when one categorizes a biological species. In many other it is subjective because there are several opinions, most of them respectable, on how things should be classified. That happens in social sciences, politics, arts, etc. In those cases we should deal with the images the way diccionaries deal with words: when a word has various meanings, all of them are listed and explained. Categorizatiom aims at facilitating the search, nothing more. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the present case, there is no doubt that the concept of Anti-zionism (as well as Anti-americanism and others) exists and is used in various contetxts ([1]), to designate the opposition to the state of Israel and his policies, as represented by its agents: military, polititians, etc.. Clearly, some (if not most) of Latuff's cartoons addresing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are within this context. But this is not the right time for bold actions on this matter, which may be interpreted as the continuation of previous conflicts among users (not only by the admins watching the case). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hordeum April 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Flower April 2010-9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Flower 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! VV Rodão Setembro 2010-5a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Critters
[edit]Hello Alvesgaspar.
Thanks for your very interesting and... convincing answer in FPC about the animal above. I really would like to know how to do like you, so nice pictures of nature, especially flowers and insects. I have a special gift for you, as a testimony of congratulations, but not good as yours, and far not good enough for a QI. But please enjoy ! I've a face portrait of this one too, very scarry indeed (but too blurry). I'll upload it nevertheless, for fun. Cheers.--Jebulon (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
uploaded ! --Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Salut, Jebulon
Merci bien pour tes paroles sympathiques ... et le cadeau. Il n'y a pas de secrets en Photographie. Sans une lentille macro capable, beacoup de patience et un peu de technique il n'est pas possible d'obtenir des photos comme ça. Mais je ne suis q'un apprentis de deuxiéme catégorie à côté de Richard. Pas seulement en termes techniques mais aussi artistiques... Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- PS - Est-ce que tu a une objective macro?
- Hélas non, je n'ai (pour l'instant !) que le 18-55 de SONY, vendu avec l'appareil (pas extraordinaire, comme tu vois). Plus tard, dès que j'aurai des sous...--Jebulon (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
COM:MOI
[edit]Hi. I saw your illustrations gallery and saw that you have only eight featured illustrations. Don't you have to have ten FP to get on COM:MOI? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, the bar was set at five :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Girl August 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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! SMP 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! SMP September 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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Flower 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! SMP September 2010-10a.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.
|
Help
[edit]Hi Alvesgaspar. I nominated an image here, but forgot about the two noms only rule. I still want to nominate it, but I don't want to withdraw the other noms. What do I do? Withdraw it and wait until one ends and then transclude it again? Or nominate a second time? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you remove the nomination from the FP list (if someone hasn't already done it) and add it again when time comes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Hello Alvesgaspar,
It's a hard one, I'm working on it. I assume the picture was taken in Portugal. Is it a wild or captive bird?
--Cephas (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi,
- According to the litterature in my hands, it looks like a White-fronted Goose, but there is not "enough" white in the face to be sure. Since it's a farm bird, I'm concerned about giving an exact id to it: inbreeding is very possible with the Greylag Goose for example, a domesticated close kin. Id of animals raised in captivity is hazardous.
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seagull June 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Flower April 2010-14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-44.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Porto Covo March 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.
|
Poll spamming
[edit]Please stop your spamming. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why should I stop? Aren't we all interested in solving this source of conflict the best possible way? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Your poll at Village pump#Proposal should have been enough; it shows that there is no real problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, I welcome your recent initiative and I hope it succeeds. Polls are often not a very good way of deciding matters because of the potential for inappropriate canvassing but it is right to try this after more conventional discussions have failed and to see how it goes. Whilst there is suddenly a lot of categories for people to consider and comment on, we don't need to rush to close the polls and so there should be time for everyone who wishes to air their views. Adambro (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that polls are not usually the best approach but the attempts to discuss the issue, as a whole, have failed. I though that focusing on individual images, people could adhere to the initiative and be more objective. Of course, I do not intend to close the polls soon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Or maybe I'm being naive and nobody wants to burn their hands on this issue, except a small group of users with a known connotation to one of the "sides". If that is the case, this attempt will fail and Commons will lose. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Or maybe we think avoiding controversial categorization is a solution. And in fact, maybe the only solution. "Commons will lose/win" depends on one's perspective and if we achieve their desired outcome. Rocket000 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Or maybe I'm being naive and nobody wants to burn their hands on this issue, except a small group of users with a known connotation to one of the "sides". If that is the case, this attempt will fail and Commons will lose. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Heliotaurus ruficolis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Synema globosum (Red Crab Spider).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Commons:Valued image candidates/Bacon wrapped scallop.jpg
[edit]I've chosen a single scope and linked to the corresponding category. Acather96 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seagull June 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.
|
Pregunta sobre "neutral votes"
[edit]Desculpa, Alvesgaspar. Não o tenho claro. Se uma imagem tem 7 votos a favor, 3 em contra e 5 neutros, realmente os neutros não se consideram. Seria aceitada (promovida)? Eu referia-me a isso, pero é uma questão menor, sem importância. Agora bem, posso não ter razão, levava muito tempo sem estar nesta página. Saudações--Miguel Bugallo 22:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Outra questão: Se você observa que não me comporto conforme as regras (os regulamentos), diga-mo, por favor, mas com tranquilidade, pois não o passo bem quando me confundo. Obrigado--Miguel Bugallo 22:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
FP Promotion
[edit] |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Porto Covo March 2010-2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo March 2010-2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Please come see and support the alt if you like it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Congratulations
[edit]Obrigado. --Miguel Bugallo 19:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You're now a filemover
[edit]Hi Alvesgaspar/archive17, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:
- Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one.
- Please do not tag redirects as {{Speedy}}. Other projects, like InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references.
- For guideline when to rename a file, please see Commons:File renaming and Commons:File naming.
Geagea (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Your page User:Alvesgaspar/garbage has been, erm, consigned to the garbage bin. Whilst users have a certain amount of freedom within their own user space, this page has no possible benefit to the project, rather it seems likely to damage and disrupt the project by further harming relations between users. It would be interesting to see if you can present a convincing argument that there is any possible benefit such a page may have to the project. In the meantime though, this page stays deleted and you are warned against recreating it or anything similar. Adambro (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- This page was created with the purpose of defending myself if needed (it seems it is needed now!). I very much agree that people don't like to be confronted with their own excreta but fail to understand how these comments can be more offending to them as they are to me. It is worth mentioning that none of the complaints I made regarding these particular insults had any visible consequence. Finally, I contest your unilateral action of removing the citations from my personal page while the originals are still available for everyone to read. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Bees
[edit]Hi, Lycaon said you were good with bee's. I was wondering whether you could tell me what species of bee is in this picture?
Thanks, Thomas888b (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Thomas,
Well, Lycaon is wrong, he is the biologist!... This is a Bombus species for sure (a "Bumblebee"), but which one is difficult to say, as there are probably hundreds of different species and the image quality is very poor. Could possibly be one of species with brick red abdomen, like Bombus confusus or Bombis lapidarus but these are wild guesses. I doubt that any specialist can make a positive identification from this photo, but you may try browsing the pictures here: [2]. You may also check my gallery of bees here, to see what kind of quality it is expected in Commons. Good luck, Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
question
[edit]Hi alves, I'd like to ask you to clarify that statement of yours, please. You wrote: "Also, one of the new user's accounts supporting the nomination was clearly created with that specific purpose". May I please ask you what account are you talking about? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I worked on it so please see if you like what I was able to do, thanks. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Prosopomyia pallida.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Bactrocera oleae.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
The image has been updated here due to the reccomendations you made. Please take the time to reconsider your oppose. Thanks. JFitch (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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, winged female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Xanthogramma pedissequum, male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Tephritis formosa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Volucella zonaria, female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Divulgação da Rota da Biodiversidade
[edit]Boa noite,
Não tendo aqui comigo o seu email tive de recorrer ao contacto, novamente, através da Wikimedia.
De certo que estará lembrado que lhe solicitámos a cedência de algumas das suas imagens no âmbito do projecto da Rota da Biodiversidade da Câmara Municipal de Lisboa.
Estando o projecto em fase de conclusão gostaria de questioná-lo sobre a existência de algum inconveninete da sua parte em que seja usada a sua imagem da familia shyrphidae como imagem da campanha de promoção da rota da biodiversidade. Se achar necessário que na divulgação também esteja associado o seu nome á imagem como fizemos em todos os outros suportes, não hesite em informar.
Desde já, grata pela atenção dispensada.
Os melhores cumprimentos.
Rita Neves solicita-se resposta para: rita.neves@cm-lisboa.pt
urgente © Alves Gaspar
[edit]Muito Obrigada.
Na divulgação a sua imagem estará com o crédito solicitado, ou seja, Joaquim Alves Gaspar, Wikimedia Commons.
Gostaria de informar que nas brochuras que já encaminhámos à gráfica e nos paineis colocamos apenas o seu nome associado às suas imagens como: © Alves Gaspar
Haverá agora algum problema?
Obrigada
- Tudo bem, obrigado -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Wohlfahrtia magnifica (Spotted flesh fly).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Obrigada
[edit]Muito Obrigada.
Os melhores Cumprimentos.
Copal
[edit]Peux-tu jeter un coup d'oeil sur mon copal. Depuis hier je travaille dessus et j'ai un peu avancé pour les photos, mais très peu pour les déterminations. As-tu quelques lumières sur le sujet? Merci... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bien sur! J'aime pas le fond gris et les ombres doubles, c'est porquoi je n'ai pas encore voté. Mais je ne suis pas sur s'il ira mieux avec un fond blanc. Il faut peut-être essayer. Je doute fort que la mouche sois un syrphide! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Porto Covo August 2010-10a.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Black kitten July August 2009-1.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Lucilia caesar (Greenbottle), male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mya November 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.
|
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Brevicoryne brassicae (Cabbage Aphid), winged form.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Arocatus roesellii.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Edit or alternative versions
[edit]Bonjour Alvesgaspar.
Pardon de m'exprimer en français
Tu sais que je ne suis pas d'accord avec l'idée de nouvelles versions de la même photo dans les FPC, et je pense comme toi que c'est "confusing", et que ça devrait compter pour une "nomination", sinon c'est injuste, et ça contourne la règle des deux "nominations" actives. Ta chère amie Mbz1 est une spécialiste (elle est très fâchée contre moi parce que je le lui ai dit, malheur à moi ! ...), et ça met le désordre dans la page.
Mais c'est valable aussi pour le perroquet, je le crains !!
Il ne peut pas être question de parcimonie comme tu dis, parce que là, ça devient subjectif, comme la notion de "same subject". ça va donner lieu à des conflits. Qui va juger de la parcimonie ?
Je maintiens mon idée de "re-upload", avec message aux précédents reviewers (comme pour les changements de "scope" dans les VIC)
Mais je reste à tes côtés dans l'idée fondamentale que "plus c'est simple, mieux c'est"
Merci de m'avoir lu.
Salut parisien.--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Salut, Jebulon! Je m'excuse de ne pas m'exprimer en français mais mon français écrit est affreux! Je ne sais jamais où mettre les accents et les doubles "tt". Quel langue! Well, it seems we do not agree on this one! The present rules allow various versions of the same picture (with no limit) to be nominated and I think it is a reasonable measure, provided people use it with parcimony. As for uploading an improved version on top of the present one, I think it should only be permitted to correct well identified imperfections, like dust spots. Otherwise it will be a mess to keep control of the votes. Of course, there will always be some editors who try to abuse the present rules whatever they are! Not to challenge the community but because they are less careful preparing the nominations or over-react to criticisms/suggestions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Merci de ta réponse.--Jebulon (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! VV Rodão Setembro 2010-7a.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Eristalis 2007-2.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Eristalinus September 2007-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Eristalis April 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Spider November 2010-6.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Porto Covo November 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cat November 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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Spider November 2010-8.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hoverfly October 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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Spider November 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Spider November 2010-9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
nomination of STS-1 Launch.jpg
[edit]I would like to ask that you reconsider your tag because according to Commons:Image guidelines.[3] I think the follow quote of the guideline would qualify it "may not have been created by a Commoner. Given sufficient “wow factor” and mitigating circumstances" Thanks, TucsonDavid (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that is too late, the bot already removed the nomination! Nothing prevents you from renominating the same picture but I very much doubt it will succeed. It is not only the size but the poor quality of the image. Please notice that anyone (except the nominator) can remove the FPX template with a simple support vote. Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Valued Images Set Promotion
[edit]Congratulations!
The set of images you
nominated
for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Araneus diadematus (European Garden Spider).
Araneus diadematus (European Garden Spider).
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Porto Covo August 2010-4c.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.
|
Monte San Salvatore QI
[edit]Hi. You recently submitted your opposing vote on my QI candidate Monte San Salvatore on grounds of low resolution. I just wanted to point out that this problem has been solved and would much appreciate if you review the image again. Kind regards, --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Spider and fly April 2008-6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Portolan charts
[edit]Hi Alvesgaspar.
You probably know it, but if not, I hope this link to the National Library of France (in french, sorry) will interess you.
Friendly, --Jebulon (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Merci bien, Jebulon. Ouis, je connaissais le site de la bibliotèque mais pas cet endroit avec l'Atlas Catalan. Peut-être l'année prochaine je vais à Paris pour ma recherche sur les cartes anciennes. Tu peut mettre le blanc dans le frigo... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, on t'attend (moi et le blanc). J'habite à côté de la BNF--Jebulon (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to thank you for your positive vote for my image. It seems that when you voted you were not logged into the system and system crossed your vote as only IP was in the history. If you could re-vote please I'd highly appreciate it!
Thanks again! Oleg (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Oleg,
- That was I wo crossed the vote from an anonymous editor
. Good luck with your nomination| -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, again. Thanks for taking time to read my message and to vote. I am sorry to see that now you have voted against, but I respect your opinion. P.S. You have a lot of excellent pics! Oleg (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, again. Thanks for taking time to read my message and to vote. I am sorry to see that now you have voted against, but I respect your opinion.
- Alvesgaspar, I hope you are having a good day.
- I have changed the category of the image in the Valued images as per your and Yanns suggestion. I have also increaed the sharpness and made collor correction for the Featured candidate nomination. I hope those will help. If possible, please kindly re-vote. Thank you. Oleg (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
FP Promotion
[edit] |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ce chat est vraiment magnifique. Bravo.--Jebulon (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jebulon! I'll give him your message when I go to Porto Covo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Demande de renseignements
[edit]Cher Alvesgaspar,
Nous sommes quelquefois croisé sur les pages de discussion et j’ai eu l’occasion d’apprécier tes qualités d’administrateur et tes talents de photographe.
Je m’en remets donc à toi pour t’exposer le petit problème suivant.
Comme tu le sais je participe tant au projet écrit de « Wikipédia » qu’au projet image de « Commons » depuis 2005. Or à cette époque les insertions d’images étaient admises dans les deux projets avec des règles différentes. C’est comme cela que j’ai chargé des images avec « watermark ».
Or les règles ont changé et je suis donc bien entendu en train de réinsérer petit à petit les mêmes images sans lesdits « watermarks ». Cela n’a d’ailleurs jusqu’à présent posé aucun problème à ni aux administrateurs, ni à la grande majorité des utilisateurs de mes photographies. J’ai même bien souvent eu de l’aide de la part de ceux-ci.
Il est vrai que j’ai toujours essayé d’apporter une collaboration positive aux projets susmentionnés.
Cependant, j’ai parfois le problème que la nouvelle photographie rechargée réapparaît bizarrement une fois dans l’article d’une langue avec le «watermark» et dans une autre langue sans celui-ci. Ce que je ne comprends pas c’est que j’ai le même problème lorsque je recharge la photographie sous un autre nom de fichier en indiquant le mention « Duplicate ».
Pour se rendre compte de ce que je viens d’énoncer, il suffit de se rendre sur les articles ayant trait à Huy en catalan, Huy en anglais, Huy en espagnol et Huy en polonais.
Peux-tu m’éclairer ?
En tout cas merci d’avance pour l’aide que tu voudras bien m’apporter.
Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Cher Jean-Pol,
Je vais the répondre en anglais car j'ai honte de mes fautes de français écrit, qui est affreux (les accents, les doubles tt, les doubles ll, le temps des verbes, etc...)!
Thanks for your compliment regarding my photos, that was very nice of you. As for my talents as an administrator ... I'm not one, just a regular user.
Regarding your images I went through the articles you linked to and am not sure what the problem is. There is a picture of a fountain, File:Huy FneJPG.jpg, the same in the three articles, and a picture of a street with two versions: one with a watermark, in the catalan and English articles (File:Huy JPG06.jpg), and the other without it, in the Polish article (File:Huy 051027 (14).JPG). Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cher Alvesgaspar,
Malgré la difficulté réelle de comprendre ma demande d'explication dans une autre langue que la tienne, tu as bien détecté et saisi le problème et c’est très sympathique de m'avoir répondu aussi rapidement. Comme tu t'investis beaucoup dans la recherche de la qualité des photos, je pensais sincèrement que tu faisais partie des administrateurs. Mais si tu ne peux pas m'apporter personnellement de solution, tu pourrais peut-être m'indiquer la personne ad hoc susceptible de m'aider. Encore merci ! Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse-moi mais je ne suis pas sur d'avor bien compris le problème. Si tu veux changer les photos dnas les articles, tu peux le faire librement. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
FP Promotion
[edit] |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Jorge Aguiar 1492 MR.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jorge Aguiar 1492 MR.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Surfers December 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Caparica December 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Caparica December 2010-7a.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion
[edit]
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:
Nabis rugosus (Common damsel bug).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lifeguard 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.
|
Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani
[edit]please check the retouched lighting.
and reconsider.thanks Mdupont (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Socks and rule
[edit]Hi Joaquim Alves!
Recently we have too many socks. It is really the problem. I suggest to change rules, and voting IMO needed. Now 200 contributions at least should be before a user can vote for FPC, VIC or QIC candidates, except self-nominated FP candidate. However now holidays, activity of arguing will be feeble. Voting needs to be led in January. If You made such proposal for all 3 projects, I will strong support.
With best regards, friendly, --George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi George,
Please feel free to add other options to the ongoing poll. However, it appears that the 50 edits' option will eventually win. As for the other forums, I have already proposed a similar measure in the VIC talk page, but with no results (though two socks have been identified there). Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Scope Change for Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani
[edit]"A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
see
please reconsider your vote, Commons:Valued image candidates/Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani.jpg I have changed the scope to show the type of dog with a herd.
Have a nice day,
Mdupont (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Caparica December 2010-10b.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.
|
* * * :) * * *
[edit]--George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
FP Promotion
[edit] |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Coloured, textured craft card edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coloured, textured craft card edit.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Lycaon
[edit]What happened to Lycaon? Where is the discussion that caused him to leave? JMK (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here, at #22. A stupid decision of the community. I would have left as well. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Perplexed
[edit]I'm a bit perplexed at your negative vote and comment on my photograph Pieris_rapae_.jpg .
"Let the poor thing breath" you said. I imagine you mean you'd like to see more dead air around the image? Why? The image is used in a taxobox. Imho, the purpose of a taxobox image is to show the organism in as much detail as possible, in an aesthetically pleasing manner. The article is about the butterfly, not the flowers the butterfly is sitting on, or the backyard the flowers are in. Your criticism perhaps betrays either misperception of the purpose of the image or a subjective misapplication of your own personal taste.Bruce Marlin (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bruce,
Your image is of good quality and perfectly suited for a taxbox. But a FP is much more than that, as Commons' media are used for a multiplicity of purposes (not only in WIkipedia) and a featured picture is the "best Commons has to offer". Some say "no wow" when opposing, others try to explain why a candidate is not special or extraordinary enough for reaching FP status. I belong to the second group (please check here). In the case of your picture, I don't like the cut off flower and find the framing and composition a bit boring. If you browse Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Lepidoptera, you will understand why. Happy New Year! Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)