User talk:Alvesgaspar

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Please behave, the big lizard is watching!

Archives Archive 1 (October 2006/February 3, 2007) Archive 2 (February 7/April 2007) Archive 3 (May/June 2007) Archive 4 (July/September 2007) Archive 5 (October/December 2007) Archive 6 (January/March 2008) Archive 7 (April/June 2008) Archive 8 (July/September 2008) Archive 9 (October/December 2008) Archive 10 (January/March 2009) Archive 11 (April/June 2009) Archive 12 (July/September 2009)

[edit] Photographers Blackbelt

		THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
		I hereby award at you this Photographers Blackbelt for your outstanding and excellent pictures. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please link images

BotMultichillT 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:POTY Feb 11.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Grasshopper 2007-1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:FP statistics Mar February 2008-2.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Daisy histogram.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Monarch Butterfly Purple Flower 3000px edit.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Sextant.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Astrolabe.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:TO map.gif was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Spider 2007-2.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:POTY 2007 stat1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:FP statistics Mar February 2008-1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:SMP August 2009-1a.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Vozes Almodovar August 2009-2.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Millipede August 2009-1.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Good quality (QI photo) and fulfills all requirements for me --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support All fine for this scope. Lycaon (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Eulema May 2009-1.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Wasp May 2009-1.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Fulfills all VI criteria, photo in good quality. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] question

Hi Alves, May I please ask you, if of course you have a time, take a look at this [1] and tell me, who in your opinion is the copyright holder of that map? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Too late now... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FP discussion

I think you are basically right, FP is a little indulgence by people participating here, and the FP images and pages have little importance to the project apart from the enjoyment of the Commoners and as a source of pretty good images for our 'shop window'. What do you think of having FP categories by year which would allow us to keep that history but also highlight the improvements of technology (and perhaps skill ;-) ? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that 'FP images and pages have little importance to the project'. In many fields there was in the last two or three years a dramatic improvement in the quality of the available images due to the stimulus of FPC. Macrophotography, reproductions of old engravings and panoramas of both nature and urban themes are significant examples. Many of these are now part of WP's articles and other languages wikis. Other have appeared in important non-Wikimedia projects, lke Encyclopdia Britannica, and have been printed in numerous publications around the world (I have received several requests myself). As for organizing the FP galleries by year I think it is an unnecessary complication. I agree that all FP's should show the year of promotion in the template though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok you think the improvement is due to FPC rather than QIC. Yes, I see what you mean with things like macro photography, the competition certainly drives people to put in more work. But apart from the relatively few people who actually enter the FPC competition, does it have much effect on the quality of the other 5 million photos here?

How do you think people go about finding our FPs ? That is: do you think they just use google etc to find a good image, or are they finding them in a wikipedia article, or are they coming to Commons and searching through the FP pages? Do any of the people inquiring after your images say where/how they found them?

Yes I would put the year on each FP promotion template. I would put each into a year category too so that a whole cohort can be seen together. No I wouldn't try to order FP galleries by date. The more contentious question is what to do with the FP galleries. If people do actually go there to find good images of the technical quality expected today, are we doing them a dis-service by giving them old, inferior images as well? If people seldom wade through FP galleries in the hope of finding what they want, but instead use search functions or categories, then perhaps it doesn't matter if the galleries contain a mixture. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations Alvesgaspar! Your picture Image:Greenwich clock.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day for October 28, 2009! Go to User:Presidentman/potd/28 October 2009 on Wikipedia to see what it looked like! - Noddy (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Poppy May 2008-1.jpg

I belive this is Papaver rhoeas. Look at the fruits in the following images:

Papaver rhoeas Papaver rhoeas

Papaver dubium Papaver dubium epibase (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Ouro Preto November 2009-11.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Ouro Preto November 2009-11a.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Wasp November 2009-1.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image File:Fly June 2009-4.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.