User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive12

Please use sub-categories

dansk | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | русский | svenska | +/−

---

When categorising files, please avoid placing them into several categories that are directly linked within the same tree (e.g. a parent category and a child category – like Category:United Kingdom and Category:London), to prevent over-categorization of files and over-population of categories. Usually, only the most specific category should be used. See Commons:Categories for more details. Thank you.

--Apalsola ^{t • c} 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Probably the best of the category, all criteria met. Lycaon (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Info - species identified in Michael Chinery (2007), Insects in Europe and Great Britain.
•  Oppose - Not Geocoded. Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I took the liberty to tweak the scope. All looks fine to me. Also geolocation! Lycaon (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Lycaon --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Aloe July 2009-1.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments nice colours and composition --Mbdortmund 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Fly and bug June 2009-1.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Dragonfly July 2009-3.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Excellent shot! --George Chernilevsky 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Tomar December 2008-4.jpg

The latest version of your picture seems to be corrupted. Can you please check this and perhaps upload the last version again? Sorry, when this is only a problem in Germany. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Dragonfly July 2009-1.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Good, QI - sure Richard Bartz 16:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Bug June 2009-5.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

File:Butterfly_October_2007-3.jpg

Hello! I am not a butterfly expert and today I went out and took some images of butterflies in a park in Stockholm. As I tried to detemine the species of the ones in my pictures, I used a book on butteflies that I borrowed at the library, but the pictures are quite small, so I tried to compare with the images on wikimedia, as they are often bigger and better. I just could not decide if my butterfly was Pieris brassicae or Pieris rapae. So I found your beautiful picture of a pieris rapae, but then I got confused because the black markings on the top of the forewing, as seen though looks very much like the example of the Pieris brassicae because it goes down the wing, while the black marking on the P. rapae only has a black triangle on the top of the wing. As the same species of butterflies can look a bit different depending on which generation of the year they are, male female, I cannot tell you you were wrong about your species determination. I can only say it looks like the example of Pieris brassicae shown in the book "Svenska Fjärilar En Fälthandbok" written by Bo Söderström. --Korall (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Rana June 2009-1.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments good --Mbdortmund 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo Use

I would like to use your photo of "mullein" in a gardening calendar I'm writing, which I will propose to a publisher. The photo is at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Verbascum_sinuatum_August_2007-1.jpg May I use it, and if so how shall I attribute it? Thanks, Annie

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Tomar December 2008-4.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Bit dizzy, but great light and composition. But it's tilted, can you fix that please? -- H005 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC).  Done Alvesgaspar 07:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC) file not displayed here --Mbdortmund 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Some CA, and looks like heavy noise removal has been applied. But overall a promote. Maedin 12:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Info Identification based on Chinery, Michael - Insects of Great Britain and Europe, 2007. Photo taken indoors, in Porto Covo, Portugal.

•  Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - You forgot to cite the relevant phrase of the guidelines: Where an exact location needs to be avoided, some coarse location data (e.g., regional) should normally be provided in the description field -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think I prefer the other shot, even though parts of the insect are out of focus, because on this one the chosen POV somewhat hides the disposition of the fore legs. Geographic information is enough for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I have considered the alternative but finally decided for the present version, as it depicts better the shape and patterns of the abdomen (for id purposes), as well as the long legs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I think this one is most valuable per Alvesgaspar. It may be useful to state the capture location if different than the indoor photography location. If the insect found its own way indoors, that may be useful to know too. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment read discussion at my talk page User_talk:Rastaman3000#VI_candidates --Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info - This is the proper place to deal with the subject. The guidelines are very clear in the matter of individual privacy concerns and this is not the first nomination where they are applied. The botton line: the oppose vote is invalid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. It is definitely a case where the geotag can be omitted (both studio-like shot and privacy concerns). The "coarse location data" has been appropriately added to the image page. Rastaman, I think you should remove your opposition, or formulate a comment on another basis. --Eusebius (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Eusebius, if you believe the image deserves indeed to become a VI, then why won't you support it? Then there will be 2 supports, and only 1 oppose, and the image will be promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I didn't say I wanted to support, I said your opposition is ungrounded. --Eusebius (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info We tend to allow editors quite a bit of leeway when it comes to privacy issues. It goes along with assuming good faith and encouraging people to contribute. We certainly don't want anyone to be endangered by their work here. While I know of no examples here, I am aware of a number of instances where this occurred on enwiki. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The image matches the scope. Yann (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Tomar December 2008-8.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Good --Ferengi 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Porto July 2009-1a.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments nice --Ianare 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Porto July 2009-8.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Good --Ferengi 11:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Porto July 2009-2.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments There is some ghosting in the left chain, but overall nice colors and composition. --Ferengi 11:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Porto Covo April 2009-6.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments Interesting composition, nice colors, but a little too soft. Anyone else? --Vladanr 14:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC) IMHO good for QI. --Berthold Werner 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! File:Waves July 2009-2.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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. Comments good impression of waves and atmosphere --Mbdortmund 15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)