User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive19

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

File:Disneyland_June_2008-8.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Disneyland_June_2008-8.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Décidément on t'en veut. Je te suggère de prendre l'avis de Jebulon sur ce point de droit français il est très fort. Appelle moi s'il y a un vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Merci de ton soutien, Didier. Mas je ne croit pas que ça soit personelle; c'est simplement la stupide loi française... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Hélas... Mais ce n'est pas tant la loi française qui est stupide, que son interprétation trop restrictive (anglo saxonne?) dans "Commons". Quoi qu'il en soit, en l'état actuel des choses, cette photo est "mal partie". J'en suis désolé.--Jebulon (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

ID of current VI for Pieris rapae questioned[edit]

Hello Alvesgaspar, Your image File:Butterfly May 2008-3a.jpg is the current VI for the scope Pieris rapae but I've noticed that its category has been changed and that it is now classified in Category:Pieris brassicae. Could you confirm the ID of this butterfly (and if the VI seal is still relevant?). Thank you a lot, --Myrabella (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the extend of the black patch on the top of the upper wings would indeed indicate this specimen to be a Pieris brassicae rather than a Pieris rapae. Regards. Taxocat (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I trust the judgement of Taxocat. What do you recomend, Myrabella? Maybe it is better to remove the VI seal? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, Myrabella, thanks for your help. I'll consider later the possibility of re-nominating with the new scope. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You're welcome. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FPC[edit]

Salut Alvesgaspar.

Merci pour la discussion, et surtout merci d'avoir fait l'effort de la mener en français. Tu te débrouilles très bien !
J'ai compris ce que tu voulais dire par personal agendas.
Je ne crois décidément pas que la FPC page soit en danger. Regarde ce qui se passe: les images qui ne sont pas dignes du label ne sont pas promues, tout simplement. La valeur des candidats est très inégale, mais le tri se fait quand même naturellement.
Le fait d'être passé à 7 votes "pour" fut une très bonne décision.
Ne t'inquiète pas trop à mon avis, le consensus est toujours difficile à obtenir, c'est la garantie.
Et ne vieillis pas trop vite: ce n'était pas mieux "avant" !!
Cordialement.--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Salut, Jebulon. Merci bien de tes mots sympathiques. FPC n’est peut-être pas encore moribond. En tout cas, il est en danger de devenir bien pire, si la tendance démagogique (qui est encore minoritaire) gagne plus d’adeptes. Le problème c’est que beaucoup de membres talentueux ont perdu l’intérêt (Richard, Benh, Luc, Diliff…) et n’ont pas étés totalement remplacés. Oui, je crois qu’avant le départ de ces gens-là FPC était bien mieux, mais peut-être les choses vont évoluer positivement. Ne t’en fait pas, ça ne me fait pas vieillir trop vite ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Finalement, tu as peut-être raison, ça devient vraiment n'importe quoi, et parfois tout à fait nul !! Le pire, ce n'est pas tant la qualité très mauvaise de certaines images, que les soutiens qu'elles reçoivent !! --Jebulon (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don’t think we should be much worried with these sporadic events, my friend. Either they come and go like a wind or their agents slowly integrate into the spirit of the forum and become excellent contributors. What concerns me more are some deliberate campaigns apparently aimed at eroding the consensus we still have about important principles and whose motivations I don’t fully understand (but suspect are not the noblest). A long time ago I have learned about the different styles of leadership in the organizations and still remember three types: the objective-oriented, the people-oriented and the self-oriented. Transporting these concepts into our work here we could also imagine three caricatural types of editors participating in FPC as reviewers and nominators: those mainly concerned with the goals of the project, giving little attention to people’s motivations; those mainly focused on keeping a friendly atmosphere, relegating to a secondary plan the objectives of the forum; and those mainly concerned with their own asses. While we certainly need the two first types we could well live without the third, at least in the aspects related to organization and reviewing. Anyway I believe that most people here are well aware of the differences among us, accept our limitations, recognize our work and don’t get easily fooled. Je m’excuse de ne pas avoir écrit ça en français mais ça serait trop difficile! Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Porto July 2009-2a.jpg
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:
Santo Ildefonso Church, Porto, Portugal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Bug September 2010-1.jpg
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:
Aquarius najas (Surface Dweller Bug).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

image du jour[edit]

Bravo pour l’image du jour. Elle te ressemble; gardien de nos institutions avec une pugnacité qui t’honore. On a de la chance de t’avoir. Mon mauvais anglais me tiens éloigné des discussions où tu défends des points de vue que je partage, continu ne te décourage pas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Je ne sais pas quoi dire, mon ami. Merci beaucoup! Dans ces querelles stupides et un peu artificielles, je me sens toujours seul et un peu têtu. C'est la conviction d'avoir raison et d'être observé de loin par la majorité des utilizateurs qui me fait continuer. Mais je ne le fait pas avec plaisir; le rôle de gendarme me gêne et je sens souvent l'envie de le laisser aux autres. Peut-être je dois le faire? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
J’ai longuement réfléchis à ce que tu m’a dis. Et à ce que tu fais. Je vais aller vers cette voie difficile qui consiste à ne pas faire de concessions. Je l’ai évitée jusqu’ici car elle génère beaucoup d‘inimitiés et elle expose à recevoir des coups. Mais je sens bien que tu as raison. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Taeniaptera lasciva.jpg
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:
Taeniaptera lasciva.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.
Taeniopoda reticulata.jpg
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:
Taeniopoda reticulata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

The white ??[edit]

Well, when do you come to Paris ? Il sera frais !!--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice trip ! Maybe possible to have a drink together !!--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Punica April 2011-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Punica April 2011-1.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.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Guitar May 2009-1.jpg
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:
Classical guitar headstock.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

File:Compass rose Cantino-crop.svg[edit]

Hi, I've cropped your image per your request, please check it and upload it over original file if it is ok.   ■ MMXX  talk  09:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much, but apparently it didn't work: the colors are wrong. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh! right I didn't notice first, also it seems some parts are missing, I'll upload a new one if I could fix it.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Adobe Illustrator import the file like this, I'm not sure why, I'll try to fix it but perhaps someone else could do it better.   ■ MMXX  talk  14:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Candidate list[edit]

When I said "pro" it meant for, in favor, not professional. -- Angel

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Lachnaia May 2008-1.jpg
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:
Lachnaia sexpunctata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Bugs April 2011-1.jpg
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:
Micrelytra fossularum, mating.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

SMP April 2011-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! SMP April 2011-2.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.


Oleander April 2011-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Oleander April 2011-3.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Vila Viçosa April 2011-6a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vila Viçosa April 2011-6a.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[edit]

Flower April 2011-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flower April 2011-3.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.

SMP April 2011-1a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! SMP April 2011-1a.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Glebionis April 2011-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Glebionis April 2011-1.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.

Estremoz April 2011-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Estremoz April 2011-3.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.

FP Promotion[edit]

Compass rose Cantino.svg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Compass rose Cantino.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Compass rose Cantino.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Butterfly August 2007-1.jpg
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:
Cacyreus marshalli (Geranium Bronze), lower .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Vila Viçosa April 2011-3a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vila Viçosa April 2011-3a.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.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Vila Viçosa April 2011-5.jpg
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:
Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa, Portugal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Punica April 2011-1.jpg
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:
Punica granatum (Pomegranate), flower and leaves.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

File:Eristalinus October 2007-6.jpg[edit]

  1. It's a whole fly, not only an eye and therefore should not be listed here
  2. It's an insect, therefore eyes of flys go in Category:Insect compound eyes

Kersti (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, But I'm not following you. No problem in adding the new category, if that is what you mean. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On this photo is NOT an eye but a whole animal. We can't put every photo of an animal which HAS an eye in this category. Kersti (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Better have too much than not enough categorization. Yes, the picture displays the whole insect but the holoptic compound eyes are the most important part. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
en:Holoptic: "Holoptic refers to the way the eyes of a dipteran (true fly) meet along the dorsal length of its head. Holoptic eyes are typical of several diptera males, in particular the Syrphidae (hoverflies)."
To me that means: If you think, that this is a valid criterium to categorice Flies, it may be sensible to make up a Category:Dipterans with holoptic eyes (and cite this sentence in the category description) - there someone watching the image without special knowledge of dipteran morphological details may understand why the Fly is listed there. As I didn't know why you categoriced the fly this way, I thought, that you thought "Oh what funny striped eyes" - and I think most people, who are not Diptera specialists or maybe emtomologists may have the same idea! --Kersti (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
After a short look in the fly categories: in two genera I found at least 20 Pictures where you can see the holoptic eyes, therefore I would guess that there are about 100 pictures meeting this criterium. --Kersti (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Why not just "Category:holoptic eyes"? It would also acommodate the pictures depicting only the eyes Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Because in such a category my "throwing out whole animals"-reflex automatically will be activated. ;-) One category is for eyes, the other one for animal with a special type of eye. As Body part categories usually contain ONLY pictures of the part and malformations of this part, while the species categories contain all pictures, holoptic eyes would be a category only containing eyes or maybe heads. And if one of the species has enough fotos one can sort the animals by sex and put the male category in Category:Dipterans with holoptic eyes Kersti (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

After looking a bit around I changed my mind a bit: the term holoptic refers not only to dipterans but is used in other insects as well. For example: search this[3][4][5] texts for "holoptic". There are holoptic eyes in Psychidae (some moth, both sexes), - I think holoptic eyes are quite common, and usually mentioned because they are helpful in some Dipteran and hymenoptera species to diferentiate between males and females. --Kersti (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Pigeon April 2011-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pigeon April 2011-1.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.

Barnstar[edit]

Obrigado, Senhor Alves, for this award.
I'm proud of this barnstar !
Are you sure I'm the first with 500 QI ?
Anyway, I'm proud of this too.
En route pour les 1000 !!
Merci --Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Aaargh !! User:Pudelek has 528 !!!--Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Pas de problème. Il y a une seule chose à faire ... et c'est ton tour! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Comme tu dis, pas de problème! J'ai du stock à proposer ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Bien sur, mais je ne pensais pas à ça... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
??--Jebulon (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Come on, fair is fair! Someone is missing something! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Babel problem...--Jebulon (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
ça y est j'ai compris !! Tu es plus délicat que moi, mon ami !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar for relevant services[edit]

Thanks :) --Pudelek (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Bee photo[edit]

Dear Alvesgaspar, I think this is not Megachile (the leg has an arolium, for example). Do you have other photos of it, maybe with the wing venation? Gidip (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Gidip, I'm afraid this is the only picture I have of this individual. There is also this other image, which I identified as Maegaliche as well, but taken some days later. What other genus could it be? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The second one is indeed either Megachile or Lithurgus. The first one is something from the Apidae, maybe Amegilla or Anthophora. Where was it taken? en:User:JelleD is a bee expert, he can give you a more exact ID. Always mention the location, it is important for identification. Gidip (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Image du jour[edit]

Bravo pour l'image du jour!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Merci, Didier. C'était une demi-surprise, je ne me souvenais plus... Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Moi je m'en souvenais très bien ! Tu fais de bien belles photos d'un bien beau pays ! Cette image est très réussie et mérite de nous accompagner toute cette journée...--Jebulon (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
      • (pas quel langue!, mais quelle langue!, c'est du féminin !) lol! Mais ta correction grammaticale est bonne. Je voudrais bien connaitre le portugais comme toi le français. Compliments !--Jebulon (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Ahh, tu a attrapé mon comentaire... Merci pour les compliments, Jebulon, mas je suis bien mieux avec les photos qu'avec le français écrit! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Commentaire !--Jebulon (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Un vrai cauchemar, savoir ou on met les double 'tt', 'll' et 'mm'! Les terminaisons des verbes c'est encore pire. Je suis (un peux) puls à l'aise quand je parle, bien que j'ai perdu beacoup de vocabulaire (y compris les gros mots). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion requests[edit]

Hey Alvesgaspar. If you have the time, feel free to discuss. Cheers, FAP (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC).

  • Sorry FAP, but I cannot give my opinion without looking at the pictures... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Alvesgaspar. You have new messages at Darwinius's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Comment removed[edit]

I removed your comment [6], beause I it was phrased in an uncivil manner. I understand your sentiment, but everyone must choose their words respectfully to avoid escalating conflict. --99of9 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  • You did the right thing... Still I'm just human and was already accused by this same editor of using socks (btw, he didn't even apologize after I asked for a formal verification). This wild suspiction follows a similar pattern and is itself uncivil and unproductive. Don't you agree? Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Contacto[edit]

Olá Alvesgaspar, estou a tentar contactá-lo em nome da Wikimedia Portugal. Como parece que não tem o e-mail configurado aqui no Commons, peço-lhe que me envie um e-mail para nuno.tavares [at] wikimedia.pt assim que possível. Obrigado. -- Nuno Tavares PT 10:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpg[edit]

I was wondering if you can help get the image up to wikipedia standards. You pointed out that the image is "quality of the photo is so poor", Can we fix the "dust spots in the sky"? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, I have marked the two dust spots on the image, which can be removed easily with some graphic application. As for the general lack of quality (e.g. lack of sharpness and detail), I'm afraid it won't be possible to fix. The compact camera is to blame, not the photographer! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for marking the two spots. I know the cameras that were used during the revolution by most of the protesters kinda suck; problem is most of the photos cannot be retaken so I feel that have to try to improve them. Problem is, I suck at using paint or any other graphic application so I am going 2 need all help I can get. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I have given a try here. Please feel free to use it or to replace the original file, if you want to. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for you help. YOU ROCK :D I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)