User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive6

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

Contents

In reply to your question[edit]

That was shot with a one month old six megapixel camera. What led you to mistake it for a cell phone?[1] Durova 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Mainly the extreme noise, which should not occur with a ISO setting of 80, and also the general unsharpness. Notice the wood structure and the trees, both at left, and the sky - Alvesgaspar 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • A similar level of noise can be seen in this web review of your camera: [2], which is a clear indication that we should blame the hardware, not the photographer... - Alvesgaspar 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • (sigh) Thanks. Durova 20:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Eristalis 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalis 2007-1.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.

Greenwich 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Greenwich 2007-1.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.

Purdy[edit]

"Purdy" means "pretty", though it's incredibly slang and I really shouldn't have used it. I don't think you'll find it in any dictionary. Sorry for the confusion. Ben Aveling 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Help :-)[edit]

Best wishes for the new year! :-). You are becoming a bit of a fly expert, so can you give me your best guess as to what you think this beast is: Image:Small striped fly 02.jpg, Image:Small striped fly 01.jpg ? :-) --Tony Wills 11:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • An excellent New Yer for you too, full of flies and critters to shoot. I prefer this composition though I honestly don't think either of then is good enough to reach QI status due to being too dark and unsharp. But you should try anyway, maybe I'm becoming too exigent. It is a hoverfly without a doubt, maybe be Scaeva sp.. - Alvesgaspar 12:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Silverfish 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Silverfish 2007-2.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Tile roofs-edit.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tile roofs-edit.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.

Autumn 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Autumn 2007-1.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.

Hieracium 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hieracium 2007-1.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.

Calendula 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Calendula 2007-1.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.

Posterization[edit]

Thanks for submitting that, i will try to put back the exif data once i find a good enough application to work in (i think you can edit fairly well from vista directly). Is that the best way to reduce noise and posterization? Should i nominate this again in QI, or just change the previous nom? Thanks again Chris_huh 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think there should be better applications for denoising, but I'm not an expert on that (Lycaon is). Not necessary to nominate again, if you replace the image - Alvesgaspar 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007/Galleries[edit]

Hi Alvesgaspar, if you could have a quick look at these categorisations over the next two days to make sure they are "sane", I would really appreciate it. thanks --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments. Some of the ones you mentioned are ones I was already uncertain about. Re Image:Fishmarket 01.jpg, I was influenced by the title that it is dead and no longer primarily an animal. It is an interesting philosophical point. ;) I will carry out the changes tomorrow if no one else does by then. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Fly December 2007-20.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly December 2007-20.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.

Hoverfly December 2007-17.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly December 2007-17.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.

Sunset 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sunset 2007-2.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.

Commons Photography Guide[edit]

Hello Alvesgaspar,

For a long time, I have been wondering if Commons should have a Wikimedia Common Photography guide. However, the more I think about it, the more I realise that most could be achieved with collaborative writing.

As for your contribution, I was wondering if you would be interested in participating in such project by writing section related macro photography with theme something like "Arthropods and flower - macrophotography view". Or something like that. After all, you hacve so many QIs and FPs in those categories and should be able to guide those interested in those subjects.

Would you be interested in such project? I.e. there would be some general pohotography guide in beginning, but also subject oriented sections like macro mentioned above. Interested? --Thermos 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alvesgaspar,

As per your message, I took this one step further. Please see:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photography_Guide_Project_Alpha

Hello,
Unfortunately the project page was deleted because of lack of media (I suppose). An undeletion request has been filed and I hope to have the page up on later day. In the meanwhile, sorry for inconvenience. I will notify you on the further developments. --Thermos 03:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
As you can see it has now been restored (to the commons: name-space) --Tony Wills 09:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Hoverfly December 2007-8.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Hoverfly December 2007-8.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoverfly December 2007-8.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

Congratulations, really a beautiful picture --Simonizer 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Table-cloth 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Table-cloth 2008-1.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.

Plea[edit]

Hi, regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Hoverfly_September_2007-13.jpg. I would like to implore you not to purge old submissions like Image:Hoverfly September 2007-13.jpg, that you might not feel are your best work, but are of good quality by Commons standards! There is no other image of this insect in flight from this angle. :-) --Tony Wills 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, Tony, I'll do as you want. But very often I feel I'm wasting Wikimedia limited resources with my sub-standard images (which nobody uses) Alvesgaspar 09:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I do not think we should be too worried about a few of your images wasting resources, even your worst is far better than average :-). And on average there are 3000 images added every day!? For slightly different reasons I took the liberty of removing {{duplicate}} from Image:Greenwich_clock_1.jpg and others, on the basis that these are not actual exact duplicates. I would understand if you wanted to nominate them for deletion, but really feel the QIC archives should reflect the full discussion of an image, especially where the image gets promoted (similarly for FPC). --Tony Wills 10:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chrysantemum January 2008-1.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[edit]

Galactites January 2008-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Galactites January 2008-3.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.

POTY[edit]

Olá! Eu coloquei um anúncio em todas as Esplanadas lusófonas, incluindo a da Wikipédia, que, desconfio, são mais lidas que a página principal... Aqui que ninguém nos ouve ;) a comunidade é avessa mesmo ao Commons, tem medo de carregar imagens, o costume. Posso talvez colocar uma pequena nota no Sitenotice, como se encontra aqui no Commons, aparecendo então em todas as páginas. Provavelmente alguém não vai gostar, mas paciência :P.

Estou a tentar fazer com que todas as imagens tenham descrição em Português, mas a coisa é lenta, hehe. Quando forem conhecidos os finalistas, certificar-me-ei que essas imagens, pelo menos, tenham descrição em Português :). Patrícia msg 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Moro em Estocolmo. Conheci um sueco jeitoso e cá estou eu, hehe.
Ando a matutar sobre esse problema do Commons parecer tão antipático aos olhos da comunidade lusófona... estou a pensar montar uma página tipo FAQ com as queixas mais comuns e o que os usuários podem fazer para minimizar o desconforto de usar o Commons. Foi feito um grande esforço de tradução de predefinições, documentação, etc, para que pelo menos a língua não fosse um entrave. Acho que o resto virá com o tempo. Patrícia msg 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Hebe January 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hebe January 2008-1.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.

re:POTY 2007[edit]

Thank you very much, Joaquim, for letting me know about this. I did not see it and it is really nice. I guess I missed many things that were going on at Commons. It is great to be back!
I believe it may be an error in this image Namibie Himba 0720a.jpg at your page. I believe the image was not taken by Lycon unless I'm missing something.
Congratulations on your recent quality and FP promotions! Thank you.--Mbz1 03:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be an error in this image Le Stade Olympique de Montréal Nuit Arriere Edit 1.jpgtoo. I believe it was taken by Acarpentier and edited by Sting.--Mbz1 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Joaquim, It's not an easy choice, we have a lot of stunning photos as POTY candidates. USA Antelope-Canyon.jpg is not mine but was taken by Lucas Löffler. --LucaG 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Greenwich clock 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Greenwich clock 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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Mallow January 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mallow January 2008-1.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.

Galactites January 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Galactites January 2008-1.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[edit]

Hieracium January 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hieracium January 2008-1.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.

Some of you QICs[edit]

Hello Joaquim! You nominated these pictures on QIC:

Upon closer inspection the all seem to be either a little out of focus or have rather washed out details. I was wondering if you did something unusual with them. Did you use Neat Image (blurring them a bit too much)? Which lens did you use? --Dschwen 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You are right, they are all on the soft side. The only tools I used were the usual contrast enhancement (levels) and a bit of USM. It was rather windy and haisy and rainy, but I'm not sure this explains the anomaly. The lens was my general purpose Nikkor 18-200 (do you want to buy it, I'll make a good price ;-) ) -- Alvesgaspar 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Show of support[edit]

How about a good, honest Portuguesian show of support there for my pet rock. -- carol 08:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • How about featuring my mother's tablecloth first ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 10:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And, of course, the rock from Digon3's backyard - Alvesgaspar 11:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Digon3 said that he purchased the rock some time ago
  2. Tomorrow was supposed to be Stone Soup!
I would type some good old fashioned American cuss words right now to express my frustration if I thought I could get away with it. Does this mean that you think that 2 real QI are worth one fake FP? -- carol 13:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Hebe January 2008-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hebe January 2008-2.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.


Image:Erodium histogram.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright Image:Erodium histogram.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Unless the graphic software is free Yuval Y § Chat § 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Neuenstein Castle[edit]

Hello Alvesgaspar,

Neutral for now. Quite good quality, except for the posterization of the sky.
Maybe it can be corrected. - Alvesgaspar 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the level of quality you maintain, and your photographic expertise. But can you point out where there are obvious parts of posterisation in the sky. I do see some noise (oh the joy of having a prosumer and not a fully professional camera, and sensor noise) and some faint clouds, but on my monitor I cannot identify posterisation. Also this image is a second generation JPEG (from this 1st generation photo), both generations with a quite high quality setting, but if that turned out to be detrimental on the image quality, I could redo the changes from the originating TIFF stitch file. --Klaus with K 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Congratulations[edit]

  • Thank you, Joaquim. Please don't worry, you supported the image in the original nomination, but even if you did not there's nothing to be embarassed about. As a matter of fact it is me, who is very much embarassed for my reaction on each and every oppose vote for my images and for opposing other people images with "no value" vote.--Mbz1 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

SantoCondestável 2008-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! SantoCondestável 2008-2.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly January 2008-6.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.

Erodium January 2008-4a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Erodium January 2008-4a.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]

Flower poster.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

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

Cscr-featured.svg

--Mywood 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Daisy January 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Daisy January 2008-1.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[edit]

Galactites January 2008-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Galactites January 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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Hoverfly January 2008-8.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly January 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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Vanessa January 2008-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vanessa January 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.

Bug January 2008-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bug January 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.

Lousy crustaceans and a few more things[edit]

Image:Woodlouse poster.jpg is kind of a neat image to me. If this thing is about 4-5mm long, I used to play with similar when I was a child. It worked the other way though, where the first frame should be the 'louse' stretched out and when it gets some attention it curls up.... Then with a flick of the thumb and fore-finger be sent rolling to a new location; I like to think that I did not do that very often though.

I had written promotion on it when I noticed that some of the frames were only half in focus. It might be fun to discuss this image (like is the total greater than the sum of the parts?) -- but I am not good at predicting which images will get discussion and which won't. -- carol 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I have inserted a little explanation text in the image file. Yes, in one of the pictures the focus is not perfect. At that time the critter was already walking.. -- Alvesgaspar 12:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

other things[edit]

I requested that some of your photographs be renamed and they were. Without going into specifics, I think Dandelion clock got renamed and I considered putting a new name on the recent QI called "Bug" -- I haven't done this yet because when I was looking to see what type of bug it was, they have a set of 'real bugs' and this is one of them. The classification system is mostly very new to me.

Would it be rude of me to ask you to stop naming things that way? Dandelion clock -- those were days when you were first learning to identify flowers and things (I read that nomination stuff, I think) -- but I think that you should know how to do this by now.

This environment is interesting because there is a trust thing and there is also people just learning (like me, I am having a heck of a time figuring out what bird I saw today, for instance and you when you first found out that hieracium was not a dandelion) and I can show you evidence of people who present themselves as knowledgeable and put bogus information here.

Bug-2008? -- carol 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just my 2c worth: I think simple descriptive names of plants and animals is best (yellow flower 001.jpg, green bug 1001.jpg etc), as there is nothing like giving something a specific species name and then finding it is wrong some time later. As we don't have a proper rename image option, the re-upload and delete original procedure is a pain and tends to loose revisions, discussion pages and history. Who cares what the filename is, it is only in a single language anyway, not really very useful when searching for images. The most important bit is the description, preferably in more than one language. --Tony Wills 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Carol, for promoting the renaming of that photo. I think there are still some left with bad names. Very seldom I name a picture with the full scientific name. As Tony has pointed out, there is always the chance of a misidentification -- Alvesgaspar 12:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so with this going in a different direction now, are you sure your Hieracium lachenalli photographs have been named correctly? -- carol 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to be really really safe, you could name your photographs 'Unidentified Flower 2008'. -- carol 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To the best of my little knowledge, the flowers I have classified as Hieracium belong indeed to that genus. I'm not so sure about the species, as there are several thousand (see here) and I'm not a botanist. Anyway, it is not possible now to be sure about the ID of all those photographs as they don't show the leaves. -- Alvesgaspar 11:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, naming things 'Unidentified ...' is even worse, it will surely have to be renamed. Sometimes people want to put a very specific scientific name on a picture, when that picture doesn't show enough detail to distinguish it from other species. If you can not tell the difference then it does not matter :-) --Tony Wills 10:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Weevil February 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Weevil February 2008-1.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.


Butterfly Reset[edit]

Dear Alves, there where some concerns by Dori that i did mayor changes while fixing the posterization spoken by Laitche and you. I did small changes in the lower right corner which is a tad lighter now. To make shure everything is going correctly i kindly asking you if you can vote again and would be very thankful. Just copy your old vote. Best regards --Richard Bartz 13:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Flower February 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flower February 2008-1.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.

Chrysanthemum February 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chrysanthemum February 2008-1.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.

Image:Woodlouse poster.jpg[edit]

I just blurred the background of the fourth image and I think it is an improvement. There are three options and I am not certain which to do.

  1. upload over your version
  2. upload to a separate namespace
  3. upload to my web site and if you like the changes you can download it and upload it over your version.

-- carol 06:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you Carol, I think options 2 is OK. Why don't you propose the improved version? -- Alvesgaspar 08:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I did maybe 15 minutes of work to it. Affording the camera, being in the same place as the woodlouse, knowing how to operate the camera and experience with it. Getting a usable sequence of photographs. These things I did not do. I do not like that people took credit for my work or did not take it seriously or whatever happened to me -- I do not like for to do this to others. It does nothing to move humans forward -- mentally or for what to really believe in or for anything at all. That laws get followed instead of good sense -- that financial credit is given to people who never had finances stress -- blah blah blah and more. I would prefer that you upload it and give a little credit to me for the 15 minutes of work that you could have probably done yourself.... -- carol 11:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, Carol, do as you prefer -- Alvesgaspar 12:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The edit I made to the Wright Flyer image -- I probably spent close to 24 hours on that (I did it twice -- once before I adjusted the levels and I redid it after thinking about that), not including the time it took to get it printed so that I would not embarrass myself by uploading a version that was not as good as the FP version. The Pena Castle edit was another edit where I think I did more to improve the photograph than the photographer did to take it. The panorama that is in QI now; I don't think that I did more work on that than the person who did the stitching. My experience with stitching is limited and my experience with the software that does this is non-existent so I might be wrong about that (but I don't think so; there are some things that software just can't do). The poster should be here. If you would like the xcf that contains the mask, let me know. -- carol 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you again! You only edited the one at bottom right, I think. Do you want to nominate the picture at QIC ? Alvesgaspar 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Whatever you think is best -- you have been contributing and voting in these things for a long while now. And yes, it was only a blurring of the lower corner background, it bothered me that it was sharp there only. I think that it is visually better this way. I guess that photoshop can make a blur over a gradient (probably I could get gimp to do this also) but the bug in that image is not tilted. Did you blur the other backgrounds as I just described or is that a natural thing that the lens and camera did? -- carol 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I couldn't stand the nothingness which is apparently what you thought any longer -- carol 05:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My favorite place in California[edit]

The best that California has to offer (since everyone else is a method actor.

What happens when an immature being gets to interrupt a good life because he is financially enabled too and reduces that life to a very sad version of the childs game 'playing house'. The message is "don't study and learn things" and "don't work hard". Just talk crap. For example say things like 'everything you learned in that class you shared with graduate students 4 years into your study of the subject I learned in high school'.

The time spent these last years reviewing my life (anyone with a more than 2 or 3 decades behind them can stack the events up differently and look at them this way) -- there is perhaps evidence that an effort has been made to prove an observation I made in the 80s. That observation is that men are born gay and women are made that way. The observation continues about women that says that having destructive relationships is not due to the gender of the partner. My life is indeed very full of women who were able to make men show themselves to be very weak and not deserving of real affection. The problem with this experience stack is this though -- the willingness of women to help men display their weakness. I am not claiming that all women are like this, but when your own mother participates -- the women expose themselves to be much weaker and more ugly then the men they opted to expose. It really does nothing to improve the attractiveness of either gender.

There is a lot to be said about the animals and even the plants in these photographs in in the documentation. How they evolve to make themselves more attractive to the other gender so that the species can continue. I had a really bad and wrong few years recently. Years in which I am quite certain that my chemistry was altered from foods I ingested. I started to walk more and watch my food intake and my weight increased then. My brain and body felt affection when there wasn't any. My perfectly good heart raced upon consuming a food that I purchased here -- and behaved as if it had received medication as it started to race 20 minutes after ingesting the food and it would stop within a few hours.

If I had known that all of my life spent working hard at my hourly jobs and learning the content of the subjects I studied in college would add up to put me here where I guess that in this new millennium women are still perceived as merely able to reproduce and looking for a means to do this -- I would not have worked so hard at any of that.

To more on subject subjects. I think it would be in all of the wiki's best interest to manage the woman who is uploading and in the constant need of the approval of both the CFP and EFP voters of her renovated old photographs -- I just think it would be best if she follow the same profile that GIMP developers made for the girl they 'installed' into their environment. Where she just gets to do anything she wants and gets a lot of credit. Where do I go to start this process?

I have seen this before; it is childish like the incredibly stupid situation that exists here in California for me. The sausage grinder was a great image but an even better one is of women mud wrestling since this seems to be the only thing that the anonymous internet is able to fabricate since my unfortunate, misguided and wrong relocation here to California. -- carol 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Chrysanthemum February 2008-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chrysanthemum February 2008-2.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.

Image:Asteracea poster.jpg[edit]

I have no objection :-). I am not sure about how you ought to license an image made up of multiple other images. For example is CC-BY-2.5 entirely compatible with CC-BY-3.0 etc, so that you can license the poster as CC-BY-3.0 even though some of the parts are only CC-BY-2.5? I do not know the answer. But I have added a GFDL license to my image, so that all images now have a GFDL license, which allows the combined image to also be GFDL. I also added an image-map to the other_versions section of your poster instead of the mini-gallery. --Tony Wills 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the nice improvement! I though of something similar but had no idea how to do it -- Alvesgaspar 09:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

PortoCovo February 2008-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! PortoCovo February 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.

Flower February 2008-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flower February 2008-2.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Geranium February 2008-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Geranium February 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.

Geranium February 2008-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Geranium February 2008-3.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]

Oxalis February 2008-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Oxalis February 2008-2.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.

Você é muito bom[edit]

Fico admirado em ver tantas fotos suas sendo promovidas. Quando crescer, quero ser igual a você =) Pedro Spoladore 13:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Olá, Joaquim. Bom, posta sua dúvida, só tenho a dizer que se eu chegar perto de suas habilidades de fotógrafo (e tiver uma D80 também), serei uma pessoa mais feliz e completa, hehe. É nesse sentido que tenho muito a crescer. Outro assunto: O que você me diz do artigo w:History_of_cartography? Por que não temos um desse na wikipédia lusófona? Você não poderia começar um esboço? =) Pedro Spoladore 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is worry that your feelings were hurt[edit]

Do go vote your feelings about this!! -- carol 23:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations[edit]

My watchlist shows that you just tweaked your illustrations -- how about one that is good and specific for Asteraceae for a page I started at en:Terminology for Asteraceae. I was looking around commons for something and all I found was Image:Mature flower diagram.svg which is kind of confusing for Asteraceae. The best illustration so far for an Asteraceae floret is a cute little png -- that is another which could use a well crafted SVG of.

Are you busy? -- carol 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice article you have started on flower terminology. Yes, I'm quite busy right now but I'll keep that idea in mind. -- Alvesgaspar 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Coleostephus February 2008-2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Coleostephus February 2008-2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Coleostephus February 2008-2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Mywood 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

the idiot button and the blue assed bee[edit]

This was a really entertaining image for me to see make the rounds on what is usually my worst month of the year. -- thanks for the effort carol 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Asteracea poster 3.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Asteracea poster 3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Asteracea poster 3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Mywood 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

jumping spider[edit]

hi alvesgaspar,

first many thanks for the nice pictures you uploaded, i've seen quite a few for some time now. yes, i deleted the category from the salticid picture, but i had a reason: this picture is already in Unknown Salticidae. if we tag all pictures with Category:Salticidae, this category becomes a mess that is very hard to maintain. so, i deleted the cat again. if you still think this is a bad idea, just leave me a note. keep the spider pictures coming! :) --Sarefo 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, I understand now. Thank you -- Alvesgaspar 10:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

your maps[edit]

Your maps are all really cool. I was disappointed though because Alboran is not on the FPC nom. I would like to know when that island began to exist -- probably not recently enough for cartographers to have mapped the area before it was. -- carol 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The island has been known for a very very long time has it is part of the Mediterranean basin, where the western civilization was born. You can find it, for example, in the Dulcert portolan chart of 1339 or in the Cantino planisphere of 1502, just north of Mellila. -- Alvesgaspar 16:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, the island is on the FPC nom! Just look more carefully -- Alvesgaspar 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Very very cool! Reading about these places from the POV of the plant species that live there has been infinitely more interesting than travel spiel fodder or, put differently, evolution and survival is so much better than romance and beauty -- at least for me. These islands moved from being places with boring weather where beautiful people get tans (and boyfriends in the case of Ibiza and how it is represented here) on the beaches to being interesting in the extreme and unique. Then your maps showed up! There is much that I am not saying. Modern nautical charts are beautiful, not this pretty though. The flourishes on the edges (is it Illumination?) were for the people were to evolve to be the people who like to lay around on the beach that the travel spiel is aimed at? My dad, my brother and I had a great adventure once -- the charts weren't there. Something about 15-20 miles traveled instead of 3. Dad was really angry; it is a great memory.... </rambling> carol 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The suggestion about the coordinates -- it would be cool to compare this area of the world then with the satellite maps now! and I haven't looked yet-- carol 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FPC statistics[edit]

I was thinking of updating this image. Did you have an automated way of producing it, or did you just count up the numbers month by month? If the latter, did you keep a copy of the table of results to save me having to count all those number up again? --MichaelMaggs 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

You've recently noted that there is a quality problem 'in full size' with [3]. The image has been added a tag that helps view it at more comfortable resolutions (800px, 1500px, 2000px wide) and I was hoping that you'll reconsider your vote. Jaakobou 15:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

en:Eratosthenes or too close for comfort?[edit]

I find it exceedingly interesting that en:Eratosthenes and this are similarly located and that the message appeared today on the wiki and not February 1 when it should have. All that being said, reproducing that work from then in the near future would be an interesting project? I have seen it done before and it happens to be an interesting project.

At the same while, I am working on useful range maps for plants. If they are useful for plants, they will be useful for the animals and insects that feed on them and the fungus that lives in the same soil and the animals and insects that feed on the animals and insects that feed on the plants....

It would be nice to attend that with something useful and with something fun, could you write up a something about reproducing Eratosthenes measurements since I know nothing of map terminology? -- carol 08:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of bfe? It makes the event even closer to being a joke.... -- carol 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do. No, have no idea what bfe is - Alvesgaspar 19:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
both is good news! -- carol 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Euphorbia February 2008-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Euphorbia February 2008-2.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.

Bee February 2008-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bee February 2008-3.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.

APOLOGY[edit]

I wrote an article that said that the mosquito was in both brazil and portugal and then a few weeks later accused you of living in brazil because of it -- and the hieracium species. I would like to say that my brain is not what it used to be, but unfortunately it seems unchanged.... -- carol 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No big, deal, Brazil is a wonderful country! ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Vanessa February 2008-1.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Vanessa February 2008-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Vanessa February 2008-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Mywood 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Wasp March 2008-1.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Wasp March 2008-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wasp March 2008-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Mywood 08:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Fernão Vaz Dourado 1570-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fernão Vaz Dourado 1570-1.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[edit]

Wasp March 2008-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasp March 2008-3.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]

Fernão Vaz Dourado 1571-1.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Fernão Vaz Dourado 1571-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fernão Vaz Dourado 1571-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Bartolomeu Velho 1568.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Bartolomeu Velho 1568.jpg , that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bartolomeu Velho 1568.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

-- Alvesgaspar 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:To pot the red.jpg[edit]

It may be worth adding an explanation of your striking of one oppose vote, for future reference. --MichaelMaggs 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem, if was done before with this newly created user. Anyway an explanation was added -- Alvesgaspar 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your vandalism[edit]

Why did you vandalize my nomination? It was serious nomination of quality image. --Maxima 2390 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Spider and fly March 2008-2.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Spider and fly March 2008-2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Spider and fly March 2008-2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

-- Alvesgaspar 17:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Woodlouse[edit]

Hi Alvesgaspar,

The woodlouse you have uploaded, correctly indicated as Armadillidium sp. is not a very common one (certainly not A. vulgare). I would like to try and get a correct ID for the animal, but will need a little more information such as locality and maybe altitude (+/-). Could you add such data to the image description page?? Thanks in advance! Pudding4brains 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info! I don not own any literature on Woodlice from Portugal, but I will try and find out as much as I can with what I have for France and Greece. I'll be back ;o) Pudding4brains 14:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again,
Gottit ... it's Armadillidium granulatum - Brandt, 1833  :o)
It's not a rare species at all, but your image seems to be the first available on the internet nevertheless - cheers for that!! ;o)
Your original upload was in the public domain (as are all my images ;o) ). As I'm preparing a website on Woodlice (mostly Dutch woodlice, but with some foreign species aswell) I will probably use (parts of) that original image for the site at some point. Will let you know if/when it comes online.
Thanks for making the image available! Pudding4brains 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your reaction on my talk-page: Many beautiful images in your galleries - enjoyed browsing them! If the "Armadillidium vulgare" images are also taken in Portugal the ID should be okay - the other species listed for the area look different and this one certainly does look like A.vulgare ;o). For your Image:Silverfish 2007-2.jpg I'm not at all sure the ID is correct however. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not a Lepisma. My money would be on probably a Ctenolepisma, possibly Ctenolepisma longicaudata but I'm still in the process of figuring these out myself and certainly don't know enough about the species you might have where you live :o( Cheers! Pudding4brains 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure ?[edit]

Hi Alvesgaspar,

I see that you've added a banner "featured picture" in the page of the map Image:Kosovo map-en.svg. But are you sure about that ? Because the nomination page says "not featured", so, I don't know...

Sémhur

  • But a new version was nominated here ... -- Alvesgaspar 09:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Arf... I havn't seen this one. But when you click on the link "see its nomination" in the banner, you arrive in the first nomination page, which indicate "not featured", so it's seem strange (but I don't know if this thing can be modified).
    About your question on the "disputed border" and "accepted border", it is the result of a compromise between pro- and anti-independence of Kosovo. I think it's not the best, but it's the most NPoV. Sémhur 10:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Tipulid March 2008-7.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tipulid March 2008-7.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.

Tipulid March 2008-6.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tipulid March 2008-6.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.

Bee March 2008-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bee March 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.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:061212-nordkapp.jpg[edit]

I think maybe this FPC could remain open(or temporarily suspended) for a day or so as the image sizes readily available at the source suggest an alternative source could be possible and that the uploader may have released the image legitimately even if only as a means of advertising/self promotion. Thats why I ask the uploader to clarify the licensing rather just delete it as a copyright violation. Gnangarra 15:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Bee March 2008-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bee March 2008-5.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Acacia March 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Acacia March 2008-1.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.

Chicago 2007-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chicago 2007-4.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.


Re: your picture[edit]

Thank you, Joaquim. Your picture is much, much better and may I please ask you to add your name to the summary.--Mbz1 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A little help[edit]

Hello Alvesgaspar,

i need a little help with sorting the last three recently promoted QIs into the QI galleries. I am a bit lost if those are bugs, beetles, flies or something else :-) I tried to find it out, but was somehow not sucessful Can you help me out? --AngMoKio 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Simple, they should all be put in the Hemipterodea group: the bug, the aphids and the cicada. Cheers, Alvesgaspar 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot. --AngMoKio 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Mauvaise foi[edit]

Je suis un peu surpris de voir que tu décline des photos de la page candidats au label qualité quand je vois tes propositions. Comment peut-tu te permettre de critiquer certaines photos alors que les tiennes sont minables ? (mais largement aidé par tes amis) exemple:Image:Sonchus March 2008-1.jpg Quand on voit cette proposition (aidée par Fukutaro) je me dis que t'est drolement gonflé de critiquer des propositions bien meilleures. De plus la partialité des commentaires est à mettre en doute. Je t'invite donc (après 4 commentaires ridicules) à passer ton chemin et ne plus commenter mes propositions.--Toubabmaster 10:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If you don't agree with my judgement all you have to do is to move the nominations to Consensual Review section and ask for other opinions. As a newcomer to QIC you certainly would profit more by accepting technical criticism than by accusing the reviewers of bad faith. By the way, the treatment "tu" et "toi" is normally reserved to friends, family and kids...-- Alvesgaspar 11:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Decline Too small" What a wonderfull technical criticism. Petite leçon de français au passage le vouvoiement est réservé aux personnes que l'on ne connait pas (après 4 critiques sur mes propositions ce n'est plus le cas) ou bien aux personnes que l'on souhaite respecter.--Toubabmaster 11:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


VICs[edit]

Bom día(?), Alves! Thank you for test nominating the VICs. I am curious to hear what your impression is of the nomination process. Is it easy/tedious? Are the fields to consider appropriate? Are the guidelines for nomination clear? -- Slaunger 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Bom dia (no accent), Slaunger. I'm still reading and processing the data, I'll let you know. Yes, the nomination process looks easy enough. I only had trouble with this nomination, doesn't appear properly in the page. Is it because of the gif format? It would be a nice thing to attract en:WP people for the project and make them give up of their own. But it won't be easy! -- Alvesgaspar 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Bom dia, Alves! For some reason the subst: in front of SUBPAGENAME was not there in the image parameter, which caused it to fail. I have fixed that and re-added your sextant nomination (very nice, btw)!
I really appreciate that you and Dschwen are arguing against having a parallel WP:VP project. It would really be a waste of resources IMO. It is much better to join forces here on Commons for the benefit of all WMF projects and not just WP. But I agree, it will ot be easy. As I see it many of the WP regulars sees it as a barrier to leave the safe and well-known WP, and for once see Commons as a useful community and not just as a media repository. -- Slaunger 13:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

QIC Image:Portait_of_Johann_Jacob_Baeyer.jpg[edit]

Hi Alvesgaspar, I cropped the image a little bit. Would be nice if you could review it again. Thanks, --Agadez 18:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pilatus PC-6 SkydiveLillo JD18032008 edit.jpg[edit]

Hi Alvesgaspar, I like your edit of my Pilatus picture, thank you. I thought about it myself, but refrained in favor of "truth", which turns out was not the best choice. I would now like to upload your edit as a new version of my picture, credit you for the edit and mark your "...edit.jpg" version for deletion, if you agree? Cheers, --JDrewes 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure, go ahead. But it is not necessary to credit me, that was a quick job you could have done easily -- Alvesgaspar 12:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Flower March 2008-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flower March 2008-3.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.

Sonchus March 2008-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sonchus March 2008-1.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.

Maps : scale and accuracy (again)[edit]

Hi Alvesgaspar.
I'm contacting you again about the scales of the maps regarding the accuracy of the elements showed.
In search of more information about this subject, I found the U.S. National Map Accuracy Standards where it is said (resumed) that they use an horizontal precision equivalent to 0.5mm (1/50th of inch) on the edited map. For the French Institut Géographique National, it seems they adopted a precision of 0.1mm for all (?) their maps. As example, this would give an horizontal accuracy for a point on a 1:100,000 scale map at 50m close for the U.S. maps and 10m for the French ones. A big difference !
On the other side, you gave me few months ago a precision on edited maps of 0.25mm, an average of the two above. By the way, is it the Portuguese standard ?
Isn't there an international standard concerning the geographic precision one can expect with maps at a given scale coming from different countries ? If not, mentioning the scale alone on the map doesn't make much sense if there's no indication of the standard used.
In this case, which value / standard would you recommend to use for the digital maps here in Wikipedia ?
Thanks. Sting 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is any international standard for planimetric accuracy, aplying to all kinds of maps, especially to digital maps. But those standards exist for particular types of maps, like topographic maps and nautical charts. When I was active on the field, the value of 0,25mm was adopted in nautical cartographcy because it corresponds (more or less) to the smallest distance that the human eye can descriminate. Also, it is a common practise in hydrographic surveying to use a scale at least twice the scale of the chart the data will be used in. I agree that a value of 0,5mm seems too large and 0,1mm way too small. Of course, it is not this value that matters "per se" but the corresponding planimetric accuracy (on the field) required for a particular scale. During the next weeks I'll be talking with people involved in chart making. I'll ask them about the modern international standards and let you know. At the meantime, I would recomemnd a value not larger than 1/3mm. Cheers, Alvesgaspar 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer (I didn't pay attention you replied on this page). Yes, I'm quiet confused with this story of scale and accuracy as I don't have cartographic formation. If I understood well until now, there's no evident relation between the two because each country uses different standards and as you say, this may also vary depending on the type of the map.
I'm also confused with what you call « scale » : usually people understand for « scale » the ratio between a linear distance on the edited map and its equivalent on the ground, but you use this term to characterize the precision of the map. Are there special words to make the difference between the two ?
For example, I have a printed map at a 1:100,000 scale (1cm = 1km with a spatial accuracy of 100,000 x 0.25mm = 25m). I make a scan, zoom it twice and print it again. Now, my map will be twice larger with a « linear scale » of 1cm = 0.5km but with an « accuracy scale » which will remain the same (25m) : what will be its scale ?
Thanks for clearing this point. Greetings. Sting 15:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Scale is exactely what you say, i. e. the ratio between the length of a segment on the map and on the ground. We say that a survey have some scale S when the data is collected in the field (and plotted in a field board) with an accuracy equal or better than 0.25 x S (or some other value). For example, in a 1:2,000 survey, the planimetric accuracy should be 0.5m or better. We shouldn't normally enlarge a map, as this will transmit a wrong idea about its accuracy. In your example, and assuming that the spatial accuracy was indeed 25m, nothing is gained by doubling the scale. For several times now, I have stressed the need of including the numerical scale in digital maps, as well as its nominal size (the size at which the scale applies). That is why I have also defended the png format for these maps, so that the images cannot be enlarged beyond its nominal size. -- Alvesgaspar 17:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Okayyyy ! That's much clearer now : when cartographers talk of « scale », they mean de facto something like « linear scale associated to its standard accuracy ». I think that in most people's mind, this duality isn't evident, at least it wasn't for me until your explanation. The fact you can find edited maps of reasonable size (tourist maps for example) but with a very simplified shape doesn't help. I think also that the fact cartographers never speak of accuracy but only of scale, as well as the indications put on the printed maps, contributes to this confusion (specially when standards differ from one country to another). Scale and accuracy are tightly linked, but almost nobody makes mention of this. That's also a problem with digital maps, whatever their format, because you can download them, up- or downsample them, print them bigger to make them more readable, but you will break this link. Wow ! Not easy to handle !
So before creating a digital map, the best would be to check first the accuracy of the digital data used and only then give it a size in pixels (or number of pixels per inch) for which, when printed at a 1:1 ratio, the linear scale matches the associated precision. Correct ? Sting 23:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okayyy, you got it right and I could finally pass my message! Maybe you understand now why I don't feel confortable in reviewing map nominations here, as I have no means of assessing its accuracy. And the accuracy of a map (both positional and thematic accuracy) are the most important elements of its quality. It would be like approving a mathematical formulae just because it looks nice, without checking if it works. I would certainly support the promotion of a map taken from Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" or Ursula Le Guin's "Earthsea" just for their beauty. Or a medieval map, where the known World is circular and divided in three parts, each one of them attributed to each of the three sons of Noah. But not a "home-made" topographic map of unknown accuracy and map projection, constructed with a cheap GPS receiver -- Alvesgaspar 03:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good ! One step achieved ! Now, these standards are meant for professional and commercial printed maps made by national geographic institutes. Here we are in the Wikipedia project of encyclopaedia, so should the standards of precision be so rigid as the responsibilities are different ? When I look at a printed atlas of good level, I can notice that the accuracy doesn't seem to be as precise : the shorelines for example are simplified, avoiding the smallest details. Is there some widely accepted accuracy standard for encyclopaedias / atlas ?
An example : for my topographic map of Scotland, to match both the linear and accuracy scale of the topography (1:3,000,000), I have to print the map at a size of 17.5 x 25 cm for which the map looks very highly detailed, far more in my opinion that the ones found in printed encyclopaedias or atlas. And what about the accuracy of the bathymetry (1:4,000,000) ?
I have the same problem with a topographic map of the Red Sea I'm preparing and I would like your advise about it. For the topography, I use NASA's SRTM30 DEMs (accuracy 927m). I extract the bathymetry from Demis maps which seem to use the GTOPO30, so at the same accuracy. For the shorelines, lakes and rivers, I use the vector VMap-0 data which absolute horizontal accuracy, for these data, is 2040m. In the absolute, I should draw the map in a size that will give a printed linear scale of 1:8,160,000 as it is the equivalent accuracy of the VMap-0 but this would make me lose a lot of information for the topography and bathymetry for which the related scale is 1:3,708,000 as their details will be so small that they will be invisible. Beside, what is strange is that several streams and islands are represented at a distance of less than 350 m one of each other (measured in the GIS software), meaning that the precision is higher in these areas. How should I understand this ? I don't know if more accurate free data exists for the rivers, so how should I draw this map ?
Thanks for your advises. Sting 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The key concept that you are missing right now is "map generalization": "the operation which consists in classifying, simplifying and, in general, harmonizing the available information to be included in a map with its scale and purpose" (from my "Dictionary of Cartographic Sciences" - in Portuguese, I'm afraid). Map generalization normally implies a reduction of the complexity of the available data and comprises the following phases: the "classification", in which the geographical features are organized and ordered according to their attributes; the "simplification", which aims the identification of the more relevant feature attributes and the elimintion of unwanted detail; the "exageration", where some of the characteristics (considered to be more relevant) are emphasized; and the "simbolization", which consists in coding and representing graphically the chosen information on the map. Suppose we want to draw two maps of the same area, with different scales, and using the same base data. The important thing to recognize is that the smaller scale map is not a graphical reduction of the larger scale one. If we did that, the available space would be cluttered with unnecessary information and the map would probably be unreadable. Notice that when we divide the linear scale by two, the available area is divided by four. Also, the symbology used in the first map would most probably not be adequate for the second. The truth is the smaller scale map should be considered as a completely different project, with different generalization choices. This principle also applies to the representation of coastlies and islands. It is very common to omit certain details (and islands) in smaller scale maps as a way of making it more clear. The same principle applies when we replace the individual buildings in a large scale urban map by a simple block outline is a smaller scale map. Nothing wrong with it, that is "map generalization". But if you are really interested in Cartography this is not the best way to learn (I mean, from me). My strong advice is to purchase the book "Elements of Cartography" by Arthur Robinson et. al., John Wiley & Sons, 1995 (the "Bible"!). It is not cheap but it is the best. -- Alvesgaspar 09:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this reference book I already ordered at half price through Amazon.
Meanwhile (it may take a long time to arrive), is there a difference, for vector data, between generalization and simplification of the paths ?
A question also about the VMap-0 data : when printing a sample of the Nile river delta at a 1:8,160,000 scale, there are numerous and highly detailed streams as well as populated places represented in a very small printed area. If in this case a generalization would be welcome (like it is done in an atlas), what is the interest of making available such a detailed data with a very poor accuracy ?
Don't you think also a discussion topic between the professional cartographers present in the different WPs should be opened in order to establish an accuracy standard for the whole project so everybody (specially mapmakers) could talk the same language regarding the scale of a map ?
Thanks. Sting 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The simplification (which may takes various forms) is just one of the generalizatiom processes, applying to all kinds of data models. There are special algorithms used in the simplification of vector lines, where the number of nodes is reduced in some systematic way (I can't remember the name of the algorithm but it is easy enough to program). I agree about the unnecessary detail in the Nile map. Now it is in your hands to select which information is to be represented and how. About the discussion between "professional cartographers", I fear that there are no such specimens in WP... Alvesgaspar 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If you could get them to clear the software cruft out of all of the svg files it would be a good start. Also, why not define what a good map is? Alves being a wienie who is only comfortable picking on girls is not a good reason. My question would be "why the logarithmic folding of commercial road maps? did they want to encourage road rage or what?" -- carol 12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's all part of the allien conspiracy. If you can fold the map again at first try your life will be spared and you will become their servant -- Alvesgaspar 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A more current map[edit]

I just saw what to me is the most beautiful map Image:1885 GT.jpg (9,752 × 4,840 pixels, beware). What I call my hometown is listed on it in larger letters, probably because it was a water stop; I don't know when the factory was built even though I am quite sure it was on the sign that I saw almost everyday for a while -- the depot in that town was for another rail line. The map is from 1885, and the name of my hometown was mispelled. I read that while in Michigan you are never more than 85-90 miles from a Great Lake; which is still a long drive -- my childhood was filled much more with trains than boats.

How do you think they made an image that large of this map? -- carol 22:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the factory sign said 1812, but that seems really long ago.... -- carol 02:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite an impressive railway map, I agree! Also, a very big image, close to 3 m long! I have no idea if the original has the same size, as there is no indication of scale. If the image size matches the map size, then the scale will be close to 1:1,300,000. To make the digital version they could have photographed the map with a large format camera (like a digital Hasselblad) or use a drum scanner. No problem. A good candidadte to FP, don't you think? Cheers, Alvesgaspar 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what makes a good candidate or not. I am not so interested in being "rewarded" for the nomination of the works of others and I am kind of bothered by the mispelling of my hometown on this map. I preferred to nominate or participate with images that I know more about. I know so little about the transfer of a map like this into digital. That misspelling more than bothers me, it makes me suspicious.
This map -- I know parts of what it is mapping, well I knew it as they pulled up that part of the Grand Trunk years ago. They stopped running trains on our little branch sometime in the 1970s; ages 7 - 12 years old are perhaps the very best years to live three houses away from a not so active railway (she said in hindsight). This photograph was taken outside of that depot for the other tracks; I wonder so much if that map or a copy of it is in there. That depot is deceptively close to the pulled up Grand Trunk tracks. They moved the depot (it was designed by some famous architect) from the other side of town to the location it is at now (in my old childhood neighborhood) also in the seventies; moving a building down the streets is usually very memorable -- they had to take down powerlines and stuff. I love that photograph of mine, I have some of the depot but they aren't so cool as this one. My little camera accidentally got some great photographs back then and I consider this to be one of them. I was really glad that this was not my child....
I am really eh, concerned about the mispelling of the town name on that map. This part of the history of that railway in that town is stuff that my dad told me years ago and I don't know how much I am reconstructing it now. But it was a special branch of the line that they built for the factory that was also three houses away from the one that I lived in then (on the other side of the track) that went from I forget where, through my town and onto Flint Michigan (where the railway was immortalized by a local Flint rock band en:Grand Funk Railroad -- this mangling of one of their trestles is such a famous thing there for some of us who are a certain age and stuff -- in real life you can see how they transformed the Tr into an F....). So, if what my dad said was true (and it probably was) that would explain how such a little town would have such large letters on the map but isn't having large letters on a map reason enough to get the spelling correct?
So, that was a long way to go to ask you how common is it for a map to have a misspelling like that? -- carol 02:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Very common, as a matter of fact! The people making the maps usually know very little (or nothing at all) of the names of the places they are representing. How many names are there in a map like this one? One thousand (maybe more)? If just 5% of them were mispelled that would represent 50 wrong names! Alvesgaspar 04:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is interesting to say the least. It feels like I have been kept down and under by a group of professionals who have yet to live up to the demands they gave me. Such is FPC. I really want it to be about skill, knowledge, ability and craftmanship of the digitizing of images and not about being able to nominate winners regardless of their validity. Todays Featured Picture is quite posed, for example, and very disturbing to me because of its resemblance to my brother. Heh, with my first big (to me) batch of money (a return of over-paid taxes, not money that was supposed to go towards my education), I bought a camera -- I already had a car/vehicle that my dad donated. My brother bought a sail boat with his first return. My very practical (at least the way she talks) mom had babies with a man who likes to enjoy life and things that man has made.
I feel like all of my photographs with this point and shoot are accidental or lucky. I took some pretty darn good photographs with the P2 (until that was stolen) and the AE-1 (another tax return investment). Learning photography on film was much more complex as there was no way of knowing for at that time at least a week if the photograph was good or not. The additional expense of the film and developing was problematic as well. Hmm, I think I am becoming a little bored of how perfect African mountains are to study evolution of oddly shaped plants </rambling>
Perhaps you could explain the FPC process to me. As an observer and angry participant of, I have narrowed it down to a few different choices, perhaps none of them are accurate:
  1. the really cool kids are the ones who encourage fake images being nominated and making it
  2. it is being run by admins who have access to "dead" (not dead but contributors who are no longer active or interested) uploads and history which can easily be changed by the few of them to reflect current times
  3. everyone is actually in jail and like to do that gang kicking thing where they make new-comers suboridinate and then keep them in their place
  4. the winners actually do get (f)eaten by cannibalistic wiki-admin or pushed into active volcanoes (if they are virgins) kind of pagancanniballike....
I am in this state-of-being for a really long while now where I really want to believe in things. I mentioned Erastothanes (I know the spelling is probably not right) and looked to see if I could find the Erastothanes Van experiment I saw. The DVD purchased from EBay had been remixed; episode 7 contained music from Rhythm and Hues which was in no way available in the early 1980s when I first saw the series. The erasing and changing of history everywhere is making me very sad; so it is not just here at wikimedia commons that there is a problem. History is good. If it is remembered, it can be avoided or even repeated if it was a good thing that happened.
FPC is just a disappointment. It is sad that those templates on this page here of yours only say that you knew a good image to nominate and not that you are skilled with camera or software. -- carol 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • None of those choices. The truth is FPC is a conspiracy lead by ugly insect-like alliens, who are right now controlling (possessing) some of our admins. The idea is to attract new reviewers and make them look at the pictures, where some subliminar messages have been hidden, to take controll over them too. The final purpose is, of course, to conquer Earth and make sausages with all of its inhabitants -- Alvesgaspar 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought that was why we (earthlings) were going to mars. To see if there is life there and if it tastes good. I actually returned here to see if you could seriously answer this question. The attract new reviewers stuck in my mind like hair in a drain trap, but what I thought you had said -- you hadn't. Let me ask this (these) question(s) anyways. Who, in your minds eye, is reviewing and contributing images there? And is it fun or something else that you think you are using to attract them back (if you are doing that)? And what is an example of the fun or other?
I had a dream recently in which a person I worked with for 10 years (and considered to be a friend) was yelling at me and saying "they get together with different people in different places but with the same names". The interesting thing is that her incidence in my life could be easily explained that same way. When I phrased the question "in your minds eye", it was perhaps the most serious part of those questions, especially since I do not like the way that seems to be being used a little here and a lot on the stupid television. Mostly, my dreams have been just stupid since my unfortunate move and the circumstances which caused it and in general, I don't like them nor believe that they came from my mind and try not to pay any attention to them. This one was interesting since it was somewhat self-defining as well as being something to think about. -- thanks for your time, whoever you are carol 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)