User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive15

Cerambyx

Ta remarque était parfaitement fondée, et ce n'est pas que subjectif ou esthétique je m'en suis aussi apreçu en regardant le poid de l'image qui à grimpé de 4,2 à 4,58méga. J'ai toujours tendance à travailler trop sombre...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good composition, nice lighting. --Elekhh 08:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and usefull.---Jebulon 22:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-21a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. ZooFari 20:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-36.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality image. Interesting "impressionist" background.---Jebulon 00:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Macro question

May I ask you, which macro objective you use with the D 80? I like your Macrophotos and am thinking about buying an objective...

Yours --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have a Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm (1:1). It is a very good lens and relatively cheap. Good luck with macro, it is a fascinating world. And we'll be here to judge your first trials... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thx for the infornation. I hope I can present good results. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like that (and it shows how interesting images can be in less good weather ;)) --Herbythyme 13:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent QI. --Elekhh 20:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

papaver somniferum, VIC, geocoding

Dear Alvesgaspar. I have nominated your File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg for value image candidate. Could you please help me by giving a geocode for this picture, needed for a valuable nomination ? Many thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've cut it in three files and made a set nomination.

1. File:Poster papaver 5a bud.jpg
2. File:Poster papaver 5a flower.jpg
3. File:Poster papaver 5a fruit.jpg

--Ikar.us (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Asteraceae April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good --Ianare 19:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality pics

Are any of my pics stand a chance of making it into the quality images? en:User:Tyw7/gallery --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Most of your pictures (if not all) are just snapshots, meaning that no special care was taken with framing, composition, point of view, lighting, coloring, etc, etc.. The good news is that all these aspects can (and should) be dramatically improved by observing the work of others (Commons FPC and QI are excellent schools), learning from books and practising. But you will have to offer yourself a better camera. I don't think you will have any chance of passing the QI bar with a mobile phone... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trifolium April 2010-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 14:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flower April 2010-1a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good --George Chernilevsky 11:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flower April 2010-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 11:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Papaver April 2010-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 15:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Poster Papaver 2a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster Papaver 2a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Aligator plus noir que noir!

• Donc tu ne l'avais pas vu! Tu avais raison car il y avait une zone très légèrement plus claire autour qui ne ce voit pas sur des écrans normalement calibrés, mais que tu peux voir si tu pousses la saturation. C'est assez habituel et c'est parfois bien pratique pour des corrections automatiques. J'ai trouvé très fort que tu l'ai vu et j'ai donc redétouré "à la main" et comme tu peux le voir le poids de la photo atteste bien qu'il y avait des pixels allumés.
• Je suis en colère pour "Eristalis" et j'ai beaucoup de mal à comprendre le mauvais procès qui t'ai fait, notte, pour te consoler que le même personnage a voter contre ma cétoine au prétexte qu'elle était morte, ce qui me laisse dubitatif. On ne peut pas faire des rencontres sympathiques tout les jours... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Muhammad is a young creator from Tamzania whose work had a remarkable improvement in the last two years or so, despite the intial equipment and connection difficulties. But he still has some way to go especially in terms of composition ... and modesty. I believe that both can be learned. (yes, it is written in English so everybody can understand)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fly on flower April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The flower is too centre, but it's sharp with beautiful colours, QI IMO --Croucrou 17:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Papaver April 2010-7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI --George Chernilevsky 13:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Info - A large number of images to chose from. Still I believe this is the best one... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I am bothered by the background that shows other flowers and other leaves, can they be removed? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Please geotag it and add it to Trifolium repens. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met, in my view. I think that that the subject stands out from the background at review size and the background is typical of this species. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Poster papaver 3a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 3a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

VIS promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Papaver somniferum.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Papaver somniferum.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fly April 2010-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Funny, sharp, saturated, QI IMO --Croucrou 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tipulid April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments perhaps it could be better with a strong DOF : f16 or more but it realy Sharp QI IMO --Croucrou 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Glebionis April 2010-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glebionis April 2010-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo April 2010-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Controverse

Bonjour Alvesgaspar.
Quand j'aime vos photos, je les soutiens.
Quand je les aime moins, je m'abstiens. C'est simple.
Ceci est juste pour vous dire que je suis désolé pour vous du traitement parfaitement imbécile que vous fait subir votre antagoniste "en rouge", avec ses oppositions systématiques dans les QIC et les FPC. Donc je souhaite vous témoigner ici de mon  Support dans cette controverse de bas niveau dont vous n'êtes pas responsable, et vous dire que vos photos sont bien souvent admirables (mais vous n'avez pas besoin de moi pour le savoir). Laissez tomber les enfantillages de cette personne, j'espère qu'ils ne vous atteignent pas. Bon courage pour la suite (au fait, quand je demandais à l'auteur d'un commentaire d'expliquer ce qu'il entendait par "composition problems", je sollicitais juste une explication ! Même pour une FPC, cela doit être possible, non ?). Pardon d'avoir préféré m'exprimer en Français, mais je vois que vous pratiquez cette langue, et c'est plus facile pour moi de traduire ainsi mes idées avec justesse. Merci et à bientôt pour de nouvelles photos (et moi, j'aime vos fleurs, votre serra, vos insectes et le printemps !!) Amicalement--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Merci bien pour tes paroles sympathiques, Jebulon! Mais il faut voter contre quand on n'aime pas les photos - et expliquer porquoui (j'avais presque oubliés mes rêgles...). La raison c'est qu'on apprend plus avec les votes contre qu'avec les soutiens. Je pense que la crise est finie et que mon antagoniste a enfin realizé que la vendetta n'était pas la meilleure solution. Oui, ça semble des enfantillages mais sur l'Internet on ne sait jamais. Je suis convaincu qu'il s'agit d'un socketpuppet (marionnette?) d'un autre utilizateur, car il connaît trop bien les procédures à Commons pour être un débutant. En ce qui concerne l'évaluation des compositions, c'est três difficile de le mettre en paroles. Il-y-a bien sur des règles très simples (la règle des tiers, par example), mais elles n'aident pas beacoup dans la plupart des situations. Merci encore. Ouis, le printemps est là! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Papaver April 2010-13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. Скампецкий 08:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trifolium April 2010-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Fine shot of the flowers. The plant behind the upper flower is a bit close, but this is still a QI to me. --Avenue 01:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ricinus April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and useful --Archaeodontosaurus 06:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo March 2010-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Nice image, though it seems to be a little over-sharpened as evidenced by the 'ringing halo' around the right-hand man. --Fred the Oyster 00:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC) --  Done -- Fixed, together with white balance correction -- Alvesgaspar 23:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Everything ok now. I like the composition. --High Contrast 12:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, nicely done --Fred the Oyster 14:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Convolvulus April 2010-4a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Just two other flowers... Just a QI ;), Sharp twice, nice twice. Maybe a little bit overprocessed, if I'm not wrong--Jebulon 23:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bee April 2010-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some movement apparent in the antennae, but QI otherwise. --Ianare 02:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-36a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I see the flower, leaf and button: perfect; best in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with Archaeodontosaurus. --Slaunger (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Colour looks un-natural. --Lawboy25 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support It looks a bit over-sharpened, but meets or exceeds the six VI criteria, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oxythyrea funesta

Bonjour, Cette démarche t'honnore mais elle est déja promue... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ah... Pas celle-ci, mais l'autre! Merci, je me sens un peu ridicule... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bees and beggars

Thanks for the flowers! That guy's behavior is outrageous, but I have learned that it makes no sense to complain; there are always others who tolerate and even support that kind of bullshit. But he will not be able to stop us from looking at his contributions with an especially critical eye! Regards --Pjt56 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erodium April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --Dein Freund der Baum 23:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

ANU episode

Uhm, I know that I am pretty hot headed sometimes, but this is very thin ice you are treading on. Even in a very heated and emotional debate some restraint is necessary. Btw. an especially critical eye could be mistaken for a call for double standards... --Dschwen (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Double standards, Daniel? If I remember well, you were one of the two administrators who admonished me for bringing the case to COM: AN. Still none of you protested, or even referred to, the offensive text still sitting there. Is the removal policy not applicable to this personal attack? Unless the community, and his most responsible members, consider the accusation of being associated with a crook (an identifiable user of Commons, by the way) not a personal attack. I have the strange feeling of having entered this discussion as a victim and left as the villain. Following Slaunger help, I have apologized with sincerity to the people participating in the discussion, for having brought the issue there, while Tomascastelazo offered a ridiculous apology and insisted on keeping most of the aggressive texts. The only explanation I find for this outcome is that, somehow, he is not being considered as totally imputable for his actions. Sunday I will celebrate my fourth year in Commons. As I said before, this was a profitable association for both parts. I offered volunteer work and one thousand+ good quality pictures, mostly on nature themes, and received fun, knowledge and friendship. I sincerely hope that the community will not have to make a choice on which member and contribution to sacrifice. It should be pretty obvious by now that I will not tolerate being punished for something I’m not responsible for. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The comment at the centre of this has been removed, by Tomascastelazo after the ANU thread [1]. The ANU thread clearly asked that he retract the statement and he has done so. The initial complaint on ANU was only really about that, we (as in the community) haven't discussed much beyond that at this point.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And just for the record, if you feel I admonished you, then it was for calling for an indefinite block immediately without most of the preceding stages of conflict resolution. --Dschwen (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So, and if I understand well, the issue I'm raising here is being ignored by "technical reasons" ?

You appear to not understand well. --Dschwen (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you then be so kind as to clarify if and when the issue will be dealt with? Or what is the reason why it won't?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hello Alvesgaspar! I like to see your flower pictures and they seem to have a solid description of the species they show. I took picture of flowers today and I would like to identify them but I'm not a specialist as you seem to be... Could you help me with identification or propose some way I could find information to help. It would be really appreciated. On related subject, I would like to have them identified to include it in the file name. Do you know if I can change the file name after I imported the picture to show it for identification? Thanks in advance for your help --Letartean (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Eheh, I'm not a specialist either! But I have some books on Mediterranean species, use Commons and the web generously as a sorce of knwoledge and have gained some experience in the last two years or so. Recently I asked for help to MPF, who knows a lot more than me. Anyway, please show me your pics, maybe I can be of some help. Welcome to the WFFC (wild flower frick club)!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

These are the pictures: 1, 2, 3 and 4. If there is nothing you can do, thanks anyway. And continue your good job your pictures are great! --Letartean (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• C'est bien plus difficle (au moins pour moi) avec des espèces cultivées. Mais voyons (en anglais, à cause des noms...): #1 and #3 belong to the family of Asteraceae. There is an enormous variety of species and cultivars and I'm not at all acquainted with them: try Ram-Man or this site: [2]. #2 is a Narcissus sp., maybe a Narcissus aureus. But again, there are several cultivated varieties. As for #4, it probably belongs to the famlily of Liliaceae, due to its six tepals and stamens. But I may be wrong, this is a very large and complex family. Comme tu vois, c'est pas facile du tout! J'éspère que cette petite aide te sert à continuer la rechèrche. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Trifolium angustifolium (Narrow-Leaved Crimson Clover), inflorescence.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support: Best in this reducted scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fly April 2010-8.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments this is à beautiful picture QI IMO --Croucrou 21:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galactites April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I wish there was no other flower at the top, but still QI--Mbz1 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spring April 2010-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. Juliancolton 17:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Satisfies criteria; leaf shape, a distinguishing feature, is better depicted than in File:Lavatera_cretica.jpg. Lighting is better, too. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

★ 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:
Erodium malacoides, fruit (Mallow-Leaved Strok's-Bill).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Best and only picture of this scope reduced. Image very successful and educational --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

★ 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:
Ricinus communis (Castor Oil Plant), flowers.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info -- The photo shows both the red female flowers (on top) and male yellow flowers (below) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Impossible with this scope, we must reduce it to the flower (which is very successful), because there is no fruit.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment - I agree, scope was adjusted -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - Best in this reducted scope - All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Remerciements

Je te remercie de cette délicate attention qui me touche ; Ceci d’autant plus que tu y es pour quelques chose. Ta remarque sur mes perpétuels fonds noir m’a fais réfléchir et essayer des dégradés qui semble effectivement rendre l’ensemble moins austère… --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• No need for thanks. Nominating images of other users is a very common thing in FPC! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glebionis April 2010-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice composition --Mbdortmund 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thistle April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoverfly April 2010-1a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Chenille

Cette photo Caterpillar of Pieris brassicae 9084.jpg est meilleure car elle montre mieux les critères de déterination des chenilles. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Les critères de quoi?... Mais elle ne montre pas les "pieds"! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

wasp parasitism

Hi!

It varies a bit by species, but: 1. In order to keep the caterpillar alive as long as possible, the larvae actually eat the organs in order of importance, so that it can keep feeding and growing. 2. It may well be guarding them. In some particularly creepy examples, the wasps release a mutualist parasite - I forget which type, possibly a trypanasome? - which attacks the caterpillar's brain, and forces it to guard them. In some examples, it'll even spin their cocoons for them, instead of spinning its own, then hover over them, guarding, until it dies from, you know, having half its organs eaten.

I took a parasitology class last year. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sonchus April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and Best in scope ... --Archaeodontosaurus 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lavatera April 2010-4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hieracium April 2010-5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice and good.

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beetle April 2010-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Also good. --Cayambe 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basilica Estrela April 2010-1a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

Flowers, leaves and buds good botanical criteria. All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Spring April 2010-3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spring April 2010-3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Téviec Crane Homme Profil Droit II.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Téviec Crane Homme Profil Droit II.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

pieris formosa

Bonjour Alvesgaspar.

Puisque tu es un spécialiste de botanique, je t'informe que j'ai chargé sur "Commons" la photo d'un pieris formosa (Andromède de Chine), il n'y en avait pas encore, on dirait. J'ai créé une catégorie. Je ne sais pas quel usage en faire, il y a quelques liens rouges (y compris dans wikispecies) mais pas d'articles, ni de début d'articles, au sujet de cette plante, dans les wikis que j'ai consultés. Si ça peut t'intéresser, n'hésite pas à l'utiliser pour la placer là où c'est utile, peut-être. J'ai aussi photographié la plaque d'info (voir ici). J'ai géocodé. J'ai aussi laissé un message à Lycaon. Bien amicalement, --Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bonjour, Jebulon. Un spécisliste de botanique, moi? Ahahah, pas du tout! Je suis juste un apprenti qui a (à peinne) commencé à apprendre les noms. MPF et Lycaon sont des vrais biologistes. Ouis, ça fait du bien d'introduire une nouvelle espèce. Avec le temps, quelqu'un va remarquer ou avoir besoin de la photo. Ça m'est arrivé souvent. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Category Pages

Hi again, I need help with categorizing my images, and I can't find the solution for my problem on the help pages. I'd like to store my Osmia cornuta images on the Osmia cornuta page within the Osmia category. Somehow I succeded with one of them, but not with the others. Since you have uploaded lots of biological images I'm sure you're an expert on these things :-)

Best regards --Pjt56 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done with the two images I know of. Changed the category to Osmia cornuta (this is the best approach) and inserted both images in Osmia cornuta. Easy ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm stupid, but now there is a subcategory O.c. and a page O.c., both within the Osmia category!? --Pjt56 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The present procedure is to categorize to the species level. So, Osmia cornuta is a subcategory of Osmy, which is a subcategory of Megachilidae, which is ... etc, etc. The page "Osmia cornuta" has now the category "Osmia cornuta". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Now we seem to have the same problem with Anthophora plumipes. Thanks for nominating your image for VIC. Most of the other images - not only on Commons - show slightly different coloration, so I wasn't sure about the identification of my images. Hope you're sure about yours ... Regards --Pjt56 (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spider and fly April 2010-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Not perfekt but awsome --Schlurcher

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP April 2010-2a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. --Dschwen 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP April 2010-3a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. Leftmost frame is not quite sharp. I also suggest you shoot in portrait next time for better quality. --Dschwen 14:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP April 2010-4a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Some stitching problems on the waves, but overall good. --Dschwen 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support All criteria met. Best in scope. Lycaon (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Wasp parasitism.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Wasp parasitism.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Girl Septermber 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Echium April 2010-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basilica Estrela April 2010-2a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. Jafeluv 22:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Info -- In this type of inflorescence each unit is called a spikelet and comprises more than one flower. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Support scope rich ; All criteria met, best in scope.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
•  OK now Geolocation is missing and description should say flowers, spikelets or inflorescence, not fruits. Lycaon (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Lycaon (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Done - Fixed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

★ 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:
Fumaria capreolata (Ramping Fumitory).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies the six criteria. Shows the leaf shape and inflorescence well with no distracting background. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

★ 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:
Geranium rotundifolium (Round-leaved Crane's-bill).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Very good job! It would be perfect, if the petal wouldn't "touch" the leaf :-) --Pjt56 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Shows the flower petals, leaf shape, calyx and pubescence well. Satisfies all six criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support File:Naturkamera-13922-steinbrech-kn-300408-a.jpg is exceptional, also, but I support this one because it shows the glandular pubescence on the calyx. The stigma is well-depicted, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

★ 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:
Anthophora plumipes.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - A couple of alternatives to chose from but I think this one shows better the main features of the species: long proboscis, legs, antennae, wing venation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Strongly agree --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Since your image helped me identify my shots from last weekend (Anthophora_plumipes_male.jpg) I don't contest your nomination ;-) --Pjt56 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estrela Março 2010-16a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --kallerna 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese help needed

FYI. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sonchus May 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks good to med, but is it really foaming? Juliancolton 20:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Padrão Descobrimentos May 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice --Mbdortmund 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP April 2010-1b.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support All criteria met, only image on Commons. Please rename file appropriately (best with reupload and {{Badname}}). Lycaon (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lantana November 2008-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good compo. QI to me--Jebulon 08:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bug May 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. Jafeluv 21:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Info - The headquarters of United Airlines and one of the most beautiful skyscrapers in Chicago. Very few pictures in Commons. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support all criteria met, valued IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Padrão Descobrimentos May 2010-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. Jafeluv 10:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Braconid wasp

Hi Joaquim.

Could you please confirm/revert my scope change on your nomination? Apparently it is up to the nominator to change scope and not up to reviewers (?). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry Hans, I've been a bit absent-minded with VI the last days. Thanks for the scope change. Do you think a broader scope is better? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Echium plantagineum (Purpe Viper's Bugloss), flower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies the six criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Echium plantagineum (Purple Viper's Bugloss).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies the six criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support On a close inspection, there were only minimal problems. It is also aesthetically pleasing. As a side note, it is one of the highest quality images in that category and represents the subject in a better fashion than the others (of the same). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sanctuary of Senhor Jesus da Pedra ('Lord Jesus of the Stone'), Óbidos, Portugal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info -- Looked for other pictures of this sanctuary in Commons but found none. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)  Request

•  Request I didn't find any mention of this building in pt:WP and en:WP articles about Óbidos. If it is truly notable (I think so, cf. [3] ), it should have a least its own catogory on Commons. By the way, some images exist;-) --Myrabella (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• OK, category created. As for the other pictures, they were all taken by me except the first. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The only image depicting the front facade of this Baroque church. The most valuable image for the scope IMO, all criteria met. Note: I've improved the categorisation of the newly created category. --Myrabella (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image is so frontal that the pronounced three-dimensional structure of the building isn't obvious. Thus it doesn't illustrate the subject well. Among available images, the only solution would be a VIS, together with File:Obidos April 2009-3a.jpg , IMO.--Ikar.us (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

   Question Do you have an oblique view of the front facade in your archive? --Ikar.us (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Numerous VIs for building scopes are straight frontal views... See Commons:Valued images by topic#Religious buildings and shrines. If a scope was set up, it should be refined in an "(exterior)" scope, or include an inside view, as the interior of this church seems to be notable too. --Myrabella (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Most buildings don't have a hexagonal outline with attached octogons with passage arches. Of course, if taking facade photographs, I often fake a frontal parallel perspective, if I can't take one. But for this building, it seems inappropriate to me. If frontal, then from a much shorter distance. --Ikar.us (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Support A bit tigthly croped upside, but VI among them. I dont find front view problematic in this photo. --Mile (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Oppose I agree with you that this is a rare shot, but I disagree with the scope! --JovianEye (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Question -- We are listening! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Suggestion for scope: Oviposition by braconid wasp. Lycaon (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Braconid wasp laying an egg inside an aphid to Oviposition in braconid wasps --Lycaon (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support With adjusted scope. Lycaon (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support too with new scope. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grasshopper June 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent. --Cayambe 20:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beetle May 2009-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 20:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ouro Preto November 2009-10a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very Good work --Archaeodontosaurus 08:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eristalis March 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 11:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hoverfly September 2008-1a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Darter August 2007-23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --ComputerHotline 16:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vanessa January 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI --ComputerHotline 16:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moth September 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 16:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spider April 2010-2a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 08:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Avena May 2010-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 09:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bee September 2007-15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chicago 2007-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anthemis April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pigs July 2008-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vegetable seller Porto Covo 2008-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alves 　　The rule that you were written is that I think. Good Luck -- 池田正樹 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FP candidates debate

Thank you for your kind invitation to this discussion. I read it carefully, and I think I will not participate, because of my poor English first (not sure to be able to use good words to explain my ideas), and then because I think it (this pseudo debate) is now a nice collection of an useless blah blah, for the intellectual satisfaction of some pretentious members of this little society. It looks like an old english club, where members (V.I.P.) are discussing around themselves how to exclude (or non accept) others, and about the hardness of modern times.
some ideas for your eyes only (but on your talk page

• 1) I don't understand the subject : is the featured pictures level going lower ? or is there a problem with the level of featured pictures candidates ? Absolutely not the same thing.
• 2) What is really a FP ? (I agree generally with Cephas questions and comments about that). I have an idea, but... I'm afraid that some reviewers think that a FP is a QI+++. That's not my opinion (i have to explain this, but it's hard in a foreign language). I disagree with the translations of the word "featured" : "exzellent Bild" in German is not "Image remarquable" in French
• 3) The AVAMFPS (Almighty, Venerable & Ancient Members of FP Society) have already all the tools to prevent excessive nominations. What about FPX ? However, they are many enough to oppose for a promotion. If they disagree, then there is no more problem. Have a vote, and basta.
• 4) My little case : Why do I participate ?
  • a)-Sometimes, I'm happy of one of my pictures, because of its technical quality (look at my poor little camera ! I'll buy another -better- soon, advices are welcome !), or because of something I think "special". And I'm interested to show these images to others. Unfortunately, when I have a good (technically) picture, I become the comment "lack of 'wow'". When I've a good (not technically) picture, I become the comment "poor composition" or "bad quality". No worries, see point d)
  • b)-When I think that the oppose opinion is wrong or not well based, I put my heavy helm on my head, and I ask questions. Generally, it's a "crime de lèse-majesté". What, you "DARE" ask explanations about my oppose vote ?
  • c)-Some nominate "too low-level" images, I agree. But some of V.I.R. (very important reviewers) give pretentiously "too low-level" opinions too. Even some of very intelligent (and surely competent) persons debating with you. (the comments on the Appel of De Gaulle -public domain ? copyright ?- are tragically hilarious, if possible, as an oxymora.)
  • d)-I try to do better and better. For that, I have to suffer the judgment of others. No problem. But they are my peers. Not my superiors. And I'll never accept that a young (or old) pretentious kid (yes old kids exist) will speak to me with bad words.
  • e)-I'll continue. And I don't see why I couldn't, shouldn't, wouldn't give my own opinion on the works of others. I don't care with sacred elephants, and my voice has the same value than this of others, and see following point :
• 5) You (not especially "you, Alvesgaspar") have a problem with democracy : one man, one vote. Here, and only here, is the question. Can an incompetent reviewer have an opinion ? And may this opinion have the same value than my opinion ? Turn left, turn right, IT IS THE QUESTION. He's a newb, and I have already more than X featured pictures ! I work here for some long days, we see this reviewer here for the first time, maybe he will never come back, and is vote may promote a "bad" image, or decline a "good" one ? My answer is "YES".
• 6)Then, other questions without answers :
  • what is a good/bad image ? Funny answers on FPC page...
  • What is a competent/incompetent reviewer ?
  • Vous n'êtes pas sortis de l'auberge !! or Vous n'avez pas le c... sorti des ronces !!
• 7) Sometimes, like others I hope, I'm saturated with butterflies, fortress corridors, mountain panoramas, geology or Hubble astro. I'm sure you understand what I mean... Well, not a problem, I use your rules, and do not vote. But I think there are here some abuses. And not enough originality. Sorry, but a view of Cadmium don't need a promotion as FP to be useful and interesting. and a view of Fort-de-Roppe don't need a promotion as FP to be useless and uninteresting (sorry...nervous breakdown).
• 8) The 'WOW' factor ! to me, a valid argument, but not alone. No wow MUST be explained, kindly, respectfully and fairly (quasi never the case). There is a difference between 'no wow', and 'I'm not interested by the subject'. Some forget this. 'No wow' means, to me : I'm interested, but disappointed...
• 9) Do what you want with the ratio pro/contra needed for promotion, the number of FP per months, I don't care. See and judge my images, promote or decline, that's interesting for me to increase my own level. If I disagree I'm able to defend my opinion and kindly fight. But I don't run for the FP number championship ! My pride in life is somewhere else.
• 10), last but not least: maybe scans and this kind of pictures need a specific modus judicandi (I've a lot to say here too...)
  

• • Well, as I said first, I will not participate to this debate...

• • • Thanks for reviewing this very long speech. I'm sorry !
      

Your friend, --Jebulon (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment -- Let me try to respond to some of your questions (leaving the rethorical ones aside...). Pardonne moi de ne pas le faire en français, ça serait un peu plus difficile. (1) Both things. Also, with the higher number of nominations and overall increase of technical quality we may raise the exigency bar; (3) The 'venerable' only have their votes and words and are not always around. Furthermore many have lost their interest in participating. Yes, the most experienced reviewers may (and do) exercise their influence with didactic comments. But they get tired and feel often alone in the process; (5) One soul, one vote, period; (7) Most photographers are specialized in some field and it's not easy to change, due to several kinds of limitations. That is why we need to have a large group of talented creators contributing with their work and expertise; (8) Saying 'no wow' has become a negative assessment. I agree with you in that there are other ways of passing the same message and I use them a lot; (9) The 'ego-feeding' component of FPC is legitimate and a good stimulus for bringing and keeping talented creators here. Nothing wrong with that: you contribute with your high quality pictures and receive some recognition for it. I would bet this is good business for the project; (10) Maybe so, in terms of their technical assessment. But not making the rules softer for them. The fact is the success rate of such kind of images is significantely higher than average. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for answering. I still do not participate to the debate (I don't want to vote, it's not serious IMO: who can vote for proposals ? Newbies too ? Non-sense, according to the terms of the discussion...), but I still follow the exchanges, and I've put some questions...--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

IRS and Platinum rule

Is a culturally bound acronym - although it might amuse the north americans - tax or even just another bill might be more globally suited :) SatuSuro (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• You are right of course, though we use the same acronym in Portugal... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bee on flower April 2010-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 12:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: FPC careless reviews

Hi! Thanks for the link. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future when reviewing images. Did you have some specific review in mind? Jafeluv (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Earth and Moon .jpg

Is this a joke? File:Earth and Moon .jpg This picture of the Earth and Moon in a single frame was taken by the Galileo spacecraft from about 3.9 million miles away. --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:User FP10

Template:User FP10 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 template, 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. 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!

In addition I changed your page User:Alvesgaspar/contributions, because I modified the Userbox QI Template. I think this way (Category use with cat=ABC) is better, because most users use the template with the former option 1=(Their number of QI images) and not 1=(Category name). --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User QI template

Hi Joaquim Alves!
Please look this Template_talk:User_QI
With best regards --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rose May 2010-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice shot. A white flower in direct sunlight is not easy. --Ianare 05:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

VIS pomotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Tegenaria feminea.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Tegenaria feminea.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Aesthetical reasons

Bonsoir "Almirante"
Tu as voté contre deux panoramas de Miami (Ianaré) pour des "raisons esthétiques". Peux-tu me les expliquer ? J'aimerais savoir si tu penses la même chose que moi. Merci.--Jebulon (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is difficult to express subjective stuff but I will try. First of all, both pictures are more or less symmetrical, which is aesthetically boring. This is a common flaw in landscape panoramas. The coloring is also uninteresting, with extensive areas of sand and sky and no warm tones (reds, yellows). Finally the horizon if very curved, especially in the second picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• OK Thank you. En général, je déteste les panoramas, surtout ceux de ce genre. Mon principal problème, c'est la symétrie, et la fausse impression d'angle. Ici, la plage est "horizontale", mais la photo donne une l'illusion que le photographe est sur un "cap" ou une pointe qui s'avance dans la mer. C'est une "super perspective distortion" et j'ai horreur de ça. Idem (c'est un peu moins visible) pour la photo de Franfurt am Main. On croirait être sur une courbe de la rivière, mais c'est "plat" en réalité (voir google map). Merci de ta réponse, Amiral.--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates#Option_1:_Ban_all_historic_2-dimensional_artworks_from_QI.

Did you mean for this to be a support? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you, it is fixed now. Maybe it is time to gather the users of the restoring community and start a specialized forum similar to QI? In my opinion this kind of image fits perfectly in FPC (since we are assessing its overall value) but not in QIC, for the reasons I explained. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Understood. But I think you'll agree that whatever decision is made, it's better to have made it, rather than the confusing "maybe they're permitted, maybe not" we have now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You could help

No, Alves, I do not to have a war, that's why I try to avoid lycaon. It was quite for some time, and now he got on me again. He opposes almost all my QI nominations, and my only VI nomination. Right now all my quality nominations four of them are opposed by him. His review are dishonest. See File:Snowflake moray, Echidna nebulosa in Kona May 2010.jpg. It is not just a good quality for underwater shot, it is a great quality.I tried to make up with him few times. All my attempt have failed. here's the latest. He does not like me personally, and that is fine, but I do not like to see his hater in his dishonest reviews. Is it so much to ask for? I know you are his friend. You removed quite a few times the notices of his association with other account from his user page. It was brave of you because you were involved in edit war with admin. Now it would be even braver, if you would tell your friend to stop reviewing (support, oppose,comments are included) my nominations. It will be better not only for two of us, but for the community in whole. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Mila, you know as well as I do that assessing a picture is not a personal action. And no one here will admit it is, as long as the arguments used are of strict technical or aesthetical nature. All we have to do if we don't agree with a negative evaluation is to call for another opinion. Please don't make wild (and wrong) assumptions on my personal motivations. I did remove those notices because I was convinced that was the right thing to do, no matter the people involved. No special bravery is needed for that and, as you well know, my interpretation prevailed at the end. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Alves, lycaon reviews on my images are dishonest, and they should stop. We have too big of a history with him. He is a marine biologist. His opinion could and will influence other users, who otherwise will not oppose my underwater nominations. I am surprised you cannot understanded it. I believe you had some problems with Tomas, and you stoppod reviewing his images, didn't you. It was the right thing to do. Here is the same situation only much worse, and with much longer history. But I see your opinion is biased. I will not bother you with that matter any more.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

All criteria met; Best in rich scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Children of Kabul, Afghanistan.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Children of Kabul, Afghanistan.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the nomination. I'm sorry I couldn't participate to the discussion and answer some of the questions about the circumstances of the photo: when I realized the photo was nominated the voting period was already over.--Paulrudd (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Template FP seal

Hi Alvesgaspar,

you have created Template:FP seal, however this seems to be pretty redundant to Template:FP star; I suppose you just didn't about the other one. Currently only three user pages are using your template, and I propose changing them to the FP start template and delete FP seal. Do you mind if I do that? -- H005 07:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not at all, go ahead. Is there a simple way to replace the template in my galleries? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is. Ever heard of search & replace? ;-) -- H005 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did: in Word, Excel, etc... But not in Commons, where such tool is reserved to important users! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:-) As I am not an important user I have to walk per pedes and copy the entire source code into notepad, search & replace there and copy it back to Wikipedia. -- 21:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Futanari

You removed my nomination of Futanari.png from FPC. Your reason was: "FPC is supposed to be 'family safe'. Please don't try making any point here"

In which way fails this image the guidelines of COM:FPC? I can't find the stated reason that FPC is supposed to be 'family safe' in any of the guidelines. --Niabot (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But...

I also thinks, that "old" users should have some manners. The best. Alofok (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Re: File:Brembola-b-3999.jpg, could you please explain the details for me to learn? Where is it tilted? Why do you think the road is oversaturated? What distracting is in this typical village scene? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tilted: the horizon is not ... horizontal. Check also the vertical lines. This is easy to fix; Oversaturated: the colours don't look natural. Did you use any application to make them more 'vivid' ?; Distracting foreground: you should find some other angle, so that the brick wall and post do not show. Welcome to QIC and good luck with your photos! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. While I don't believe in digital rotations, the pin about horison is helpful. Usually I mind the vertical lines (fence poles). — I used raw converter to set WB and saturation (as zero-changed saturation always leads to gray, non-essential colours). The colours never look natural, as the computer screen cannot show the natural colours. Which spots look bad? — The angles are the hardest question. To avoid the bricks I have to move outwards of the bell-tower and fix myself in the air. This will change the whole scene and will not allow (provided my human ability to fly) the angle I used for this panoramic photo. Flying closer to buildings the photographer will need a fisheye lens, this making the photo completely distorted. So keeping in mind the trouble with bricks and post I see there is no way to have QI of this street...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Scope

Why do you think that the scope is a joke?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_vortex_street Joe Chill 2 (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I created a category for the phenomenon and since there is others like it, I will add them to the category (It's surprising that it wasn't done already). If you will explain how the scope on the other image is vague, I should be able to change it to a more suitable one. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, that was a mistake (the vortex thing, I mean). As for the "satellite picture of clouds", it doesn't work as a scope because is too general. As general as "satellite picture" of land" or "satellite picture of buildings". You will have to find something more specific inside this general category. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Does clouds from above work? I forgive you for your mistake. I rarely hold grudges. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And I changed the other one to clouds from above which does have a category. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pari in Paris

Thanks for decline this image in QIC !! You make me win a lot of money !!--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• But why, did you bet I was going to oppose?... Well, you win! I did notice the picture before, but hoped it passed through the net without being assessed. Exactly like the one with the broken tiles that you opposed (and I think shouldn't have been nominated in the first place)... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, don't you think I deserve a share of that bet? Fair is fair! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)