User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive1
Radcliffe Camera
[edit]You're right that it does look quite different from above and I think I mentioned this in the discussion on the page. I still think it looks just as nice, but aesthetics is as you said: very subjective. You're also correct that Oxford isn't far from London, and I may re-visit one day soon. :) I think Cambridge is next though, so we'll see what sort of photographic inspiration I find there! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Featured picture promotion!
[edit] |
- This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:The photographer new.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on January 28, 2007, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 07:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The destruction...
[edit]Check your edit. You moved my closing small tag into your comment, thus leaving my tag unclosed and yours doubly closed. --Dschwen 12:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Image:Twin lantana camara edit.jpg
[edit]Will you please verify the FP vote count for picture Image:Twin lantana camara edit.jpg? I can see 6 support votes for edit 1. Regards, Alvesgaspar 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- You were right, I've changed it. However, this unfortunately doesn't change the outcome. Thanks anyways. NauticaShades 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to insist, but I think it does change the result (2/3 majority). Also, you forgot to count my vote (which, of course, applies to both versions). It should then count 7 support and 3 oppose. - Alvesgaspar 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- 6/3 is a 1/2 majority, not a 2/3 majority. Also, I recounted it, making sure to include yours, and found it was actually less than I had thought. Let me go over the supports quickly:
- Your vote: Support = 1
- SOADLuver's vote: Support = 2
- Janke's vote: Weak Support = 2.5
- CountdownCrispy's vote: Weak Support = 3
- My vote: Weak Support = 3.5
- gren's vote: Support = 4
- jjron's vote: Support = 5
- jlao04's vote: Weak Support = 5.5
--NauticaShades 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I’m sorry to disturb you again. First of all please forgive my ignorance: I did not know that a weak support only counted ½ vote... But I still don’t think the result is clear enough. Two of the oppose votes (Adrian Pingstone and Samsara) were given before edit1 was published and were based on problems that were later solved (at least partially). These votes (and perhaps the support vote of SudLover, if we want to be straight) shouldn’t count. May I suggest that the picture returns to the section “Older nominations requiring additional input from voters”, in order to clarify the consensus? - Alvesgaspar 23:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Newton's Cradle was by Demon DeLuxe, not me; I simply nominated it. NauticaShades 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Lantana
[edit]Sorry to disappoint you but I oppose edit 1 as well, and have said so on the FPC page - Adrian Pingstone 12:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Congrats
[edit] |
Hello,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Twin lantana camara edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 14, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-02-14. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Featured picture promotion!
[edit] |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Using the caliper new en.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
|
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Using the caliper new en.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 10, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-10. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sextant
[edit]Do you think we might work together to produce a successful animation? I think your work had real potential. John Reid ° 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Featured Picture
[edit] |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Vernier caliper.svg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 07:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, and thanks for making it for us. Raven4x4x 07:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Changing votes
[edit]I don't understand why you stroke my vote on the original squirrel image. My intention was really to vote "weak support original" and "support edit 1". Alvesgaspar 17:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please accept my humble apologies for my misinterpretation. Now I know I still have a lot to learn
. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No harm done. Good luck with your exams ;-) Alvesgaspar 17:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have completed two exams, and I have six exams left. After that, I may change my signature to "happy holidays!" or such. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- My signature has been changed since my final exams are over. s d 3 1 4 1 5 Happy Holidays! 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
[edit]from s d 3 1 4 1 5 Happy Holidays!! 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
[edit]- Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Alvesgaspar! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
|
May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | File:Julekort.jpg |
You're welcome. Nice philosophical aproach for the new year too. ;-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 19:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for signing my autograph book too. :-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
New Year
[edit]- I Hope You Have A Happy New Year Alvesgaspar!!!! ¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
|
I hope that you have a wonderful New Year and will party all night long. If you don't celebrate New year at this time well then happy early or late New Year and I still advise that you have a good time tonight!!! ¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | 
|
Fruit basket
[edit]If you don't mind we should just remove FBs comment on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Indian_bride_portrait including our replies. It was just vandalism. That user has nothing but vandalized. Check this, how he transformed a vandalism warning into a welcome template. --Dschwen 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Commons POTY identity confirmation
[edit]I confirm I am the same user as 85.139.196.32 - Alvesgaspar 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Bassoon
[edit] |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:FoxBassoon.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
|
Mr Gaspar,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:FoxBassoon.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 5, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-06-05. howcheng {chat} 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Re:POTY 2006
[edit]Thanks for the message. I have no idea what I was supposed to do. Maybe making it a bit more jargon-free might help for next time. I would point out that your message to me that my vote wasn't counted was only a couple of messages away from my confirmation that it was me voting. Never mind, I'm sure it makes no difference anyway. Mallanox 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh...
[edit]I voted on 1 February. My Commons username is NSLE-Chacor, and had over 100 edits at time of voting. As far as I can see, my vote has not been discounted. What are you on about? – Chacor 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- On the same issue, regarding this your message [1]. Unfortunately, I don't know how to sign my IP automatically, and not sure whether it was necessary. Anyway, my IPs are dynamic so doing it now would be useless. I think my vote should be counted simply because of the diff. Wishes, Ukrained 18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Commons Picture of the Year 2006
[edit]Regarding this msg that you left on my talk page, is this diff fine?. --Bluerain talk 17:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding diff - I can see it right there on the end of my vote, 81.179.66.146 ... what am I missing? --Stephen Burnett 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I followed the diff-making instructions to the letter, and there is no mention in them of referencing an IP in a diff. The diff that the instructions give as an example also does not contain any reference to an IP. Many other diffs on the voting page that do not reference an IP have been left alone there. Why are you only selecting some for deletion, especially given that you are requiring steps that are not in the instructions?--Margareta 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- It may help you to review the diff-making instructions. As you will see, I followed them correctly.--Margareta 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! :-) --Margareta 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
US Statehood FPC
[edit]Could you please check this picture? I belive your objections have been met. The Placebo Effect 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Promoted image
[edit] |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Using sextant swing.gif, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. trialsanderrors 05:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|
Hi Joaqium,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Using sextant swing.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 30, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-08-30. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Glossy Ibis FPC
[edit]Hi Alvesgaspar - I went ahead and masked out the glossy ibis FP nom and blurred the background (and desaturated it a bit). I can't help the cropping, but maybe it will meet your standard? Take another peak at the nomination if you like. Debivort 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
DSLR ?
[edit]Salut, tu parles très bien français, je suis impressioné :) but let's continue in English. I don't know much about DSLR, but enough to give a very few hints (diliff and dschwen seem to know much more than I do). I personnaly own a Canon EOS 400D with a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. This lens, though great can't be used on full frame (24x36') sensors bodies such as 5D and 1D, so beware if you intend to buy the same and plan to upgrade your body to a full frame one some time later.
I think at some level, all cameras perform basically the same. So D80/400D/A100 are all good choice. I like the Canon interface and very low noise sensors, but I can't tell if they are better than Nikon's and Sony's. [2] and [3] may be worth a look for you. You should also take into account which lenses are available for the body you are going to get. Canon and Nikon seem to offer the largest choice. Some day, I hope I'll own a 70-200 f/2.8 which is said to be great (either in its standard or IS flavour). This way I'll cover focal range from 17 to 200mm (with a slight gap from 55 to 70). To me prime lens might not be necessary because 17-55 is really really nice and fast enough at f/2.8.
I often read [4] for lens reviews, and if you go for a Canon body, [5] is to be in your bookmark.
this is a lot of money. you'll certainly want to use some nicer lens than the kit ones, so I'd say (whatever body you choose) that a 2000€ budget won't let you a huge margin to start. In that case I would eliminate the D200...
I'd like to mention that I started with the kit lens (18-55). It's not that bad for landscape when stopped down to f8. My two FP were taken with this lens (I downsampled them because the corners looked a bit bad).
Hope this help a bit. Blieusong 22:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Je suis assez surpris que tu parles si bien alors qu'à priori, tu n'as pas pratiqué le français depuis longtemps. Moi j'ai appris l'espagnol (même si tu es portugais) au lycée, et je crois avoir tout oublié (à part Buenos Dias, Como Estas...). Yup, from a technical point of view, none of these cameras seems to stand above the others. So it's certainly just a matter of user interface and lenses choice. Blieusong 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And no, you can't use the ** (or ^) operator :) Blieusong 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- your solution is wrong, you used a "power operator", and you can't. Hint, your intermediate results can be a rational number. Blieusong 21:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oedemeridae taxobox image
[edit]Hi Alvesgaspar - I think your image for Oedemeridae is better than the previous one, but the insect is so small in your image, that as a taxobox image goes, I think it is worse. Would you mind generating a crop that is pretty much only the insect, and using that in the taxobox? Thanks. Debivort 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 |
As for the reason why the nom was left open for a long time, the page became heavily backlogged while I was unable to promote FPs and nobody else was willing to take the burden. MER-C 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:LantanaFlowerLeaves-3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 18, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-09-18. howcheng {chat} 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Featured Picture
[edit] |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 02:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 02:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 4, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-04.
Featured Picture
[edit] |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:WInd Rose Aguiar.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
|
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:WInd Rose Aguiar.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 14, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-14. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
in the RAW
[edit]What are your misgivings about RAW? I know I hesitated with it for a good while, so if you have any questions I'd be happy to help. mikaultalk 13:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 |
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Azulejos Parque Eduardo VII-2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 21, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-21. howcheng {chat} 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 |
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Darter August 2007-22 edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 15, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-12-15. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that backwards? I was taught to find the celestial body first, then bring it down to the horizon, not bring the horizon up to the body as you're showing. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Greenbottle fly
[edit]Thanks for the correction.Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Bouncing ball FP nomination
[edit]There is a new extremely professional re-edit from my original RAW file by Richard Bartz, and I'd urge you to vote for this instead of my own imperfect Photoshop efforts. Thanks very much to Richard for the work he's put in. Please consider voting or amending your vote at: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Projectile motion. --MichaelMaggs 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alvesgaspar,
I've uploaded an edit version of the image which I think addresses your cropping concerns. Perhaps you could reconsider your vote? Thanks, --Fir0002 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pythagorean theorem
[edit]The discussion on FP talk seems a bit sterile to me. Why not just renominate the second version? It just needed more time.--MichaelMaggs 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Pythagoras
[edit]Hi Alvesgaspar,
Just saw you comment on your Pythagoras nom when looking through the archives. I think a more simple animated proof would be:
- Start with the abc triangle.
- Grow c out to make a square of size c².
- Grow a square out from a and b, making a² and b².
- Move the b² square into the c² square.
- Divide the a² square up and fill the remaining space in the c² square with the parts of a².
You could use different colours and/or transparencies to make things clearer to users.
I don't see that this would be any harder to animate than the one you did - in fact possibly easier. It's also simpler to understand, at least to me. The original triangle is never changed or removed, and it seems clearer that the c² is equal to a² + b². --jjron 07:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Yes, there are several geometric "proofs" like the one you suggest (please see the article). But this one is much simpler and elegant. Alvesgaspar 08:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- To me, the main reason people were opposing the nom was that the 'proof' in fact wasn't simple to understand. For mine, as soon as you started duplicating the triangle, it became confusing.
- If the only people that can understand it are those that are mathematically inclined, then I think that reduces it's usefulness, as they undoubtedly already understand the concept anyway. I have taught this stuff to high school students, and if doing a (paper based) geometrical proof I would use basically the one I suggested above, as it is quite simple to do and follow.
- I realise you must have put a lot of time into the version you did, so probably aren't very inclined to do another version anyway, but I just feel another version may gain more recognition. --jjron 06:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Loved your quote
[edit][6] Just wanted to tell you. You've got the right spirit. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 |
Could you cleanup the individual pics and/or downsample it? I felt that the enc value more than compensated for technical imperfection but it'd be good if some of the concerns were addressed (as in no delist nom in several months time). It's the same story for the mustard one. There's also a relevant policy about edits being featured. After all, it's a wiki. MER-C 11:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concern. OK, I'll try to clean up or downsample the poster, before someone does it for me. I must confess I did not except this nomination to succeed (and still don't understand how) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Syrphidae poster.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 10, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-07-10. howcheng {chat} 23:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 |
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Vanessa January 2008-2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 28, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-07-28. howcheng {chat} 16:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
hi
[edit]Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Recent FP votes
[edit]Hey, I had noticed on a couple of the recent FPCs that you opposed an edit for "ethical reasons." I just wanted to drop a note and let you know that editing other people's candidates is common practice; and, if it results in a better quality image being created, even encouraged. Once you have released the photo (which you must do to upload it), you give other's the right to edit it. I do understand how you may not like other users to edit your photos (pride of authorship and all that, I do it too, sometimes.), but for FPC it is accepted practice to do this. Hope this helps. Have a great day! Clegs (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks you for your message. Yes, it is a common practise here, but not in COM:FPC, where the author is (usually) invited to improve his image when necessary. As I said in my comments, this is not a question of "right" but of "elegance". If, as I believe, the main purpose of WP:FPC is to encourage authors to participate at their best, then the "pride of authorship" should be considered as an important factor. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- While I completely agree with that on the Commons, their FPs being devoted solely to artistic beauty, WP is not the commons. Cheers! Clegs (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ID of photo
[edit]Hi. You incorrectly identified a photo of a queen bumblebee as a carpenter bee; I have restored the original image. It's a fine photo, but it's not what you thought it was. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- As an aside, looking in your bee/wasp gallery, you have several misspellings and misidentifications in addition to this particular misidentification. The list: Apis mellifera is often misspelled as "melifera"; your "male Lasioglossum" is a male Halictus species; "Polistes gallicus" is not a valid species name (the correct name is Polistes dominulus); there is no family "Xylocopidae" (which you misspelled "Xylopcopidae") - carpenter bees are in the family Apidae (as is Amegilla - the family "Anthophoridae" was sunk back in 1990); the Halictus species name is spelled "scabiosae" (not "scabiose"); Bembix and Philanthus are in the family Crabronidae (not Sphecidae). If you need help with IDs and nomenclature in the future, please feel free to post links to images on my talk page, and I will happily offer my assistance. Your photos are excellent, and it's a shame to not have the correct names to go with them. Dyanega (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- You have three photos of the same Bombus; I am not familiar enough with European Bombus species to give a species-level ID, but another editor (such as Paul Williams) may be. You might wish to put one of the photos on the bumblebee page and see if anyone can put a name on it. Xylocopa do not have hairy abdomens, and many bumblebees have dark wings with purple highlights. Dyanega (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is not Anthophora plumipes, I'm afraid. The wings are much too long, with a long marginal cell - your photos are of a queen Bombus - there are several European species with black forms, including campestris, hortorum, humilis, mucidus, ruderatus, and subterraneus. They are exceedingly difficult to distinguish, but I can assure you that it is NOT an Anthophora. Dyanega (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- This picture is a photo of Xylocopa violacea (the reddish color on the hind tibiae is not the hairs, but the pollen wedged in between the black scopal hairs) - it is neither a Bombus nor an Anthophora. None of your photos are of Anthophora. However, your comments about the reddish antennal segments had escaped me initially, but now that I look closer at your photos, I'm puzzled by this feature. Now I'm wondering whether that might be a male bee, and not a female, as we had both assumed. I'll get back to you on this. Dyanega (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That was the problem with making the ID; I see from the one specimen we have in our collection that males of X. violacea have very different head shape from the females, and have the distal flagellomeres reddish. Since I had assumed it was a female bee, I was correct that it could not have been a female Xylocopa, but I had not personally seen a male of that species before - the hairiness of the abdomen is extremely atypical, and I suspect it may be an artifact of the angle of the photograph, in combination with condensation of moisture on the hairs to make them appear longer and denser. So, my apologies for making that mistake: it is indeed a male of X. violacea, and not a Bombus. Dyanega (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 |
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Bumblebee October 2007-3a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 6, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-09-06. howcheng {chat} 00:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the right place for for|see links, and why did you take out the one that was already there? --Ecographer (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the right place to insert links is in "See also" (internal) or "External links" (external). When there is another meaning for some title (that was the case of "caliper brake"), there should be a disambiguation page with a list of all different meanings and corresponding articles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will put in a see also link. Ecographer (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 |
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Asteracea poster 3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 10, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-08-10. howcheng {chat} 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 |
Wasps do not regurgitate nectar
[edit]It's really that simple. Paper wasps use water to make paper. Dyanega (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The use of regurgitated water droplets for evaporative cooling is very well-documented for honey bees, incidentally; everyone who studies paper wasps recognizes that they do the same thing, and I've seen it myself on numerous occasions. Just because it isn't researched in every insect that does it, does not mean it is not well-known. Paper wasps also use regurgitated water to dampen the nest and cool the brood, but the female in the photo is not on a nest, so she is clearly using it to cool herself. Dyanega (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Many different winged insects regurgitate fluid, not only wasps and bees. In the case of flies, that happens normally in bright sunlight and the practise is believed to be a way of warming up the fluid (a long discussion on the subject can be found here). Physically, I can't understand how evaporative cooling of the insect body is achieved through the evaporation of a spherical water droplets positioned in one of its extremities. If some evaporative cooling really takes place, it should be on the surface of the droplets, and some breeze is needed for the process to be effective. Bees use evaporative cooling to cool the larvae by depositing water and then fanning air with their wings. It seems obvious for me that insects take sunbaths to warm up, no to cool down. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the case of this particular wasp, the droplet disappeared and formed again a number of times during the period I was there. In the meantime, the wasp remained motionless. BTW, wasps do feed on nectar, not water -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 |
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Wasp March 2008-1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 22, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-09-22. howcheng {chat} 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Missing image Image:Mosquito 2007-2.jpg
[edit]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Mosquito 2007-2.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Mosquito 2007-2.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Mosquito 2007-2.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 |
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Fernão Vaz Dourado 1571-1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 27, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-09-27. howcheng {chat} 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 |
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Bartolomeu Velho 1568.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 9, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-10-09. howcheng {chat} 23:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote
[edit]This [7] is going to be my quote of the week. Oh yeah, how mature... ;-) --Dschwen 23:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Being a species that shares this same odd characteristic, maybe we should be put in the Mecoptera order. Unless it doesn't count for being biped ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 |
P.S. please don't put wiki markup in nomination titles, it stuffs up the featured picture tag. I've fixed it by moving the page, but it's something I'd rather avoid doing. MER-C 12:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- This photograph is misidentified. It is a male Anthophora species. Dyanega (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:FPC talk
[edit]Hi Joaquim, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would strike your last response as an act of good faith. It will only serve to inflame an already overblown, irresolvable argument and divert attention away from the main issue. Whatever issues people have with Commons, they will be resolved by better communication, not bigger arguments. Cheers, --mikaultalk 11:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did as you asked as a sign of good faith and because I believe this is a useful debate. But it was not me who inflamed the discussion :( -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Emotions were way out of hand long before you arrived. I think your suggestions have been very constructive, FWIW. Thanks for helping to calm things down. --mikaultalk 12:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
Friend, I do not doubt the validity of your statement that the image you prefer is better than the one of Desert Locust; however, the article is about Locusts and the image of a grasshopper. Therefore, I have undone your last change. Thank you—GRM (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are right and I was was wrong. Sorry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Valued Pictures Proposal
[edit]Hi Alvesgaspar. Thanks for your comments and vote when this went through FPC talk. I realise you preferred Option 3, but there was a pretty clear consensus for Option 2 which involved setting up the project here. I have developed a trial version at User:Jjron/VP Trial. I have put up a discussion at PPR talk - Wikipedia_talk:Picture_peer_review#Valued_Pictures_Proposal for comments. Feel free to drop by and give your thoughts. --jjron (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 |
- I need to ask; the name "Polistes gallicus" has been misapplied to Polistes dominulus for centuries. Do you know how to distinguish true P. gallicus (which occurs in southern Europe; Ukraine; Russia; Armenia; Azerbaijan; Turkmenistan; Mongolia; China; Iran; Afghanistan; Turkey; Israel; northern Africa; Ethiopia) from P. dominulus (central and southern Europe; Turkey; northern Africa; Israel; Syria; Afghanistan; Russia; Iran; Uzbekistan; Turkmenistan; Pakistan; India: Jammu and Kashmir; Mongolia; China; introduced Australia; Chile; U.S.A.)? If so, then you need to create an independent article on P. gallicus that shows side-by-side photos and helps readers distinguish the two species. If not, how can you be certain the species in this photo is genuinely gallicus and not dominulus? Dyanega (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at your gallery, I see that you have numerous photos identified as either gallicus or dominulus (or both simultaneously, where the caption and description are different names); those that are of males, such as [8], are of P. dominulus - the terminal flagellomere of male gallicus antennae is visibly much longer, from specimens I have here in front of me. I am suspicious that you may not have any photos of true gallicus. Dyanega (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- That is a difficult subject (the identification of the two species i hard to do by photos alone) and I'm not an entomologist. The last specialist I consulted on this told me these wasps were most probably P. gallicus (here. But please feel free to make the corrections if you are sure ir is otherwise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- For the three photos on that particular page, the ID as gallicus could well be correct, though the tip of the male antenna is not visible. Both gallicus and dominulus occur in the area where your photos are taken, so the problem is being able to tell which photos are which species, and this is not a trivial problem. It is not safe to assume that an ID given on one photo applies to anything other than photos of that exact same individual. I am presently trying to find out whether there are any genuinely distinctive features to separate the females from photos, by contacting a Polistes specialist. Dyanega (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've finally heard back from some Polistes workers on telling the two species apart; in the males, the terminal flagellomere is indeed visibly longer (at least twice the length of the penultimate segment) in gallicus; as long as the antennae can be seen clearly in a photo, it should be possible to identify males easily and definitively. For females, however, it is almost impossible to separate them; the clypeus (face) of gallicus, viewed from the side, is slightly flatter below, where dominulus has it more evenly convex. This is subtle, and almost never visible in a photo. If the clypeus is entirely yellow, then it is probably dominulus. If there is black on the clypeus, however, it can be either species! Accordingly, there are several of your photos of females which can be listed as dominulus with some confidence, though not so much with gallicus. Of course, if even the world's experts can't tell them apart, you could probably identify nearly any female with dark markings on the face as gallicus and not have anyone complain. I hope this is of some use to you, as far as putting names on all of your photos. Dyanega (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I had some free time today, and so I updated the captions in your gallery at the Wikimedia Commons; from what I can see, all of your photos are of dominula (yes, I found out from a Polistes expert that this is the correct spelling, rather than dominulus); the only female with black clypeal markings is the queen of a nest that produced workers with yellow faces - queens of dominula sometimes have black faces, so clearly this nest (from which you have an excellent series of photos) was clearly a dominula nest. Note that I have also indicated which of your photos are of males; one of them [Image:Wasp August 2007-16.jpg] gives an excellent image showing the short terminal flagellomere of male dominula. Dyanega (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the long delay but I'm enjoying my summer vacancy at the beach :). Thank you for your effort and help, Dyanega. It would be nice to have some easy rule of thumb to tell the two species apart but this is the way it is... In the meantime I'm taking some action shots of wasps capturing bees! Is it possible that a bee killer wasp kills its prey by biting its neck at the back of the head? That is what my shots suggest! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you mean a Vespa that kills bees, they do kill by biting the neck; if, however, you're referring to Philanthus, they only hold the prey by the neck, and sting it to paralyze it - they do not kill the prey. Dyanega (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- It was really a bee-killer wasp (Philanthus triangulum), which means that the poor thing will be eaten alive by the larvae?... I can't now upload the pictures, my web access is limited and painfully slow -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the long delay but I'm enjoying my summer vacancy at the beach :). Thank you for your effort and help, Dyanega. It would be nice to have some easy rule of thumb to tell the two species apart but this is the way it is... In the meantime I'm taking some action shots of wasps capturing bees! Is it possible that a bee killer wasp kills its prey by biting its neck at the back of the head? That is what my shots suggest! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Photos of Insects
[edit]Your photos of insects are sensational, extraordinary, wonderful .... I can help you identifying your photos of beetles; please, do not doubt to submit me any photo of beetle for identification (better to the adress of Spanish wikipedia ([9]), or here (Xvazquez (talk)) if it is easier for you. Best regards. --Xvazquez (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The image in the upper right has a typo in the species name. It should be balteatus not blteatus. Someone also claims that the top left image is incorrectly identified (see Image talk:Syrphidae poster.jpg), although I think they're wrong. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-10 15:48Z
Not one of the Lycosidae
[edit]Hi,
I saw that you appended an image to the Wolf Spider article. However, the image you provided is almost certainly one of the Salticidae. It might by of the genus Platycryptus. I can't tell for sure because I can only see the spider from one angle. But the eyes are typical of jumping spiders and very different from the wolf spiders (as is the cephalothorax).
-
This is a jumping spider. The "two headlights" with flanking "parking lights" are a dead giveaway. -
This one is Platycryptus undatus. It is a very calm and fearless little spider. -
This is a member of the genus Pardosa. It has two prominent eyes, but they are hard to see in this photo. I copied the photo and digitally manipulated it to show its eyes. But the result is probably not worth uploading to Commons. -
This is a member of the genus Hogna. You can double-click on this image and see a very typical wolf spider head and its tall carapace. Notice that there are four smaller eyes in a single line at the bottom, then high up there are two very large eyes, and still higher up and still farther apart there are two more eyes.
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Scorpionfly_March_2008-1.jpg&diff=199328485&oldid=199322734){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wasp_August_2007-16.jpg){kind=link}
I've been playing with the Salticidae since about 1952, so I'm almost sure what you have even though it would only be possible to identify it by genus and species with much more complete images. Its rather "flattened" body is reminiscent of Platycryptus, but who knows.
P0M (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Contrast your picture to
http://picasaweb.google.com/jerryhsu2k/JerryHsuSEXPLORE/photo#5092235128688073810 which shows a Pardosa species that is found in China.P0M (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I know only jumping spiders, and mostly am interested in their behavior. If you take pictures of spiders and would like to get them identified it is always useful to have top and bottom view, face, and sometimes it is worth getting a clear image of the spinnerets if they aren't clear in the other views. I'd really like to know what the rest of your creature looks like. I'll bet it is quite beautiful. Frequently, when I try to organize spider pictures in commons:
- there will be one stunning view of some beauty, but only enough to tell that it would be really nice to know what to call it. (I frequently take lots of pictures such as
- just so that I can establish something regarding species or (in the above case) sex. Digital pictures are inexpensive to make and store, so I don't mind snapping a dozen to get one good one. (That's often necessary with spiders that refuse to hold still for me.) P0M (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 |
What can be better?
[edit]Hi. I'd appreciate if you could specify what you thought was bad quality in the Human male body picture, so it can be done better in any updated version of it. Do you mean visible tan lines, inaccurate cut from the background, perhaps too low resolution, or maybe something else? Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, my reply is in the nomination page. What camera and lens did you use? And what kind of ligthing? Seems easy but it is not! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
Thank you
[edit]Greetings, Alvesgaspar. Thank you for your help on a Wikimedia Commons featured picture nomination. I admit it was spur of the moment. Hope you don't mind me thanking you today on my Wikipedia user page? Best wishes and apologies for any misunderstanding. I bought two prints today from Art.com, Inc. (art.com and related sites in the United States--but be careful they have every angle covered and it is a chore to get a good price, today was a special offer), one is a photograph of a studio and one is a painting of a studio, both by Georges Braque. My dad let me tag along to see his retrospective at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA decades ago. I think one of the guards later became an acquaintance. Again thank you very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Your comments looked like a pool table with a triangle and balls, a "lucky break"--maybe you heard that Sotheby's in London had an auction during the U.S. financial crisis and that the artist was out playing snooker at the time. I'll try to find the reference if you are interested. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Speedy deletion of Image:Legs scan.jpg
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Image:Legs scan.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Legs scan.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 |
Renaming "Ocean surface wave"
[edit]Hello Alvesgaspar. Regarding choosing the best name for "ocean surface wave": what do you think is a good way to proceed? We can wait for a few weeks for other people to give their opinion. If that does not bring a conclusion, we could ask for input on requested move. I do not see directly a WP project where we can ask for input by others, but perhaps you have ideas on this. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure either on what should be the best move. Anyway this is such a specialized subject that there shouldn't be many people caring about it. Yes, I would wait for some days (not weeks) and proceed according to the consensus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I moved "Ocean surface wave" to Wind wave. And created a redirect Wind generated wave. Thanks for your suggestions and discussion with respect to the name. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Eristalinus October 2007-6.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 10, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-10. howcheng {chat} 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Bee March 2008-10.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 29, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-29. howcheng {chat} 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
FPC
[edit]You may be interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Eritrean_Railway&diff=prev&oldid=256612413 BTW, I had another look at the "how long" discussion and was surprised that by the end of it, people had once again managed to completely miss the point with (I shall name and shame) people such as Fbc81 commenting "Can we just agree that the current system does not in fact favor anyone in particular but only the concensus as best we can get it.", or jjron's "The guidelines clearly say "For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days..."; no one has ever said that it's exactly seven days, in fact we've made it clear in several discussions here before that the seven days serves as an approximate guideline only." Best of all, I loved Janke: "I've never closed a nom, and probably never will, but I would pay little attention to supports saying "I love this picture", but a lot of attention to an oppose stating "low enc because of xxx". This is where the importance of the closer comes in. Anyone can count votes and make a decision on the 2 to 1 principle, but it is important to make an decision that improves the encyclopedia!" Clearly, according to him, closers *are* and should be dictators of consensus.
I'll bring it to your attention that it would be within Wikipedia's spirit to start an FPC-not-the-established-club WikiProject with better criteria and demand that we get a slot on the front page.
Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Confused
[edit]Not too sure what the discussion on the definition of "what is sunset" has any relevance with the image selection. As I stated in my original summary the current image is small and heavily vignetted - I see no reason whatsoever of having such a poor quality image as the lead for a well photographed subject! --Fir0002 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the demerits of the present lead image. The problem is all replacements have been reverted (including this one because the images do no fully depict the "astronomical sunset" (that is the lower limb of the sun touching the horizon). Stupid? Yes. I have replaced the intial paragrapgh with a revised text. Maybe that will help. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I did see that debate and it does seem a bit nit-picky. But regardless, the alternative I proposed shows the same time of day as the current image without the technical drawbacks. So at least until the status quo regarding the definition is changed I don't see a reason not to go through with the replacement... --Fir0002 02:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- You probably did already understand, but let me explain again, word by word. If any picture is to replace the existing one it should be the one I tried to put there more than three months ago and failed. It shows the sun, has better resolution and is a FP (though of a "minor class", I guess). But if it is so important for you to have yours shown, go ahead. I won't start an edit conflict because of that. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think your image should replace it because from the talkpage and from your nom on FPC it seems that it has questionable value as a sunset image. Therefore it makes much more sense to replace the existing image (which I'll do now) with one showing a similar situation but in higher quality. Oh and in terms of being "first in" I think I top trump you with a replacement I tried about 14 months ago! :) --Fir0002 10:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- But it isn't a similar situation. The photo you are inserting does not show brightly contrasting colors, which is the dictionary definition of sunset. Feel free to use a higher quality photo, but you can't replace it simply because it's of a higher quality; it must coincide with the dictionary definition equally or more than the one that's there. - Marc Averette (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see the logic in your arguments, which appear to me as a bunch of falacies with the only purpose of justifying the forcing of your image into the article. I'm not invoking precedence but enc value. If my picture has a questionable value because the upper limb of the sun is not touching the horizon, how can yours be better when not even the sun is shown? (Maybe you should start by reading more carefully the discussion on the talk page). As I said before, I won't start an edit fight on this but will strongly oppose any nomination of this picture in FPC, if that is your intention. Sorry to repeat myself but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a show-case of Fir's talents -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on the sunset talkpage since it seems this discussion has moved into a wider scope. But come on Alvesgaspar, the very reason your image has questionable value is because it shows the sun. Any third party definition [10] [11] says that sunset occurs after the sun has disappeared below the horizon which clearly isn't the case in your image. It would seem the accusations you levelled against me would quite appropriately apply to you. And just FYI I never had any intention of nominating this at FPC! --Fir0002 21:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Misumena vatia
[edit]Dear Joaquim, I am writing you regarding your edit in the Misumena vatia article. Are you sure it is Misumena vatia and not a Thomisus sp.? The spider on the picture does not seem to match the diagnostic characters of the species in my identification key. Alexei Kouprianov (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not an entomologist and you may be right. What I can say is that the two photos were taken at almost exactely the same spot and that the sizes of the two spiders are identical. What can we do have a positive identification? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Hoverfly December 2007-8.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 21, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-12-21. howcheng {chat} 07:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Seagull, species???
[edit]
Hi, Alvesgaspar, i took a photo of a flying seagull in Pontevedra, northern west Spain. Could you tell me which species it belongs to? Answer here please http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n:Mario_modesto. Thanks --Mario modesto (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
[edit]
Muhammad(talk) 09:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Alvesgaspar,
After a quick browse through the history of Sunset I've noticed you've previously edited the page. Your input is now requested in choosing a new lead picture here. Thanks for your time, --Fir0002 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your image is doing well! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, it took more than 4 months for racionality to prevail! Thank you for calling my attention, I had already retired from the discussion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Wasp May 2008-11.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 3, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-02-03. howcheng {chat} 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Congrats!
[edit] |
Wikipedia Announcements post
[edit]I'm not sure it quite qualifies for the page (not at the top of WP:ANN and make your own mind up), but at the very least it needs to go at the top of the page and not the bottom! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure either... What do you think it is the best place to put the banner (either than FPC, of course)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- WP:VP wouldn't turn you down, certainly. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
[edit] |
Congratulations!
[edit] |
Congratulations!
[edit] |
(Copied from Commons:User talk:Mikael Häggström)
- Indeed! Or perhaps (but unlikely) he actually was approaching and was taking a step forward with that left leg. This could be a good plot in the next Dan Brown book! Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I made some borders and further explanation of the boxes in the steroidogenesis image (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Steroidogenesis), if you want to add a vote or further comment. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
sunset photo
[edit]Hello Alvesgaspar, you recently reverted an image I added to sunset. I haven't gone through the debates on the talk page, but since you have been following them, can you point out the exact problem with the image I added. Jay (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Jay, there was an extensive discussion about what pictures should illustrate the article, followed by a voting, in which a clear consensus was achieved concerning the lead image. As you can see, all images proposed were of very high quality, much better than yours (which is over-processed and looks unnatural). Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is a lead image the main image on the article topic? The one I added was not the main image of the topic, but rather an image in one of the sections. Jay (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you read carefully the discussion you will verify that no concensus was reached concerning the inclusion of aditional images. I personally think that the article should have more pictures. But then, they should be chosen among the ones in the discussion gallery, as they are all of excellent quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Alves, I have tried to address the EV concerns about the nominated image. I have the id for the genus and I have created another article where the image is used as well. Could you please have a look. --Muhammad(talk) 06:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Pot-bellied pigs in Lisbon Zoo 2008.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 22, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-22. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Wasp July 2008-1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 26, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-26. howcheng {chat} 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 |
 |
Congratulations!
[edit] |
 |
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Butterfly August 2008-3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 8, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-08. howcheng {chat} 03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Wasp colony.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 16, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-16. Sorry this is so late. This one happened to come in a glut of insect photos and it was also very close to another 6-step photo that I held onto it for a while and then forgot about it. howcheng {chat} 03:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
For obvious reasons, I'd rather you reply to Durova than me here, if you don't mind. I'll delete my comment. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Rob Roy
[edit]If you want to treat my Rob Roy nomination same as the three I'm doing, feel free. It's about the only damn way I can see to go forwards after Wadester screwed it up so much that there's no way the nominations can have a fair run anymore. God damn. If this doesn't result in some major changes, I'm leaving FPC here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm willing to but don't know how! Please teach me. I feel exactly the same way. If Maedin's initiative fails I may leave the place for good (BTW, did you already given your 2 cents there?). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Weevil September 2008-1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 26, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-26. howcheng {chat} 04:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Butterfly April 2008-2a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-06-04. howcheng {chat} 04:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Table-cloth 2008-1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 7, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-06-07. howcheng {chat} 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
[edit]Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Pedro Reinel 1504.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 18, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-06-18. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alvesgaspar! I responded to your comments about my survey conclusions. Thanks for your imput, SpencerT♦Nominate! 18:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Your FP
[edit]According to this edit, File:Spider and bee June 2008-1.jpg is a Thomisus species. Currently this image is not in any article and therefore no longer eligible to be a Featured Picture. You may want to rectify this. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 07:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Howcheng. It is solved now. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Zoo
[edit]Please don't restore that again. An anon keeps reverting our article, and replacing it with what appears to be a copyright violation, or something very oddly written that he put together himself. It has been going on for months. It is absurdly long (174 kbs) and inappropriately written. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why my image on the Traffic article "irrelevant". It’s a photo of traffic.--Zink Dawg (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- But similar (and not as good) to the first photo in the article -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
File:The Photographer.jpg
[edit]It really is hard to say what way the man is facing, in my opinion this actually adds to the mystical quality of the image. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Many thanks. My own knowledge of projections is not so wide. Please do join in the discussion on my talk: your input would be valuable. Have you any comments on what I did to scale (map) and proposals for a CP page? Peter Mercator (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)