User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive11

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:
Ceriana vespiformis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. I could have supported File:Hoverfly August 2007-1.jpg as well. --Eusebius (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Obidos April 2009-4b.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, interesting object, good details --Mbdortmund 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! S. Martinho April 2009-7.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 Good. --Dschwen 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Hoverfly May 2008-8.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hoverfly May 2008-8.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Wasp October 2007-5.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wasp October 2007-5.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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:
Jerónimos Monastery, Lisbon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, although I also like to see the gardens as well. --Eusebius (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support IMO the most valued image for the category.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

About your pano photo

Hi Alvesgaspar, quite a good pano image. I was expecting to find some kind of seam in between different photos, you know that waves are moving objects, and I am amazed that I do not see any such. I presume you are using the 0.7 hugin release and not an earlier version.

Also the vignetting correction does seem to function as it should. However, there is one thing where I wonder whether the exposure adjustment has worked as it should because I see a band of darker sky if I look really closely. From maybe two times light house height to the left of light house to maybe four times the height in horizontal distance. I could imagine that the exposure adjustment here may have also taken the area with waves into account, with change of image content there, and hence got it slightly wrong.

One more question: are you using enblend together with hugin? The colour step looks rather localised, and with images of sufficient overlap enblend should smoothen out such intensitiy step. Of course one needs overlap for that, 30 or better 50 percent is a good value (and I tend to just above 50 percent, in case one photo in the middle of a pano series goes pear-shaped). Klaus with K (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I presume you read about how to use Control Point, horizontal variety in particular. The second step is the optimisation, which think need to be several steps. First a rough optimisation, stable but not yet fully accurate. Then refinements which may go wrong, if one applies them to totally non-aligned images.

1. optimise: Positions ... starting from anchor
2. optimise: y,p,r,b
3. optimise: y,p,r,v,b (sometimes, not always)
4. custom parameters - here adding x shift (d) and y shift (e) as some of my photos were taken with a badly adjusted lense (so it came straight from the repair shop)

So at least two iterations, often three, and I check the quality parameters of the optimisation in the pop-up window. Of course there is the F3 window as well.

The distortion parameters (a) and (c) I rarely use, as they have the wrong symmetry for a lense that can be described with an analytical formula. In the end, I aim at subpixel alignment, and often do achieve that. Good luck with your future panos. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Klaus, thank you so much for your message and explanations. I like this picture very much exactly for the same reason as you, which is the moving waves, and am glad finally someone noticed this is a different kind of panorama. The secret is, of course, a lot of carefull work with the cloning tool. Fortunately the fractal nature of the geometry of the surf (and sea surface, in general) helps a lot, as well as I being a physical oceanographer and knowing something about waves. I'm not sure what emblend together means. I'm using the 0.7 version of Hugin, with the nona engine, but still don't understand many of the options... The blending between the images was made by cloning, in Corel PhotoPaint and maybe that is why it doesn't look perfect. Really, I'm very much ignorant on the matter! I'll read your instructions carefully and try to improve my results. One thing that I still don't understand is why the final stitching solution is different from the one shown in the application. That is annoying because we can't control what's going on. Another problem I can't solve is how to force the application to cut the images at a certain place. That is necessary, for example, to avoid dealing with moving people in the image. I'm now trying to learn how to manipulate tiff outputs with diferent layers, as it offer aditional stitching possibilities. Cheers, -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alvesgaspar, good to know you have 0.7 hugin version. The hugin GUI or suite of programs, because there is more than hugin under the hood, addresses different aspects. Nona warps the images, and then there is enblend which, in a nutshell, does away with a visible line (see [1] with tech details on [2]) when combining images.

Enblend has two crucial steps. First it determines a seam line to divide the overlap area between the images. One can influence the seam line in editing the alpha channel of input images, usually TIFFs. There is also the possibility to save to or load from file the blending mask (seam is black/white edge).

So if you look at hugin > Stitcher tab > Output and check "Remapped images" you have the ingredient files like pic0000.tif pic0001.tif for blending, where you want to work on (editing alpha channel) before manually feeding them into enblend. Or run enblend once, save the mask, edit the mask, then load it when running enblend a second time.

Of course you may simple clone, or overlay rewarped images as layers and paint into the masks. But I found that painting the alpha layer black for unwanted objects and then feed that into enblend works better, as the transition width in between image details depends on their spatial frequency. Hope that helps.

P.S. Notice that a how-to on enblend might be useful, preferably on the expert user level. -- Klaus with K (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Blending with enblend does not move image parts around, unlike the cloning tool. If one wants to (mis)use enblend for that, one has to (mis)align one of the images in the warping stage. Some I have done a few times when I needed some extra bits of sky somehwere ;-) -- Klaus with K (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-5b.jpg Here I do see relatively sharp brightness transitions. Two examples (1) guy in car park 1/3 left > tall antenna: vertically above (2) recycling boxes, balcony in shadow, chimney with two satellite dishes: vertically above. I wonder what is the reason: a) enblend not used (but is standard in hugin: Stitcher > Processing Remapper:nona , Blender: enblend ; and Output:Blended Panorama should be checked as well) b) some quirk in the vignetting correction/photometric optimisation c) too little overlap in between images? It is certainly something I am no longer used to see in my own panoramic images. -- Klaus with K (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

POTY

Hi Joaquim, would you do me a favour? We need to announce the opening of voting for the POTY final in various places. Would you mind placing a translation of this notice somewhere suitable on the pt Wikipedia, please? You may need to tweak the link by adding an extra "Commons:" so that it links back properly to the relevant page here. Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).

• • Done, but the link still doesn't work... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it may need within the double square brackets

Commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2008|2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition. 

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • It doesn't work neither way. With the extra Commons, the link appears in red; without it, it appears in blue but doens't link to the proper page. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh dear, maybe the code needed for pt is different from some other wikis. One last guess - could you try:

 :C:Commons:Picture of the Year/2008|2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Nope. I also tried :Commons and :Commons:Commons with no result. Let me try to contact someone there. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
        • It is working now, must be some kind of sorcery! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Computers tend to do that. They have minds of their own :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrome island 02.jpg

Thanks for your comment on this image. I took the shot in the late afternoon with strong late afternoon sun with my camera on automatic. No post processing was done. I am not clear on what the problem is with the image, but I do agree there is something. Could I trouble you to look at the two other similarly named images in Category:Chrome Island Lighthouse, one taken from a slightly different direction, and tell me whether they seem to have the same issue? I notice the red kind of floods our around its location in this image and the forest behind isn't as clear as it ought to be. Any suggestions about the camera settings or post processing that might fix it up? Thanks for your comment and any suggestions that come to mind. --KenWalker (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Ken, I took a look at the pictures in the category and they all seem to suffer from the same problem: noise, softness and lack of detail. Maybe part of it might be explained by the exposure choice (high aperture and large shutter speed), causing lack of focus in some of the plans. In this case, you should have used a smaller aperture, to get a larger depth-of-field. But I don't think this explains everything. Before blaming the camera and its sensor, maybe you didn't use the best available quality, which is a must especially when we don't have a DSLR. Finally, most pictures can be improved by slight post-processing especially the contrast (levels) and sharpness (unsharp mask). I believe that the vast majority of the candidates to FPC (which include all of my pictures) pass by the digital lab. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bridge 25 de Abril over the Tagus, Lisbon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment - Aesthetically, I very much prefer this one. But am not sure about the value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I think it is a better illustration of the bridge, more adapted for a headline illustration in an article. --Eusebius (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Meets all criteria. Where is the toll plaza ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Ponte25Abril1.jpg: +2
2. Bridge Tagus April 2009-1a.jpg: 0
=>
File:Ponte25Abril1.jpg: Promoted.
File:Bridge Tagus April 2009-1a.jpg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg (answer)

Oui mais c'est pas encore gagné il y a une autre image qui fait un meilleur score ici  ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I too "I'll keep my fingers crossed!" ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-4.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-4.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

POTD

Hello, feel free to change the POTD --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New proposal for the FP candidates voting process

Hello! I've written a proposal to bring more impartiality in the voting process of FP candidates. Could you please give your comment on that here? Regards -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Good image. It is a pity that the 2 cars are distracting. Yann (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support It looks ok to me (criteria met, cars not too distracting), but I'd be ok as well if the English translation was dropped. In the end, when we have i18n for VI scopes (by the end of the century, hopefully), it would be dropped anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Convento Cristo Decemebr 2008-18.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 20:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Convento Cristo December 2008-10.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 --Mbdortmund 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Excellent quality. Fit the scope. Yann (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Yes, sure, but this one is good too: File:Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg. Joaquim's one is more detailed at full size, but on Richard's one the tower looks cleaner and has less dark parts. I'll set up an MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: +1
2. Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg: 0 
=>
File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: Promoted.
File:Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit

You wrote "Hardly any fractal geometry is perceived in the picture. The resolution is far too small for that" Just to let you know: The way the surface of the DVD cracked is in fact a fractal. Fractals are not limited to computer generated images like the Mandelbrot set. The Romanesco includes also some kind of fractal geometry.
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm well aware what fractal geometry is. A line or a surface is considered to have a fractal nature when its geometric features (irregularities, if you want) are replicated in increasing larger scales (that is, when we see it at increasing magnifications). That happens, for example, with all coastlines of the world and, probably, to the surface of your CD. But the picture doesn't show it! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-5b.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-5b.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pedro Nunes April 2009-1a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pedro Nunes April 2009-1a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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:
Platynochaetus setosus, male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Previous reviews

---

 Info Back to the forum after the species has been identified and the scope changed accordingly. Hope that the procedure is correct (otherwise Eusebius will be mad at me) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Question Who, me? --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Please let me go, I promise I won't do it again! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Question I don't know much about taxonomy, but is it possible to drop the "sp." now? --Eusebius (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, but I can't still move my hands! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Question What differentiates the male from the female? --Eusebius (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info - The weird antennae, which is a quite distinctive featured of all males of this genus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Request Would you please geotag? Or is it a private place? In that case, an indication of the region would be nice. --Eusebius (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Info - Sorry, the region was indicated. It is indeed a private place. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FPC thoughts

Olá Joaquim! Obrigado pelo apoio. Sinceramente desanima um pouco receber tais comentários, ainda mais em fotos onde eu coloco certa dedicação em cima. Como sou novo por aqui, não sabia se tais comentários são normais ou se é uma maneira "mean" de tratar os "newcomers". Procurarei acreditar, como tu dissestes, que os comentários se tratam mais tecnicamente do que pessoalmente. De qualquer forma, aprecio muito o seu gesto, pode ficar tranquilo que não desistirei ;) Muito obrigado & abraços!!!

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:
Anthemis tinctoria (Yellow Chamomile).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Shows the serrate bi-pinnatifid leaves, pedicel, ray and disk flowers well and satisfies the six criteria. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#Unknown_insect

Maybe you might be able to help identify this insect. Rocket000 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment by Alvesgaspar (talk · contribs) - soon in a COM:AN/U near you

In this edit User:Alvesgaspar accused Multichill of being the well know terrorist Osama Bin Laden! Alvesgaspar clearly oversteped a boundary by essentialy calling a contributor a mass-murderer. I'm calling for a five minute block! What's next, calling me Hitler? --Dschwen (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lupinus 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 Good work. -- Pro2 18:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be safe...

This is a joke :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Steeping forward from compact camera macro

Hi Alvesgaspar,

I am considering an upgrade of my equipment, which today is just a Canon IXUS 800 IS compact camera. Well you know what I can do and can't do with that I am seeking your advice for what I should invest in. My total budget is unfortunately relatively low, about 700€, so I have only limited possibilities. One strategy I am considering is to invest in an entry level DSLR, with an entry level lens kit for the "easy shots" such as buildings and landscapes, and then acquire a real macro lens for especially plants, and secondarily the occasional critter. I am very much in doubt which direction I should pursue, one path is the Sony alpha path, which I have asked Lycaon about, another path could be the Nikon path, such as an entry-level D60. There I have seen the camerahouse second-hand for 270 €, or a brand new one for 440 € including a 18-55 mm lens kit. However, with the camera house alone I need to invest in two lenses; a normal one (whatever that is ?) and a macro, and in the latter case I would need a macro lens, but there I am concerned that it will not be possible to acquire one for 160 €.

So, I am a bit stuck here. Do you have any advice for me or other ideas. Concerning macro I was thinking that somethng in the range 50mm/f2.8 to 100mm/f2.8 would be suitable without being too ambituous (). Do you have any ideas concerning lens model?

Thanks in advance, --Slaunger (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Slaunger

Thanks for asking my advice. I'm not a specialist is DSLR or optics, but can always tell about my own experience. I have a Nikon body because the reviews I read at the time slightly favoured it's quality, when compared with Canon and Sony (though it was a bit more expensive). Today, I think all of them are wonderful cameras, even at the entry level. But you should take some time to read the evaluations and decide yourself what is more important. For example, one thing I don't have is a dust remover (I think they work by vibration), but Nikon didn't have that feature at the time. It is a very useful feature, because sensors get dirty very quickly. Another thing is the resolution (I'm assumimg you are not going to by a camera with a full-size sensor). For me, 10Mpix is enough. If I need much more than that, I try a pano. Noise is an important issue and you should give some weight to it, especially if you want to try macro. That depends on the sensor of the camera and also on the built-in noise remover. You will find detailed reviews in the web on this, I believe. All the other features, like live-view, video, user-friendliness, editing in the camrea, tec., are less important to me, though they are rflected in the cost. Concerning the body, the bottom line is that a D60 is perfectly capable of winning a lot os FP's... Now for the glass. I started to buy a relatively expensive all-purpose lens (Nikon 18-200 VR), because I was convinced that it covered all the needs, and that was probably not the best solution. The next step, a wise one, was to buy a second-hand macro lens (a Tokina 100m 1:2) and some extension tubes. Though the lens was old and made a lot of noise, I made excellent macros with it. Only more recently, I bought a new Tokina 100mm 1:1. An excellent macro lens, not expensive (about 350?) and available for Canon and Nikon. My final advice is to buy a brand-new body (it's safer) but start with second-hand lenses. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Alves,

Thank you for spending some time to explain about your experiences. I have taken some of your advice on board. After carefull consideration, i have come to the conclusion that it is not realistic to reach the macro world in one step for the 700€. Instead I am starting out by investing in a Sony alpha 300 w. std 18-70 mm lens kit at a price tag of 470€. That one has integrated VR in the sensor (so that I do not need it in a future macro lens), and it has a pretty good live-view system with a tiltable LCD display. Its 10 MPx, which is fine for me. The std lens isn't great, but I think I will just start out with that to familiarize myself with the DSLR, and then get a better idea of what macro lens to use along the way. One of the Tokinas could be an option, e.g. the new 35 mm coming out now, but let's see. Anyway, now I am just anxious to get it, maybe later this week. Thanks again for sharing your experiences.

--Slaunger (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent! Does it mean you are a newbie now, one we can bite at will at FPC? I'm already preparing myself with a new set of opposing rules (here)! For you, it will be rules 1 and 7 ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It is like christmas eve. As always I will be the eternal newbie compared to you tough FPC pros. I'm not that ambitious towards FPs, though. My heart beats more for COM:VI, but still, I'd just like to make a step forward. I have just ordered a comprehensive professional Flora book for the Nordic countires, and I would like to use this summer to get some shots and identify them. (Let's see what time permits, I do not have as much spare time as i could have wished for). I am not that familiar with the flora just around me, which is rather embarrassing, I know much more about Greenlandic flora.
  • Seriously, I like your opposing rules. There is nothing like a good oppose to improve own work. --Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo Aprill 2009-10.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 ok --Ianare 06:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Portuguese permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 17:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lisboa April 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 A little noisy (sky especially) but OK--Ianare 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chelas May 2009-1b.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 nice atmosphere --Ianare 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mt Uluguru and Sisal plantations.jpg

Hey, I have uploaded a higher resolution version. Can't do better than this though --Muhammad (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK on all accounts (the other picture in the category I doubt correct identification), but please have a look at this for standardizing and this topic as well. Also please italicize scientific species names. Lycaon (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria. --Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Hmm... close call when compared to that FP. I would prefer categorization to species level. Why is there so much difference on the coloration of the critter between the two images? Maybe they ought to compete in an MVR. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• The difference in coloration is due to the amount of scales, I believe. The other guy must be younger than this one because it is still covered with them -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I've been looking around on flickr and elsewhere for images of this exotic looking species, and I tend to agree with the nominator that this is the best candidate and it fulfills all criteria. --Slaunger (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

beetle

[3]. Lycaon (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question I am concerned about criterion 3, as there is so much motion blur that I am unsure if it illustrates the subject sufficiently well. How large is this bug? --Slaunger (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Info - It is very small and slim, less than 10mm long. I believe it is not motion blur but plain out of focus. Difficult shot due to too shallow dof -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral But should the DOF not be reasonably good at f/14? Hmm.. I think I'll stay neutral for now. --Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's good enough for me. I assume the geotag is absent for privacy reasons. --Eusebius (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2009 (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:
Chlorophorus trifasciatus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The following picture has some advantages:

• three legs are sharp
• You kan grasp the animal better, because the background around it is only yellow and white - the black between the leaves of th flower in the other foto is disturbing

disadvatages

• animal is smaller
• antenna is not sharp

-- Kersti (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I think the nominated image is more suitable because it shows the head better, the animal is in a more natural position. --Eusebius (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lizard March 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  Comment Would probably benefit from a cloning out of the shadow in the upper left corner. --Eusebius 10:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC) * Support fine as-is imo --Ianare 21:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pigeon April 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 OK for me. Lycaon 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Indexed panorama

Further to your earlier suggestions about the Chrome Island photo, I have signed up for a summer photography class. Looking forward to getting up to date on skills and beyond setting the camera on Auto . . . . In the meantime, given your mathematical/geographical/navigation interests (sailing and celestial navigation are interests of mine by the way) I thought I would ask you to have a look at this article I am working on. I gave up trying to use compass bearings and use a sextant horizontally to take bearings relative to lighthouses. Taking them from more than one location narrows down the identification. It has taken longer than I thought it would to complete. Once I have all of the indentifications figured out and the peaks identified, the plan is to edit the image with a layer of labels with the bearings from the table. Not sure what use it is, but having lived here for more than 25 years I have often wondered the names and locations of the various visible peaks. I thought I would point it out to you in case you have any suggestions or comments. --KenWalker (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• That is a very interesting thing to do! I remember going to public belvederes where they had a panoramic image with the labels you mention. Maybe you can mount something like that near you house and charge the tourists ;-) . That was a smart thing to do to use a sextant to measure horizontal angles (and convert them later to bearings, by adding the bearing of the reference target). Since you hardly need an accuracy better than 1 degree, you could as well mount an azimuth circle oriented to true north and make the measurements with it (a carboard or wooden thing would do). How did you identify the targets? Did you use Google Earth or a map? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly google maps and Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia were used to identify the peaks. An azimuth device is a good idea, but I don't have one and I have a sextant. Once I get the indexes added, I might just cut it up in pieces and get the segments printed up at an online photo service to see how it comes out. --KenWalker (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo May 2009-4a.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 Ok now, :-) Maedin 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Meets all 6 criteras. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (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:
Nacerdes melanura.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Meets all 6 criteras. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 16:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Punica June 2009-1.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 colours and Bukeh --Mbdortmund 23:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria. Nice photo. --Slaunger (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Konica Minolta Dimage A200.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info The camera with which I started by digital photography phase. Got a lot of FP with it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Good image for this scope. I changed the category. Yann (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image request "blatta orientalis"

Dear Mr. Alves Gaspar,

In our new magazine "Weltwissen Sachunterricht 3: Insekten" we would like to publish an image of a "blatta orientalis" that we have found on the wikipedia-website (see link).

Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Cockroach_May_2007-1.jpg Would you be so kind as to grant us permission. Of course a copyright notice will be listed in the image references and you will receive a free sample copy of the book after release. Thank you!

Best Regards,

Björn Jackisch

+49 (0)531 708 8565 +49 (0)531 708 8535 bjoern.jackisch(at)westermann.de

Bildungshaus Schulbuchverlage Westermann Schroedel Diesterweg Schöningh Winklers GmbH Georg-Westermann-Allee 66 38104 Braunschweig Geschäftsführer: Ulrike Jürgens, Thomas Michael, Dr. Peter Schell, Michael Wolf Amtsgericht Braunschweig - HRB 9572

• Please do. All you have to do is adding a copyright notice. Thank you. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I think that if File:Koeh-101.jpg had been available in a better quality I would have chosen that, but among the very many photographs~available, it does seem this one is slightly better at illustrating the scope than other images in the category. I just drove by a field filled with flowering Common Poppy today. They are so beautiful. --Slaunger (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dragonfly June 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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo June 2009-3a.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 Excellent quality and nice view  Support --George Chernilevsky 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo June 2009-2a.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 Great white on the buildings. Good detail, clear, and big. However (tsk tsk!) I do spy a couple of dust spots, so a clean would be nice. Maedin 08:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC) -- I can't see any dust spots, only some noise/posterization in the sky -- Alvesgaspar 09:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo May 2009-7a.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! Solid quality work! --Simisa 10:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment I found something interesting! You may want to contact some of the specialists at Fauna Europaea. Lycaon (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Scope linked as per guidelines. Lycaon (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice, criteria met. Lycaon (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porto Covo June 2009-6a.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. Maedin 11:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Fly June 2009-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fly June 2009-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Bee June 2009-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bee June 2009-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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:
Pessegueiro Island (Porto Covo).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Question Why do you think that this image is the most suited for this scope? Yann (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because it appears to be the best among all the others, in terms of size, quality and detail. The rock in the foreground provides a (limited) scale. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Best quality for this scope. Yann (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Good photo, everything OK -- Kersti (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AmbigramJAG.svg, 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 cool --Ianare 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediator?

Hi Alves, as I am sure you are aware, two of our most valuable Commons friends are having a serious conflict. I mentioned your name at COM:AN/UP as I thought you might help solve the conflict somehow. Cheers, from Havfruen (the mermaid) anchored right beneath Hammershus in sea state 0 . --Slaunger (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Kim, thanks for thinking of me for that noble task. No, I wasn't aware of the dispute. Unfortunately one of the parts doesn't seem interested in mediation or even in discussing the issue. As for the other, well ... as usual is feeling (and writing/talking) too much and thinking too less. Anyway I like them both and wish they can go over the conflict quickly. Maybe the best way is trying to ignore each other and abstain from using their power or tongue for some time. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Alves, thank you for responding. I certainly understand your view on this. I have the same wishes as you, but as you say it requires that both users are that one user is willing to stretch out and that the other moderates the emotional outbursts (of frustration)--Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Modified into the intended wording. It takes two to dance. --Slaunger (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I was streatching out sooooooo much that "as usual" I "was talking too much and thinking too less" Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • As I said "Talk is silver, silence is golden." But the camera never should be silent !   • Richard • [®] • 11:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I think it is the best photo. -- Kersti (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Shouldn't the scope be limited to this form of the flower? It is visusally distinct from this, for instance. I have no idea about the exact terms. --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info - But that is the fruit, not the flower :)) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "Flower" subsecope, then? "Sonchus oleraceus (Smooth Sow-Thistle), flower" --Eusebius (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think so, since the leaves (very characterstic of the species) and buds are also shown -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        • To me the leaves were one reason to think that photo is good. --Kersti (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have a problem with the scope. Should a species photo show a complete shot of the species, or just part. eg if it were an animal, would a shot of the head and shoulders be sufficient? I would expect a species shot to show all the major aspects of the plant, eg difference between mature lower leaves and upper leaves, and maybe for this species the fruiting stage as well as buds and flowers (as they can all be found together). So I think I agree with Eusebius, perhaps 'flower' subscope or similar. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Respectfully disagree, this is very close to the best possible in showing the different parts of the plant. As far as I know a flower and a fruit can't be shown together in the same plant as they develop in different times. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully reply: to the second point I submitt into evidence File:Sonchus oleraceus Bluetenstand.jpg. For plants I think the most valuable image is one that aids identification, something like File:Sonchus oleraceus kålmolke.jpg. I think your image is not the best for this scope, I would suggest "Sonchus oleraceus (Smooth Sow-Thistle), Flower and foliage" - then we can argue about whether one of the other pictures including lower spade shaped leaves is better :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Support. After reading the discussion and reviewing other photos on the category and on Flickr. We can have a other nomination for only the fruit. --Dereckson (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)