User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive19

File:Disneyland_June_2008-8.jpg

File:Disneyland_June_2008-8.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

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

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

ID of current VI for Pieris rapae questioned

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

Hi, the extend of the black patch on the top of the upper wings would indeed indicate this specimen to be a Pieris brassicae rather than a Pieris rapae. Regards. Taxocat (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I trust the judgement of Taxocat. What do you recomend, Myrabella? Maybe it is better to remove the VI seal? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Alvesgaspar, I'd recommend something like in this previous case "Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_7#Error_with_an_Acacia_species": information on the VIC talkpage; amendment of the description; removal of the VI seal on the file; removal the links to this file in VI galleries; and some words added on the review page to explain the move. I can deal with it if you agree. --Myrabella (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, Myrabella, thanks for your help. I'll consider later the possibility of re-nominating with the new scope. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done You're welcome. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

FPC

Salut Alvesgaspar.

Merci pour la discussion, et surtout merci d'avoir fait l'effort de la mener en français. Tu te débrouilles très bien !

J'ai compris ce que tu voulais dire par personal agendas.

Je ne crois décidément pas que la FPC page soit en danger. Regarde ce qui se passe: les images qui ne sont pas dignes du label ne sont pas promues, tout simplement. La valeur des candidats est très inégale, mais le tri se fait quand même naturellement.

Le fait d'être passé à 7 votes "pour" fut une très bonne décision.

Ne t'inquiète pas trop à mon avis, le consensus est toujours difficile à obtenir, c'est la garantie.

Et ne vieillis pas trop vite: ce n'était pas mieux "avant" !!

Cordialement.--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Salut, Jebulon. Merci bien de tes mots sympathiques. FPC n’est peut-être pas encore moribond. En tout cas, il est en danger de devenir bien pire, si la tendance démagogique (qui est encore minoritaire) gagne plus d’adeptes. Le problème c’est que beaucoup de membres talentueux ont perdu l’intérêt (Richard, Benh, Luc, Diliff…) et n’ont pas étés totalement remplacés. Oui, je crois qu’avant le départ de ces gens-là FPC était bien mieux, mais peut-être les choses vont évoluer positivement. Ne t’en fait pas, ça ne me fait pas vieillir trop vite ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Finalement, tu as peut-être raison, ça devient vraiment n'importe quoi, et parfois tout à fait nul !! Le pire, ce n'est pas tant la qualité très mauvaise de certaines images, que les soutiens qu'elles reçoivent !! --Jebulon (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don’t think we should be much worried with these sporadic events, my friend. Either they come and go like a wind or their agents slowly integrate into the spirit of the forum and become excellent contributors. What concerns me more are some deliberate campaigns apparently aimed at eroding the consensus we still have about important principles and whose motivations I don’t fully understand (but suspect are not the noblest). A long time ago I have learned about the different styles of leadership in the organizations and still remember three types: the objective-oriented, the people-oriented and the self-oriented. Transporting these concepts into our work here we could also imagine three caricatural types of editors participating in FPC as reviewers and nominators: those mainly concerned with the goals of the project, giving little attention to people’s motivations; those mainly focused on keeping a friendly atmosphere, relegating to a secondary plan the objectives of the forum; and those mainly concerned with their own asses. While we certainly need the two first types we could well live without the third, at least in the aspects related to organization and reviewing. Anyway I believe that most people here are well aware of the differences among us, accept our limitations, recognize our work and don’t get easily fooled. Je m’excuse de ne pas avoir écrit ça en français mais ça serait trop difficile! Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 21 April 2011 (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:
Aquarius najas (Surface Dweller Bug).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment rotated 180 ° the presentation would be more conventional --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Done and also cleaned up the background a bit. Sorry for the poor quality, it was a hard shot of a tiny critter. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

image du jour

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

• Je ne sais pas quoi dire, mon ami. Merci beaucoup! Dans ces querelles stupides et un peu artificielles, je me sens toujours seul et un peu têtu. C'est la conviction d'avoir raison et d'être observé de loin par la majorité des utilizateurs qui me fait continuer. Mais je ne le fait pas avec plaisir; le rôle de gendarme me gêne et je sens souvent l'envie de le laisser aux autres. Peut-être je dois le faire? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

J’ai longuement réfléchis à ce que tu m’a dis. Et à ce que tu fais. Je vais aller vers cette voie difficile qui consiste à ne pas faire de concessions. Je l’ai évitée jusqu’ici car elle génère beaucoup d‘inimitiés et elle expose à recevoir des coups. Mais je sens bien que tu as raison. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment -- With this name, I wonder how its sex life is! By User:Biopics.
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:55, 23 April 2011 (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:
Taeniopoda reticulata.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info -- By User:Biopics -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The white ??

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

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Punica April 2011-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me with enough space for the flower to breathe ;-) --Llez 21:33, 23 April 2011 (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:
Classical guitar headstock.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Previous reviews

•  Comment - Good illustrative photo but since the Classical guitar is a type of Acoustic guitar, in other words subscope, I wonder about two things. 1) Shouldn't the scope be "Acoustic guitar headstock"? 2) If not then should all kind of Acoustic guitars obtain own scopes for their headstocks? Is there something that specifically vary in acoustic headstocks? --MrPanyGoff 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes. A classical guitar has the white rails you see in this image; an acoustic guitar has pegs only, like this. Support as best in scope and meets all criteria. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I've just created a Category:Classical guitar headstocks. Please change the scope to this category. Category:Guitar headstocks was a mess! Jovian Eye _talk 22:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Done. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support Best in category. Jovian Eye _talk 14:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Compass rose Cantino-crop.svg

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

• Thank you very much, but apparently it didn't work: the colors are wrong. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh! right I didn't notice first, also it seems some parts are missing, I'll upload a new one if I could fix it.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Adobe Illustrator import the file like this, I'm not sure why, I'll try to fix it but perhaps someone else could do it better.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  14:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Candidate list

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

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

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:29, 28 April 2011 (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:
Micrelytra fossularum, mating.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP April 2011-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice composition, quality good. - Basvb 08:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oleander April 2011-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice composition, quality good. - Basvb 08:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vila Viçosa April 2011-6a.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 Good quality. --Schlaier 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flower April 2011-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please remove the little stain (marked) --Mbdortmund 22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP April 2011-1a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There are four dustspots in the lower sky at right. :-) Otherwise good. --Cayambe 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC) -- Fixed (they were hard to find though!) -- Alvesgaspar 20:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Good, QI --Jebulon 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glebionis April 2011-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Estremoz April 2011-3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. QI and FP to me.--Jebulon 08:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2011 (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:
Cacyreus marshalli (Geranium Bronze), lower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Difficult because both sides of the wings are very different. should change the scope or best offer both images. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the subscopes "upper" and "lower" are generally appropriate for Lepidoptera. In living individuals, it is usually easier to photograph one or the other. That surface could be the main scope, but I don't suppose that it matters much. If photographs of both surfaces are available, a set nomination may be best. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I think File:G_bronze.JPG and File:Lycaenidae_-_Cacyreus_marshalli-1.JPG are better in that the forewing is in focus, but neither is geocoded. This one is gorgeous. I'm undecided. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with the proposed change of scope, the picture seems good.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vila Viçosa April 2011-3a.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 {{{3}}}

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support - I have some hesitation considering this photo but support the nominated image.--MrPanyGoff 09:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:32, 8 May 2011 (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:
Punica granatum (Pomegranate), flower and leaves.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment The picture should also be placed in the category Punica granatum flowers for better comparison. There exist two types of flowers: simple with a few petals [1], which is the normal flower of Punica granatum, and a cultivar for decorative purposes with multiplied petals [2]. As far as I can see this is the decorative, especially in regard to the flowers breeded derivate and not the "natural" flower of the species. --Llez (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Eristalinus October 2007-6.jpg

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

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

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

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

• Better have too much than not enough categorization. Yes, the picture displays the whole insect but the holoptic compound eyes are the most important part. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

en:Holoptic: "Holoptic refers to the way the eyes of a dipteran (true fly) meet along the dorsal length of its head. Holoptic eyes are typical of several diptera males, in particular the Syrphidae (hoverflies)."

To me that means: If you think, that this is a valid criterium to categorice Flies, it may be sensible to make up a Category:Dipterans with holoptic eyes (and cite this sentence in the category description) - there someone watching the image without special knowledge of dipteran morphological details may understand why the Fly is listed there. As I didn't know why you categoriced the fly this way, I thought, that you thought "Oh what funny striped eyes" - and I think most people, who are not Diptera specialists or maybe emtomologists may have the same idea! --Kersti (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

After a short look in the fly categories: in two genera I found at least 20 Pictures where you can see the holoptic eyes, therefore I would guess that there are about 100 pictures meeting this criterium. --Kersti (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why not just "Category:holoptic eyes"? It would also acommodate the pictures depicting only the eyes Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Because in such a category my "throwing out whole animals"-reflex automatically will be activated. ;-) One category is for eyes, the other one for animal with a special type of eye. As Body part categories usually contain ONLY pictures of the part and malformations of this part, while the species categories contain all pictures, holoptic eyes would be a category only containing eyes or maybe heads. And if one of the species has enough fotos one can sort the animals by sex and put the male category in Category:Dipterans with holoptic eyes Kersti (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pigeon April 2011-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Barnstar

Obrigado, Senhor Alves, for this award.

I'm proud of this barnstar !

Are you sure I'm the first with 500 QI ?

Anyway, I'm proud of this too.

En route pour les 1000 !!

Merci --Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Aaargh !! User:Pudelek has 528 !!!--Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pas de problème. Il y a une seule chose à faire ... et c'est ton tour! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comme tu dis, pas de problème! J'ai du stock à proposer ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bien sur, mais je ne pensais pas à ça... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

??--Jebulon (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on, fair is fair! Someone is missing something! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Babel problem...--Jebulon (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

ça y est j'ai compris !! Tu es plus délicat que moi, mon ami !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar for relevant services

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

Bee photo

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

• Hi Gidip, I'm afraid this is the only picture I have of this individual. There is also this other image, which I identified as Maegaliche as well, but taken some days later. What other genus could it be? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The second one is indeed either Megachile or Lithurgus. The first one is something from the Apidae, maybe Amegilla or Anthophora. Where was it taken? en:User:JelleD is a bee expert, he can give you a more exact ID. Always mention the location, it is important for identification. Gidip (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Image du jour

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

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

Undeletion requests

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

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

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

Comment removed

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

• You did the right thing... Still I'm just human and was already accused by this same editor of using socks (btw, he didn't even apologize after I asked for a formal verification). This wild suspiction follows a similar pattern and is itself uncivil and unproductive. Don't you agree? Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Did i ever accuse you to use socks? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • That wasn't meant the way you read it. It is better called canvassing, or using others, like a puppeteer would do. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Is that righ? I quote: If one guy overstressed all of our rules, using lobbyism to do what he wants, then it is User:Alvesgaspar. He removes my Entries from FPC at will [7]. Uses others (or sock puppets) to vote against any opinion [8] (per request... WTF seriously) and so on. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't know if it is wrong. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 16:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Contacto

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

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

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

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