Wondering. You've reverted my photo addition twice -- once in each of two articles, first Bee then Bumblebee. I think it is a perfectly good quality photo. It is not blurry. It is a close-up which I, myself, photographed yesterday (without getting stung!). And it depicts something -- bees mating -- which no other photo has. The fact that neither you nor I can identify which particular species of bee is not grounds, in my view, for deleting the photo, since posting it will allow someone who does have this expertise to sooner or later elaborate on this. Please explain your reasoning.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 15:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Papaver flower.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 10, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-06-10. — howcheng { chat} 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, some time earlier, you commented/voted on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pythagoras similar triangles proof. The file is renominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pythagoras similar triangles proof simplified with many issues addressed. Your comments about the new version would be appreciated.-- Gauravjuvekar ( talk) 15:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
So you decide what's inconstructive or not? What's poor quality or not? Tell me, is a picture of a temple more relevant to a history section than a map, or a castle more relevant than a picture of the first king? You have serious problems. By the way, inconstructive is not even a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123! ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Sunset
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't remove pictures for being of "low quality" alone. Unless you can replace them, they stay if they are informative. And please stop sandwiching text in between two pictures. This isn't Wikimedia Commons. Readability is our primary concern, not nice pictures.
Consider the subject of the picture first. Is it illustrating something not present in other pictures? Is it showing something from the text? Is it illustrating something which can not be described in words alone? If yes, retain it. No matter if the picture is blurry or not up to your apparently very high standards. For example, you removed images in the article on crane fly showing mouth parts and the halteres, both of which are very important to the subject.
Only remove any of the previous if you can replace it with a better quality image showing the same subject. Otherwise, removing them is disruptive. Use a bit of common sense please.-- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Fly June 2009-1.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.
Dusty
777 18:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 14, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-10-14. — howcheng { chat} 11:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:Bruxels April 2012-11a.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Julia\
talk 05:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Hello, would you like me to give you the rollback user right? It would make dealing with problems like the one at Bumblebee much easier. It should only be used for obvious vandalism and a few other situations, but I'd trust you to know when it should and should not be used. By the way, it's also a good idea to warn vandals if they have recently vandalised (within the last hour or so) and to check their contributions for other recent vandalism. Graham 87 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:Moscow July 2011-3a.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Julia\
talk 18:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:Ghent April 2012-3.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Julia\
talk 20:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Responded to you there. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Olá, não sei quais as suas fontes, porque não as menciona mas TODAS AS FONTES que tenho dizem que a caravela foi criada pelos portugueses. Aliás, o próprio termo 'caravela' é criação portuguesa. Ora vede:
Hi Joaquim,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Heliopsis July 2011-2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 31, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-12-31. — howcheng { chat} 17:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Your edit has been withdrawn. Picture in infobox is main picture of article. If you want change of picture, first: discuss; second: consensus. Thank you. Subtropical-man ( talk) 22:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Gaspar, I have undone your edit in pulpit once again. The church of the Convent of Christ in Tomar is composed by a romanesque round church and a manueline nave. The painted and sculptured inner decoration of the round church and nave is generally gothic/manueline, but the section between the round church and the nave, where the pulpit is located, was decorated later. Indeed, looking at the pulpit we can see that the shape of the bay, the little columns and the canopy above and even the coloured pattern are of a classical/renaissance design, and should be late 16th or 17th century. Manueline are, for instance, the pulpits of Matriz Church of Tomar and the one in the Santa Cruz Monastery in Coimbra (unfortunately the photos in Commons are not as good as that of the Convent of Christ). Cheers, -- Fulviusbsas ( talk) 16:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm an academic cartographer and think that the content does not reflect today's cartography well. I recommend deleting historical map since there is a relevant section if it is needed. If you can look at the International Cartographic Association (ICA) pages (www.icaci.org), it will be more meaningful why changes are needed. Classic cartography does not only deal with map-making but also map use. Today map-making has been replaced with building a geodatabase, from which maps can be derived and map use is main part of spatial analysis. For these reasons, I recommend using the definition of cartography adopted by ICA ( http://icaci.org/mission/). Some parts in the definition is similiar to second sentence. So, I recommend deleting this sentence to prevent repetition. Research areas or challenges of modern cartography that I add largely corresponds to ICA research agenda and the studies of ICA Commissions. I have also deleted the link to a music album titled "cartographer" which I think it is not related to the scientific content. I hope this explanation is enough about changes. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.7.90 ( talk) 22:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:Poster papaver 3a.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Armbrust
The Homunculus 15:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi Alves,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Moscow July 2011-7a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 11, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-02-11. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi dear Alves this foto is my best photo
is ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamaksabet ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
ok.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamaksabet ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Alvesgaspar, Eduemoni ↑talk↓ has given you a shinning smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shinning Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! ![]() Hi Alvesgaspar, Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Sunset 2007-1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 13, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-04-13. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your note. I'll write in English if you don't mind, as the denizens of Wikipedia here demand that. - On the Padrao-Real. Given the paucity of documents about anything in this period, everything is going to be a bit speculative. It isn't hard to find writers (e.g. Cortesao) claiming that a Padrao-Real existed and that, before the mid-century, it would have been maintained by the Piloto-Mor, as he would have been in charge of supplying nautical charts, and, additionally, that the Cantino planisphere was very likely a close copy of it. It seems plausible to me, although, of course, stronger evidence isn't likely to come about for simple lack of any evidence about anything. But it is notable that Manuel's decree of 13 November 1504, restricting the range depicted in nautical charts, places Jorge de Vasconcelos, the provedor of the Armazem, in charge of censorship. - Not sure why you removed the two-circle construction of the rhumblines in the Cantino planisphere. That is how rhumblines are constructed in all portolan charts. Rhumbline patterns are projection graphs of a hexadecagon, i.e. connections of a 16-point "circle". Not sure what you mean by "non-factual". It is a geometric fact - as factual as calling a square a square, or a triangle a triangle. And we know that's how they did it. You won't find a portolan chart that doesn't use that construction method for its rhumbline web. It's useful to illustrate Cantino using two hexadecagons rather than the usual one. - I will take time to digest your very interesting thesis. But my first reaction is "too soon, too soon", at least for this map. The regiment of the leagues was there, but the instruments were still in very experimental stage. We don't have evidence of reliable on-board use of latitude measurements before this - yes of latitude readings taken on land, but expressions of great dissatisfaction when at sea. But this is only from first glance. I'll read over your interesting thesis more carefully, and come up with hopefully some better remarks. Walrasiad ( talk) 11:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Hello Alvesgaspar, I spotted your recent change of image at Helsinki Central railway station from a front view to a side view. "Better" is perhaps subjective here, in particular the new view does not show the Stone Men that are perhaps the most unique element of the station frontage. If you would like to change the primary photograph, do you have one that also shows the frontage. What might be interesting would be a view taken downwards of the front of the station from the buildings opposite. — Sladen ( talk) 09:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hi Alvesgaspar, Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Fly June 2009-1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 3, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-12-03. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 22:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hi Joaquim, Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Bruxels April 2012-11a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 16, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-01-16. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() Hi Joaquim, Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ghent April 2012-3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 10, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-04-10. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Hi Alvesgaspar- I think I've made the adjustments you suggested. Thanks-- Godot13 ( talk) 19:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Your edit summary does not make sense. I understand that "Luz" refers to a suburb of Lisbon in which the stadium is located, but that doesn't explain why you need to add "the". The common English translation for "Estádio da Luz" is "Stadium of Light", that is all you need to know. – Pee Jay 11:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Alvesgaspar. You reverted a lot of (all?) edits from this new user, User:Kelvinmike08. I think that drives away new editors. Could you please reconsider? Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 01:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
These are articles with strong technical content and all add-ons were either incorrect, redundant or misplaced. The inserted texts looked like excepts taken from some elementary source. Let us wait and see if the new user is really interested in learning and joining the project. -- Alvesgaspar ( talk) 09:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() Hi Alvesgaspar, Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Vila Viçosa September 2013-25a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 14, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-08-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Why didn't you just change the image? I reverted your changes and added an image of different wasp that also makes paper nests. Cheers. Dger ( talk) 23:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() Hi Alvesgaspar, Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Cantino planisphere (1502).jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 20, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-09-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfCYou are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee ( talk) 16:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Hello, You have removed the tomcat face photo from the Cat page. Can you remove the photo altogether from Wikimedia commons? Otherwise, someone may display it as an example of a silly photo that does not belong on Wikipedia. It is Tomcat_face_-_neutered_at_2_yrs.jpg Thanks! Hyacinth45 ( talk) 19:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() Hi Alvesgaspar, Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Poster papaver 3a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 11, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-11-11. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Hello Alvesgaspar ¿how are you? these days I saw you changed the photo montage I made, for a new one you did that I really like. In a while I come experiencing a problem with photo montages and that only can do one way. A friend long ago explained to me that with (Paint), I can do photo montages, but did not understand his explanation, as I do not have anyone else to turn, I turn to you, so please help me explain you how to make photo montages. Thank you very much for your help !!! Mr.Jhosimar ( talk) 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible to make a montage with Paint, because you cannot open more than one file at the same time. But there are other free applications on the Internet that you can use. One of the most popular is Gimp: [6]. All you have to do is to create an empty image and paste there the pictures you want to use. Most application allow you to resize and crop those pictures so that they have the correct size for the montage. Of course, the quality of the poster will depend on the quality of the individual images and the way they combine (or not) with each other. Feliz Natal! -- Alvesgaspar ( talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
|