User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive9

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wasp April 2008-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

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

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Diptera1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

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

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

FP Promotion

This is no surprise for you since you added the FP template on the image description page before me but...

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Weevil September 2008-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Weevil September 2008-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Congrats ! Benh (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SMP May 2008-4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Should be a bit sharper but this is very nice landscape --Pudelek 19:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

About Maps

Hi Alvares, I really enjoyed your beautiful images. Its like coming to a small museum located in a quiet backwater. Have you any old portuguese map images of India, Goa or any Indian colony? It would make a nice addition to articles on India. Thanks, 210.212.173.157 04:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the compliment. No, I don't have maps of the former portuguese territories in India but I'll look for it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fora de foco!?

Desculpe contestar mas o tag que vc colocou em: [1] não está correspondendo com a realidade. Pois embora a flor de primeiro plano esteja sem foco, a fotografia foi tirada com foco na flor do segundo plano! Danilo P (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Olá Danilo, que tal tentar outra vez de modo a que a flor mais próxima fique focada? Tal como está, será difícil alguém gostar deste primeiro plano. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chicago 2007-19.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}}}

Image:Disneyland_June_2008-7.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Disneyland_June_2008-7.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Joaquim - sorry but French laws don't allow this one. Daft, I know, but they don't allow photographs of copyright buildings. Disneyland in the US is OK, as the US does have Freedom of panorama for buildings. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK, Michael, nothing we can do on that matter. Does it mean that all pictures of buildings from Disneyland Paris (including Cinderella castle...) will have to go? We may be talking about hundreds of them, if we also consider the other wikis! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those on Commons that were taken in France will have to go. Images hosted on other Wikis such as the English Wikipedia may be OK if fair use can be claimed. That's not allowed here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Disneyland_June_2008-5.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Disneyland_June_2008-5.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Missing square edit.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Missing square edit.gif 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! Chicago 2007-17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There is CA visable on the right side of the building (green) and the building in the right lower corner (magenta). --Massimo Catarinella 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC) -- The color vibrance may be increased, but interesting viewpoint, good lights --Twdragon 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tour Eiffel

Hi Joaquim,

I'm surprised too. I haven't checked before you told me. I knew this one Image:Tour_eiffel_at_sunrise_from_the_trocadero.jpg which has a superb composition and mood, but which is a bit short on technical side. I never wanted to do it, because it seems such a trivial shot that I thought someone would do/had done it... but apparently, no one has yet ! I'll try to shoot it myself if I have time. Benh (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't forgotten you... but weather hasn't been so nice over here for quite some time now... I've tried for one month every week end, and each time had very cloudy sky (I could try some Noodle Snack three exposures trick, but am not that skilled). I also missed my 17-55; sent back for repair. Now I got it back, but think the season isn't appropriate any more for a decent shot (sad leafless trees :( ). See you in March 09 ! Benh (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi Joaquim, I would like your opinion of two images of mine. I'm sure whether to upload them to wikimedia or not, because I'm not convinced there good enough. http://massimo.catarinella.nl/IMG_6158.jpg http://massimo.catarinella.nl/IMG_6190.jpg Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer the composition of the first, but its technical quality is poor, with obvious pixelation in the darker parts of the water and artifacts around the edges. The second is much better in technical terms and the colour patterns in the water are wonderfull. But there is also some pixelation in the water (in the left side) and some fringing due to sharpening. Shouldn't be too difficult to fix these flaws. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chicago 2007-12.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:
The tomb of Vasco da Gama.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

white fringing in some of the grapes

Hi Alvesgaspar:

I'm trying to fix the white fringing in some of the grapes on the Coccoloba uvifera. But really, I can't to see the mistake. You could tell exactly where is the white fringing that you're watching. This would help me to fix it.

Thank's you --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please look at the outline of the grapes at the left side of the bunch. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Photography critiques

Hi there. I have placed several of my photos on the critiques page, in order to see where I could improve om my technique. Some of these images failed at the Quality Images nominations page, due to their small size. However, I am interested in finding out about the actual image quality, and what would improve these shots. Your comments would be much appreciated. Just see the top page entry on the critiques page, under the heading "Miscellaneous Photographs". Thanks in advance, Elucidate (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued image set promotion

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

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

review

•  Info -- A young paper wasp queen (Polistes dominula is founding a new colony. The nest was made with wood fibers and saliva, and the eggs were laid and fertilized with sperm kept from last year. Now the wasp is feeding and taking care of her heirs. In some weeks, new females will emerge and the colony will expand. The timespan between the older and more recent photos is about one month
•  Support Everything looks ok to me. Maybe I would precise in the scope "Building of a paper wasp colony", though. --Eusebius (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• I thought of that. But then I realized that the nest is growing during all the time, as the newborn females also build new cells. I guess that the growth of the nest only stops at the end of the summer when the (lazy) males begin to emerge. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very descriptive. Mr. Mario (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This is an excellent and valuable image set and pretty well underlines what valued image sets are about. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, not a VI

Hi Alvesgaspar,

I noticed this an related edits. The individual images in a VIS are actually not considered valued images themselves. It is the Valued image set gallery, which you might want to categorize to a personal VIS category (if I were to do it). -- Slaunger (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If I were to do the same hack, I would have 40 and not 25 VIs ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thank you, Slaunger, I still have to think how to organize it. Big Brother is watching you! ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, keeping an eye of you because I know you want to beat me in the VI race using whatever means... ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • And I will, after making you suffer a bit! Did you notice that I seldom nominate FP's to VIC? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, I have not nominated any of my (three, lol) FPs for VI either! I am a gentleman. Anyway, its only one VI per scope, and just how many different scopes do you have in those FPs? Oh well, eventually I will loose, although I have high hopes for October 22-29, where I am going to Greenland again, hurray. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • As a naval officer it might interest you that I am going to be on this one. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I want to believe I'm a gentleman too. Just look at my last nomination (a few minutes old)! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • He, he. Yes indeed. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I propose that, in our private competition, A VI set counts as much 3 ordinary VI (though that will benefict you) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Let's just count the VIs, it is simpler. Anyway, I see Lycaon as a more serious VI contributor than me. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Table-cloth 2008-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Table-cloth 2008-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Benh (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising the bar

Salut Joaquim! Merci d'avoir attiré mon attention, il y a une semaine environ, sur la page Commons talk:Featured picture candidates et plus particulièrement sur le chapitre "Raising the bar". C'est effectivement une discussion très intéressante qui se dévelope là-bas. Je n'ai pas encore réagi, car à cause d'occupations professionnelles et autres, j'ai pour le moment peu de temps pour "travailler" sur Commons. Mais je tenais quand-même à vous laisser un mot pour vous remercier. Sincères salutations, Marc. MJJR (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

SVG help needed

Hi, I need some help fixing this. --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you want to fix. The illustration is a bit crude and still needs some work. For example: the legends should be all horizontal; the lines connecting the legends to the objects should be short and straight; the colours are too fancy and the outlines should be more discrete. As for the black boxes, they don't show in my svg reader. I have no idea why they show here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Darter August 2007-22.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Darter August 2007-22.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Benh (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Superlative rendering and photography.

FPC closing

Hi Joaquim,

don't worry too much about FPC closing. I'm taking care of that (well, I try) and I'm confident that Simon has an eye on that too. I think you are busy enough on Commons already... If you ever see that FPC haven't been closed for 4-5 days, then you might begin to worry :) Benh (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry Benh, that was just to give a hand (I must stop feeling responsable for the closing of FPC...). I've left a message in Dschwen page suggesting a bot to archive the FPX pictures, no answer until now -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2008 (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:
Zygaena fausta.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - A beautiful burnet, a diurnal moth

•  Comment There is a flower part right in front of the insect's thorax. Closer competitor found, lower quality. --Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Weak support Yes, the flower parts is a little bit distracting, but, overall I think this one wins. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Hello! I have problem - maybe You may help me. Can You say me why nobody wants to review my photos on QIC? --Lestat (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (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:
Cairina moschata (Moscovy duck).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Weak support This is a good and valuable image of the stated scope. The lightning is not as good as in this one, but your image, with its angle of view, is the best at illustrating the species. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2008 (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:
Euproctis chrysorrhoea (Brown-tail moth).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2008 (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:
Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruit-fly).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me, I think it is the best one in the category. --Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose =>

declined. -- Eusebius (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2008 (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:
Blue-banded bee (Amegilla sp.).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - A quite small (about 7mm) and quick bee. Very difficult shot, as they seldom set down to collect the nectar.

•  Support I think it is a bit better than its closest competitor (less distracting background, more classical activity). --Eusebius (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2008 (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:
Monochamus galloprovincialis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The picture has the best technical quality of the relevant cat (have you nominated it as a QI?), but I'm wondering whether the top view is more descriptive or not. --Eusebius (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I also shot some top views of the critter (not yet uploaded), but think this one is better as one can see part of the abdomen and mouth parts. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Just curious: what is this surface? --Eusebius (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• It is a withewashed wall -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me --Eusebius (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Maybe you should add the en vernacular name Long-horned beetle in parenthesis in the scope? (If nobody objects, I'd say just do it) -- Slaunger (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info The name Longhorned beetle is given to the whole family of Cerambycidae, which has more than 20000 species -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of that. In that case I withdraw my request to add that vernacular name to the scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2008 (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:
Larva of Coccinella septempunctata (Seven-spot Ladybird).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support -- Satisfies all six criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me too. Nice picture! --Eusebius (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support satisfies all criteria. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment If you add the common English name in parenthesis in the scope (which I think is a good idea), I recommend using a more specific species name like (Seven-spot Ladybird) as the more general (Ladybird) is the common name for the entire family Coccinellidae, which includes about 5000 species. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Question I am wondering is the scope is too narrow for this one? Is it possible to visually see the difference between the larva of Coccinella septempunctata and other larva of the Coccinella genus. I am aware that some other species of the genus have a different number of spots as adults, but are they also visually distinct as larva? If not, I think the scope shall be widened up a little bit to, e.g., the Subgenus level Larva of Coccinella (Coccinella). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - I must confess my ignorance on that matter. Anyway it is a risky business as there might be much variability. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for nowVote changed. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Fair enough, but I would like to get that settled until we continue. Do you have any possibilities to figure out how different the larva of the Coccinella is (I don't)? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Info - Like in math, one example is enough to prove that an hypothesis is wrong. Please see here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• OK, species larva scope accepted, but I am still not happy about the (Ladybird) in the scope as it is a common term used for about 5000 species, ...(Seven-spot Ladybird) would be more precise. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Done - Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Issues resolved. There are a few close competitors, but I think this one is slightly better at illustrating the subject. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 4 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Pedro Reinel 1504.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pedro Reinel 1504.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Benh (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mosca

Parabéns pela "sua" mosca!!! Está espectacular - e ainda não vi a sua galeria... Abraço. pt:Usuário:Rui Silva

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

review

 Info Replica of wind rose in Pedro Reinel's nautical chart of c. 1504. It is the first known wind-rose to clearly represent the fleur-de-lys. The practise was adopted in other nautical charts and survived till today

•  Support Better representation. --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Reinel compass rose.svg: +1 <--
2. WInd Rose Aguiar.png: -1
=>
Image:Reinel compass rose.svg: Promoted. <--
Image:WInd Rose Aguiar.png: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2008 (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:
Ptolemaic geocentric model.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Foroa (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very illustrative. --Eusebius (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Historical. --Mr. Mario (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2008 (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:
Galium aparine (Cleavers or Goosegrass).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I think the image is slightly better than this one. This illustration could have been a competitor as well. --Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment It is difficult to choose between this image and Geranium February 2008-4.jpg, the latter slightly having my preference actually, but one thing should change IMO, and that is the categorization, which should be at species level. Lycaon (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Done Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I think this picture is better. --Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK now. Lycaon (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2008 (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:
Calendula arvensis (Field Marigold).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies all criteria. Good image of this plant species. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2008 (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:
Lantana camara flower and leaves (Lantana).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support There are very many images of both flower and leaves of this species, but this one is excellent and the best there is. Satisfies other criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2008 (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:
Verbascum sinuatum flowers and buds (Wavyleaf Mullein).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  OpposeChanged vote due to changed scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC) I find Image:Verbascum sinuatum1.jpg is a better illustration of the species. I would reconsider with a scope narrowed down to the flowers. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - The scope was changed. Please see my comments in the Plum tree nomination. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support With narrowed scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

POTY

Caríssimo,

Por motivos vários, em particular motivos muito pessoais, estarei inactiva nos próximos tempos no Commons (e nas wikis em geral), e, por esta razão, totalmente indisponível para ajudar no POTY. Peço imensas desculpas, mas quando pensei que poderia dedicar o meu parco tempo apenas a esse projecto, não antevi a minha real (in)disponibilidade. Espero que não fiques aborrecido comigo por voltar atrás com a minha palavra, mas há muito pouco que eu possa fazer neste momento quanto ao assunto.

Um abraço, Patrícia ^msg 13:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Muito obrigado pela sua atenção. Estou certo de que tudo irá correr pelo melhor (embora não tão bem como se a Patrícia estivesse cá...). Um abraço, Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2008 (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:
Linum bienne (Pale flax).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Neutral My main concern is its ability to illustrate the species well. It is the best image there is of the species, but the crop is such that I do not see the whole plant (althpugh most of it, which is why I do not oppose), and I really prefer that for a plant species scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support It is the most illustrative picture of the species, it looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2008 (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:
Chrysis ignita (Cuckoo wasp).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Antennas look better than on this version, background is more homogeneous than on this one (which actually would be an ex aequo to me). --Eusebius (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose (nitpicking for now). Scope should be cuckoo wasp with two o's. Lycaon (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Done - :)) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great image, good value. Lycaon (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flower October 2008-1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments We could admit it as a QI for its technical and aesthetic value even if the flower doesn't look like a wheel. --B.navez 16:38, 7 November 2008 (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 equestris.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Fulfills all criteria. Lycaon (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Please recategorize other images under species category. Lycaon (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2008 (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:
Chrysomya albiceps male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. Second best would be this one for me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Info - Refine scope with sex -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (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:
Blatta orientalis female (Oriental cockroach).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Shouldn't you include "female" in the scope, since they can be distinguished from each other? There are pictures showing both male and female, but they're of poor quality. --Eusebius (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'm not sure, as it might double the number of species' VI's... More opinions on this? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I can certainly support scopes of both a female and a male individual of this abundant species as the physical appearances are quite distinct; the female only has very short forewings. I do think a narrow down of the scope is relevant in this case. I do not think that it doubles the number of species VIs as it depends on the visually differences between the two sexes. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

--

• OK, scope changed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2008 (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:
Female Chrysotoxum intermedium.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Why precise the sex for this species? We really should build precise guidelines for that kind of things. --Eusebius (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• After sleeping over the subject, I agree some species may have separate VI's for each sex. In the case of hoverflies, it is usually easy to recognize them as males have holoptic eyes joining at the top of the head (not the case in this image) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support If there's a way to distinguish them, ok for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2008 (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:
Carcharodus tripolinus (False Mallow Skipper).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Only picture of the species, criteria ok. --Eusebius (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You forgot...

...to sign here ;-). Lycaon (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2008 (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:
Polistes dominulus male (Paper wasp).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - Males are recognized by a completly yellow face and longer antennae. The closest adversary is, my opinion, this one -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Support This one's better. --Eusebius (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2008 (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:
Polistes dominulus female (European paper wasp).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - The picture depicts a queen creating a new colony, i.e. a fertilized female which has hibernated during winter

•  Question Should we make distinctions between the different casts of some social insects (maybe not this one, I don't know), or not? --Eusebius (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - I think we should, provided we have reliable and accurate information. The case of honeybees is an obvious example where a proper identification of the various races would be useful. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Here you think it is better to keep "female", not "queen"? --Eusebius (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, because contrarily to bees, where queens are different and the result of a different nourichment, queen wasps are just fertilezed females who survived winter -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • OK. --Eusebius (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2008 (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:
Anthidium florentinum female.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2008 (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:
Anthidium florentinum male.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question How do we distinguish male from female? --Eusebius (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Males are noticeably larger than females and have a stouter body. This is and exception among solitary bees. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added that to the image page. Could you do something similar for the female candidate picture? --Eusebius (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2008 (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:
Anthidium florentinum (mating).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question I'm not that fluent in english, but the scope doesn't sound very explanatory. Isn't it a better way to state it? Second question, shouldn't we broaden the scope to something like "bees mating" with a picture like this one? --Eusebius (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Neither am I (fluent). I have seen the term "copula" in specialized literature and sites when showing sex between insects. But I suppose calling it "mating" or "sex" is the same thing. I think we should consider a specific "mating scope" for each species because it is an excellent way of showing both sexes together. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• For each (or most) species, you'd agree to three different scopes? --Eusebius (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• In theory, yes. In practise, it would only apply to a small minority of species. But I would like to listen to the experts too. Lycaon? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I must admit, I never heard of the word copula, though having studied Latin long ago, it is easy to derive its meaning. I would rather go for a word like mating, which is generally understood and conveys the same process. Furthermore, I could agree in promoting several stages of an organism as valued image, but it would strongly depend on the species. Lycaon (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• conditional  Support Fits the bill for me if scope is adjusted to something like Anthidium florentinum (mating). Lycaon (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Lycaon (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just a note that I have altered the proposed scope of Commons:Valued image candidates/Open pit mine.jpg. MBisanz ^talk 14:26, 17 November 2008 (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:
Graphosoma lineatum (mating).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - Synonym: Graphosoma italicum -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Joaquim, I think you will first have to change the scope and the image page to the accepted name. Lycaon (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support You have some stiff competition ;-), but this image shows the action best IMO. Lycaon (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Lots of competition, but OK for me. Lycaon (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Valued image scope

There seems to be some disagreement on VI scope. You opposed the Bald Eagle in flight one due to too narrow of a scope but yet you yourself nominate one (two threads above) with the scope "Graphosoma lineatum (mating)" as well as "[[Anthidium florentinum] (mating)". Can you explain this discrepancy? One species (your nom) can have a scope on a certain activity and yet another can't (my nom). While we're on VI images, since Bald Eagles can seemingly only have one scope, which of these is the best VI candidate: Image:Eagle on roots - crop 3 (430008061).jpg or Image:Haliaeetus leucocephalus2.jpg? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 23 November 2008 (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:
The Clock tower of Westminter Palace (Big Ben).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment -- Very tough competition. Yes, I know of this one picture, I wouldn't dream of competing with Dilif if the image showed the whole thing from the ground... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Indeed, Dilif's picture is really impressive. Among the pictures showing the whole tower, I've selected this one. I thinks yours is better because of the geometry/perspective, and in spite of the atmospheric conditions (quite typical of the city after all...). --Eusebius (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Article at pt.wikipedia which is a typo from delta-key

I just don't know enough pt (y/or any, actually) to see about getting the article pt:Turberaria deleted. I am quite certain that it is a typo copied from http://delta-intkey.com/angio/www/cistacea.htm and it should be Category:Tuberaria. See http://botany.si.edu/ing/INGsearch.cfm?searchword=Turberaria and http://botany.si.edu/ing/INGsearch.cfm?searchword=Tuberaria

Some time if you are bored or needing to perhaps do something productive or whatever the motivation, perhaps you could look into the deletion of this article? -- carol (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• But the article is a minimal stub! All it says is that "Turberaria is a botannical genus of the Cistaceae family"... Maybe you wanted to check if I can reaaly read Portuguese?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No. What I think is that it is a paste error. That a list of names was pasted and articles were created from that list and one of the genera in the list was mispelled (and I showed a web site that has such a list with that particular genus misspelled). So, I think that the article should be moved (I guess not deleted) to pt:Tuberaria.

That web site has a few mispellings that I know of and probably some that I don't know of also. -- carol (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that you are still around and interested in things here enough to enter images at QIC. I think about this thread I retrieved from your archives and pasted here often. Just for the hell of it, after finding another mis-spelling at delta-key I used the search engine with the mis-spelled word and pt.wikipedia is the first link in the search results.

pt:Keetlia is the word today. If it is not too much bother and since it is so obvious to me that a software made those stub pages from lists of species found at that web site, if you could leave word where ever the pt plant people read things, not all of the mis-spelled species but many of them get corrected here and should be easy to find for the larger families. Genera of Rubiaceae is a page I pasted from those lists. The edit history is full of either spelling repair or dealing with a name that is shared. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genera_of_Rubiaceae&diff=16332026&oldid=16321311 <-- todays.

If you could possibly tell them that much of the task of finding the mis-spelled genus names has been done here -- I will probably continue to think about pt.wikipedia everytime I find one, but I will also think that there is a chance that they know of the problem and of at least a partial solution for many of them. -- carol (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, thank you for moving that original one. Seriously. I never checked on it and when I did today and it was moved already, I got an honest smile.

Perhaps I should/could just move them myself when I find them? Not knowing the Portuguese to initiate this prevents me from thinking about it too much.

"nome do género errado" <-- I could paste this, heh. Thanks y good day ;) -- carol (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper).

review

•  Support Fulfills criteria. I prefer the natural light. Lycaon (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Grasshopper November 2008-3.jpg: 0
2. Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
Image:Grasshopper November 2008-3.jpg: Declined.
Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg: Promoted. <--

--Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Umbel

Hi Joaquim
I found your beautiful photo of an umbel. I would like to include it in a video (for YouTube) to illustrate a phrase in a poem by Rimbaud. YouTube does not require licences, so is it sufficient for me to add your name in the credits (in the description)?
Thanks
Dwsolo (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your attention. According to the terms of the license, it will be sufficient to mention "Wikimedia Commons", plus the name of the auhtor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-)
The video is here Voyelles
Dwsolo (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Link between photographers page

Hello.

I have made a topic called "More good photographers" on my user page. You could create a similar topic on your user page and you could include me in it. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion?

Which discussion dy you mean? --Simonizer (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Iam not even registrated there --Simonizer (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2008 (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:
Caliphora vicina.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Interesting point of view of this insect. -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2008 (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:
Musca domestica (Common housefly).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best Musca domestica that I could find. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Image:Common housefly 02.jpg has better colours and details about the head. Muhammad 05:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  But it fails to show the general aspect of the animal. --Eusebius (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Request Geographic information? --Eusebius (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  OK, done. --Eusebius (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2008 (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:
Colias croceus (Clouded Yellow).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info - I was going to nominate a picture of mine but then I saw this one, which is much better -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Satisfies all criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2008 (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:
Papilio machaon (Common Swallowtail ).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Really good, but i like this one more. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The contrasting background and the flower that it is feeding upon make it the most valuable, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

elaborate

Shall I put it back, Joaquim? Lycaon (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Like we say in Portuguese, "I boil in little water". Do as you think it is the best way. I understand that, as an admin, you have to try to calm down conficts, not feeding them. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. It's beautiful. --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2008 (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:
Heliotaurus ruficollis (mating).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question No vernacular name available? (otherwise ok) --Eusebius (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• None that I know -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK then. --Eusebius (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
• temporary  Oppose The scientific name of this blister beetle is Heliotaurus ruficollis. Lycaon (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK professor, it's done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Very well pupil ;-). But I actually meant the scope ;-o. Lycaon (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support all fine now. Lycaon (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2008 (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:
Nezara viridula (nymph).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. It's awesome. --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2008 (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:
Convento de Cristo (church).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Seems this view gives the best impression of the church, and this one is the best picture of this view --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)