Kindly explain why the picture of the bees is "poor quality"
Bees mating
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)[reply]
Nothing personal on this. But bug pictures is a subject highly competitive here, in the sense that there are many high quality images available. Unfortunately that is not the case with yours: it is small resolution, underexposed, unsharp and undetailed (compared with the best). Please check our gallery of insect FP to see what I mean [here). Here is a good example of a high quality bee mating depiction. A couple of others here. Best regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry for having reverted everthing in block, including possibly good changes. But this is an article with high visibility and your way of working is far from consensual. You already knew, from past experience, that most of those edits would not be accepted. An extreme example is the inclusion of galleries which are usually not part of a good Wikipedia article. In the future, please use the talk page to propose major changes (or the replacement of FP) before making them. Also sorry for my English mistakes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to intervene here by noting, that at no time did User:Alvesgaspar incorrectly state "inconstructive", both here or on correspondence with User:Califate123!. Further, I have had experience with User:Alvesgaspar in the past, and he has been able to select non-controversial, good quality imagery for their use in the Portuguese article-space in the past. At the same time, I have read User:Califate123!'s recent intervention on the "dominance" and rivalry between Lisbon and Porto, and the detailed historical record of the true urban hierarchy (for which I encourage that user to provide sources to validate the statements). Gentlemen, I believe that both can find common ground on these subjects without falling into a edit-war. Just trying to assist.ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem in having at least one gallery, especially in the Geography section. I've seen it in many country articles. Also, I still believe the pictures I added in the History section make a lot more sense than the current ones. (And the current ones were added by me a long time ago.) The topographic map I added is also relevant for the article. Zeorymer, you are wrong. I didn't do a "recent intervention on the "dominance" and rivalry between Lisbon and Porto". Assuming a random address is mine is calumnious.Califate123! (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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†SOUL15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it has been a long time since I was subjected to a patronizing speech like yours! Very well-intentioned, no doubt, but displaced. There is an unwritten golden rule in scientific papers that pictures should be of high quality, reduced to a possible minimum and fully explained in the text; otherwise, they are just decorative and should be eliminated. Of course, this is a cooperative encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Thus considerable allowance should be given to the fact that readers expect to see high-catching images and that Wikipedia editors like to see their own photos illustrating the articles. However those articles should never become stuffed with too many images, which affect readability and page aesthetics, especially when they are short and/or deal with general matters. That is the case of the Crane Fly article, which has very little text and contains too many pictures, whose subjects are not explicitly discussed. For example, the one illustrating the halteres (which I have removed again) is obviously superfluous. Not only these organs are clearly depicted in the leading picture but also there is a specific article addressing the subject. Your principle that we should only remove a picture if it can be replaced with a better quality one showing the same subject cannot be applied blindly!
I’ve been around Wikipedia (and Commons) since 2006 and my contributions here have concentrated on the illustration of articles, especially of nature themes. My work is usually respected by the other editors and I was even granted the “reviewer” user right, which I did not ask for ([1]). Thus it is somehow surprising to see someone suggesting that my edits are disruptive. Maybe you could also use some common sense before reverting automatically… Best wishes, Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than talk about "unwritten rules", there's an actual rule: WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. While it does say that quality images are preferred, the criteria is not what you seem to think it is. "Good quality" does not mean we only allow high resolution beauty shots like what you are taking. Good quality means the ability of the image to illustrate the subject. From WP:IRELEV: "Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals."
I would have understood perfectly if the removal was indeed because the pictures were superfluous or vanity pictures, but they weren't. They don't fit the criteria in WP:IRELEV of "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious". The images of halteres in craneflies or of proper weight in pot-bellied pigs are perfectly okay, both of which supplement the text. Much more so the picture of the cranefly mouthparts, given how important they are to entomology in delineating taxonomic groups. Thus it seems to be your removal is more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than any actual desire to improve the articles. If the text is too short, expand it, rather than make the article even poorer by removing more elements that add information.
And I asked you nicely, and you respond by claiming to be a superior editor and immune to criticism of your work? I have written more than 250 new articles with 5 good articles. I am one of the top 1% most active Wikipedia editors with more than 20,000 edits. But I don't care nor do I brag about it, I even actively refuse asking for or being given userrights. I didn't use that as my rationale for reverting you, did I? Because it doesn't matter one bit. Wikipedia has no such "seniority" status as you seem to be claiming. Just because you've been around longer doesn't mean you're exempt from being questioned about your edits. Don't turn this into an ad hominem argument, please.
Yes Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal (a puzzling comparison, since journals actually don't have many pictures, if ever). But neither is it a photography contest where we judge what gets retained in the articles based on lighting, composition, and resolution (in your words "high-catching", whatever that means). We retain images that add information, period. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Graham8714:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Graham, I much appreciate the confidence. That is a very useful tool when there are several edits we want to revert. Sometimes I check the other contributions, sometimes not... I will pay more attention from now on. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Adam, I've been away and only returned today. Thank you, but it is too late (for this nomination, I mean). Let's see if I can find the file. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Caravela
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:
The origin of the word caravel itself is as uncertain as the origin of the vessel. Historians assume that the Portuguese developed the early versions of these ships, presumably combining features of the sturdy trading ships of northern Europe with the Mediterranean fishing and coastal trading ships with lateen sails and a narrower hull. As mariners returned from their explorations down the western coast of Africa, shipwrights modified the ships until they arrived at the basic caravel design. in: [2]
A Caravela portuguesa deriva da longa tradição árabe das embarcações pesqueiras do sul do país (Algarve). O primeiro documento conhecido onde aparece a palavra caravela é o foral de Vila Nova de Gaia, concedido em 1255 por Afonso III. O aperfeiçoamento deste tipo de embarcação resultou num novo e versátil tipo de navio, que proporcionou viagens mais rápidas a longa distância. No início do séc. XV começa a ser utilizada nas viagens marítimas dos Descobrimentos portugueses, sobretudo ao longo da costa africana. Eram navios ligeiros, rápidos, capazes de navegar em todas as águas e com todos os ventos. As suas velas triangulares, vela latina, permitiam-lhes bolinar, isto é, navegar com ventos contrários. in: [3]. João Pimentel Ferreira 14:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)
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)[reply]
Pulpit
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)[reply]
Thank you for your explanations. I was convinced that the pulpit was built at the same time as the nave, but that is probably wrong. Maybe it is of the time of king John III, who ordered the construction of the renaissance cloister. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cartography
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)[reply]
Hi, what I recommend is that you find a username, sign in and start a discussion on the talk page of the article. You are not the only academic cartographer here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree your picture has some artistic touch, when viewed in small size. But the image quality is not good enough; most of the subject is out of focus and there is barely any detail. Please check all other pcitures in Mosquito, most especially this one and ... keep trying! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!
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)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tabanus eggeri may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
found in southern [[France]], [[Italy]], [[Albania]], [[Croatia]], [[Herzegovina]], [[Bulgaria]], [[Portugal] and [[Morocco]]. There are also unverified records from [[Spain]] and [[Israel]].<ref
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)[reply]
Sorry for not responding, Sladen. I was not paying attention. Please, change the pictures in the article the way you think it is best. Unfortunately I am very far away from Helsinki and cannot go back just for shooting the station again :) Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ta, thank you for the reply! Reverted[4]. Hopefully in the longer run we can get a higher-resolution photograph of the frontage, even if you're not in the vicinity to do it. —Sladen (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. – PeeJay11:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi again. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess for that guy, the experiment is over -- Wikipedia ain't fun. You must be familiar with the Wikipedia "Oh shit" graph, are you? I'm wondering if that's just inevitable -- have we raised the bar so high that it's just bound to exclude novices. Thanks for your ideas. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates
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)[reply]
Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
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)[reply]
Not according to the article. Read it through and if it is wrong change it and add appropriate references. See section "Species". Have a look at Polistinae. Other genera there also claim to be paper wasps. It is probably a vague term that applies to a wide variety of wasps. Dger (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove tomcat face photo if it is not useful
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)[reply]
Are you serious? If that is the case, please note that pictures (and other media) in Commons are free to everyone in the world that wishes to use them, not only to the Wikipedia projects. The fact that your picture is not used in Cat doesn't mean it is not useful! Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC) - PS: you have uploaded one single picture to Commons, the one of your cat. There are users who have donated hundreds or even thousands of them. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Alvesgaspar, thank you very much for your help did not know GIMP, thank you and Merry Christmas!!!! I hope that next year to be prosperous for you. Mr.Jhosimar (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
