User talk:Alvesgaspar
Kindly explain why the picture of the bees is "poor quality"
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)
- 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)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Fair enough. Thank you for explaining.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
POTD notification
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)
RfC WP:FPC
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)
hello my friend
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Image in Sunset article
See Talk:Sunset
DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Pictures
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)
- 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)
- 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†SOUL 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Tachina praeceps
 |
POTD notification
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)
 |
Rollback
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. Graham87 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- There you go; I've given you the rollback tool now. Graham87 15:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 |
 |
Responded to you there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
POTD notification
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)
Lisbon
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
 |
POTD notification
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)
Request to add photos
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)
- 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)
ok.Thank you.