User talk:Rodrigo.Argenton

Hello

Some baklava for you!

Estaba pensando que você e eu poderiamos tirar fotos juntos, caminar pelo parque de Ibirapuera e compartilhar momentos gratos. Consegui aprender a tomar fotos 360, vamos juntos? The Photographer (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Photographer pode ser, o que quer registrar no Ibirapuera?

O museo de arte Africana, acho que a gente poderia ir la juntos e pegar algumas fotos boas do museo. --The Photographer (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The Photographer, que dia e horário está pensando em ir? (Sábado a entrada é de graça)

Precisa ver se eles são "tripé friendly".

Vou perguntar isso. MASP e Pinacoteca não gustan. --The Photographer (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Interior da igreja de São Pelegrino (Caxias do Sul).jpg

Olá meu caro. Nomeei isso seu, achei que ia gostar. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• ArionEstar, vlw, eu tinha visto pelas notificações, prefiro sempre observar do que intervir, a menos que eu seja contrário.

E por isso, te agradeci via ferramenta. -- RTA 21:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo, eu até pensei em nomear esta, mas tem muita aberração cromática. É possível remover? Estou comunicando previamente para que transtornos maiores sejam evitados. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

ArionEstar, essa ae eu tinha que ter ido mais próximo, eu errei.

Não achei o CA que vc falou, tem um pouco de aberrações por outros motivos, amarelos nas bordas da abóboda, por exemplo, e tem um pouquinho de magenta nos bancos, pq é uma DSLR tranqueira, mesmo com uma melhor edição, a falta de nitidez impede de ser uma FP, a meu ver, posso limpar (não fiz uma super pós, pq não é muito boa), mas não vai melhorar muito. -- RTA 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Eu marquei nas notas que eu fiz. Vejo falta de nitidez na abóbada. Linda igreja mesmo assim. Pergunta: superexposição pode provocar aberração cromática? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: Esqueci de te lembrar: começou o WLE. Hora de aventuras e discussões no Commons. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Arion Dá uma olhada lá, acho que agora tirei as bordas vermelhas. Então, na verdade o que causa é lente podre (tirei com a minha lente mais barata) somado a contraste entre sombra e luz, e baixa densidade de pixels. Na verdade superexposição removeria a aberração, pois diminui o contraste. E no caso ali, o problema maior é na verdade as paredes têm elementos vermelhos, e as linhas formam um vermelho escuro naturalmente que a câmera acentua. Por isso te disse que não seria aberração, mas é um tipo de. O mais complicado é a Maria lá, que está sem uma luz boa, a lente não tem nitidez pra definir o rosto dela, e a sombra atrás... :D parece que tem o capeta na sombra dela, dois chifres e tudo, depois repare, e não dá pra arrumar esse pedaço, por isso disse que teria que estar mais próximo.

É, tem várias coisas me avisando sobre ele, mas eu acho que não começou. Eu já fiz a minha parte, e enquanto a comunidade não se indignar e ignorar como têm feito, vai rolar abusos. O mesmo elemento começou um projeto de GLAM, que já veio todo torto. Dê um pulo na Esplanada pra ver. -- RTA 23:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Eu também queria saber a sua opinião sobre essa foto do Wilfredo: [1]. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Arion, mas tem essa aqui? Pq lá é NC, e ai não funfa aqui.

Mas sobre a foto, ela em máx resolução não é uma foto daquelas [2], o lugar é interessante, mas acho que estava muito tarde já, o céu foi embora, tem uns elementos que poderiam ser limpos em pós, como pessoas, e sujeiras. Também teria deixado com uma exposição mais longa pra deixar essa água mais calma, e conseguir um reflexo mais interessante. Também teria dado uns passos para o lado para centralizar a igreja. Tem falta de nitidez na foto, e separação com o fundo. Embora não se tem muitas fotos interessantes dessa igreja de noite, nem em horários melhores, talvez até seja uma das melhores fotos encontráveis, mas ainda não é uma pra portfólio ou destaque. -- RTA 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Interior da catedral Metropolitana de Porto Alegre.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  Support Ok for me. --Code 04:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Interior da igreja de São Pelegrino (Caxias do Sul).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  Support Good quality. --Code 04:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Caqui chocolate em fundo preto 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 01:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ciriguela (Spondias purpurea) fruto cortado e inteiro.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 04:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Umbu fruto aberto e fechado em fundo preto (versão cortada).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 10:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Hy Rodrigo, thanks for nominating my P8 Lokomotive wheel. I myself did not dare to nominate that picture because I knew that it would cause problems. The picture is good but the strong HDR processing brought out to much noise and too many irritations. It is more an artwork than a QI. Thanks again and always good light--Ermell (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Palavra do dia 16-07-2013.jpg

Just to let you know: File:Bowl_hygeia.svg has been deleted. Sealle (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice maneuver Sealle ¬¬, next time let us know before the deletion, during the discussion time... 19:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, next time use your watchlist and sign your posts. If I need your advice, l will let you know immediately. Sealle (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sealle the image deleted was not my own, I do not have any kind of relation, now I have to do a giant watch-list with all images used to promote Wikimedia?

The point is, if you had time to warning me after the deletion, you could warned before happen. 20:29, 31 July 2016 (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:
Cattle anatomy perfectly scaled and anatomic model..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image.- Otherwise the image below 2 Mo.--Pierre André (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Otherwise the image below 2 Mo" Pierre, what did you mean? And it's okay now? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 23:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful, OK now, It's very good.--Pierre André (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Kkkkk

Boa noite, excelentíssimo. Vamos conversar um pouco? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Que manda Arion? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 01:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Fala aí o que achou disso… (otimo trabalho com o esqueleto de avestruz, diga-se de passagem) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Arion, eu vou continuar achando muito, mas muito caro esse concurso, ainda mais quando é uma lagarta de jardim quem ganha...

Pra esse concurso ser sério, no mínimo geolocalizado as imagens campeãs deveriam ser. Essas não têm qualidade técnica, não têm cunho educacional, não trouxeram algo inédito... nem mesmo um nome correto é cobrado, imagine geolocalização...

A lagarta não tem a verdadeira espécie, nem sei se é endêmica, o macaco não é inédito para nós e tem uma FP dele File:Cebus albifrons edit.jpg, os Lençóis a foto é bonita, tem aquela moça com uma garrafa d´água, que sem a garrafa ia ser muito boa, com a garrafa... é...; mas já temos 300 fotos, pelo menos uma foto melhor e outra que já foi destaque na versão passada do mesmo concurso...

As que eu gostei, a Enyalius iheringii e Soldadinhos (pqp, depois eu arrumo o nome), a primeira rolou um downsize que já deveria ter sido proibido nesses concursos, eles até rodam nisso pq não passa em QI por causa disso, e Soldadinhos é bonita de longe, aberta, a qualidade é bem baixa assim como a da caverna.

A do gavião está fora de foco e overprocessed (7), e o bicho está numa porcaria duma jaula, como não conseguiu tirar uma foto melhor? A quinta eu tenho uma melhor que eu tirei do mesmo lugar com um celular Galaxy Y de 2013 e de novo, não especificada a espécie e é um parque, de água parada, de novo, como não conseguiu...

A gente já viu uma foto muito parecida com aquela do jacaré (acho que mais de uma vez e não sei que jacaré é esse, pq não está indicado)...

E sobrou a 10, que é boa, não tínhamos uma foto representativa dessa ave, nessa qualidade, precisa de algumas edições, nada de mais. Mas é só a décima, e não é nem perto das fotos do Marrocos, Austrália... e ainda, de tudo, é bem capaz de ela ser a única ou uma das poucas realmente válidas...

Das 10, tem duas paisagens, uma que pode ser em qualquer caverna ( a parte mais interessante desse complexo não está nessa foto, olhe as fotos do The Photographer...), e outra que já temos muitas fotos...

Dos animais, uma contribuição...

O que eu espero desse concurso é foto do Monte Roraima, Chapadas... todas elas, e fotos tiradas de formas pensadas, o cara madrugando pra tirar fotos na alvorada, ou se fodendo pra voltar pra tirar fotos na blue hour... nenhuma dessas parece ter esses esforços, parece que o cara estava de passagem, pum, tirei a foto, fui embora. Ou, moro aqui, vou tirar foto aqui e volto a dormir... se é pra dar dinheiro pro caboclo, eu quero ver esforço!

Com essa grana, dá pra gerar fotos melhores...

Obs:Vc fez passar para FP File:Canário do campo.jpg, o único que fotografa passarinhos disse: "Nice composition but the focus is on the tail not head", ele não se opos, pq ele é legal... mas deu pra sacar que não era pra ser FP? Eu abri a foto, fui nos olhos, fora de foco...

Kkk A do jacaré eu acho que um jacaré-do-pantanal (Caiman yacare). Na verdade, eu creio que nós tivemos sim fotos grandiosas porém não escolheram as melhores, como fotos das cavernas, inúmeros pássaros devidamente contextualizados, mas concordo com você na parte em que faltou mesmo Pico da Neblina, Serra dos Órgãos, Pantanal, Mata das Araucárias, etc. Os outros países foram melhor representados desta vez. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Arion confesso que não passei por todas as fotos da categoria, pq to sem paciência pra ver "Paisagem inspiradora.jpg" "Que lindo dia.jpg", nem fotos de gatos e amantes...

Prefiro incentivar outros projetos mais vantajosos, e que tragam melhores resultados, principalmente em questões fotos/dólar investido. Além disso, tem o fator de ninguém confiar em quem está rodando o projeto... o que é grave.

E tenho dúvidas se não é um papo amarelo Caiman latirostris ou até mesmo um Açú Melanosuchus niger se a foto estiver mais clara do que ela realmente é...

Rendeu polêmica até para o Wilfredo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Modelo anatomico bovino?

Saudações, Rodrigo. Interessante a nomeação de duas das imagens para Featured Image. O que isso quer dizer exatamente? Que tal nomear o Modelo Anatômico Bovino? Abraço! --Joalpe (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

João, be bold, não acho que seja uma tarefa complicada e acho interessante que você comece a fazer, pois há uma questão de quem indica, e os nomes de quem escolhe as FP não variam muito, nem os que indicam. É bom eles se acostumarem com seu nome.

O que isso significa é que eles estão colocando as imagens em um dos mais altos graus de qualidade vigente, pode virar imagem do dia, e concorrer a imagem do ano (ai sim o grau mais alto, mas ae...), vou te dizer que as duas indicadas estão passando com um certo nível de sorte. Teve uma reclamação que eu consegui reverter e votantes que "só" votam de forma positiva se manifestaram... (lembra que comentei sobre política?).

A do porco ainda não passou, tem que ter o mín de 7 e está em 6. E tem até dia 19 pra não que venha alguém que pendenda a balança para o outro lado. Ex: 1, 2 ou 3, que como pode ver, é comum, e já se tem o voto da galera que vota sempre sim, mas ainda não tem o voto da galera do "deixa eu abrir aqui e ver se vale a pena"... então é esperar e arrumar, caso seja necessário e possível.

Eu não teria colocado as duas na fogueira assim (Arion, esse que está ai em cima, fica fuçando no que BRs trazem e indica, de forma até meio aleatória, né Arion?), mas nunca se sabe, a do modelo anatômico é bem diferente dessas, eu realmente não sei como irão reagir.

Eu penso que iriam reagir positivamente. Eu até estou contente pois até hoje consegui nomear 6 finalistas para Imagem do Ano (2 são brasileiras). Aliás, eu tenho uma questão curiosa de anos mas nunca tive iniciativa de falar: o que você tinha achado da aquela foto da Serra dos Órgãos que terminou em 7º lugar no ano de 2014? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

ArionEstar essa:

File:Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg? Para mim né FP é... metade da foto é um borrão... sim sou desses hehehehe Mas vou tentar explicar o pq não gosto quando essas coisas ocorrem, se a gente espera melhores contribuições, temos que mostrar que pessoas com alta capacidade de fotografar estão aqui presentes, e seu trabalho será valorizado. Quando a gente coloca uma foto que a qualidade é mediana em destaque, a gente está dizendo que o nível alto é esse.

Repare que é no mesmo lugar:[3] uns dois passos pro lado. A luz está perfeita, mas o fotógrafo não tirou o máximo que poderia, sabe? Não pensou em foreground, background... na real eu nem sei como ele conseguiu achar esse borrão árvore: [4], sério não sei [5], e se ele tivesse acordado cedo: [6]

E também não é a foto que veio do concurso, passou por edições da comunidade, deveria estar em um arquivo separado... pq a que veio do concurso, teve esse resultado.

Mas o problema não é só essa imagem, eu acho ridículo ter por vários anos seguidos, finalistas do concurso sem gente, tem uma foto do Obama em 2014, que não de fotógrafos nossos, tem uns bombeiros e uns caras do exercito. Cadê pessoas? Costumes? Rituais? Manifestações culturais? As fotos do dia também não têm isso, e as FPC passam poucas ou nenhuma foto assim. 2009 foi a última vez que apareceu algo assim. E só algumas iniciativas menores como o Wiki Loves Africa que incentivam esse tipo de ação.

Buy guide

It could be interesting for you [7] --The Photographer (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The Photographer gracias, si lo desea, puede escribir en español, tal vez voy a responder en portugués, ya que yo no escribo bien, pero entiendo todo. Vale?

Muchas gracias, de esa manera se me hace mucho más fácil escribirte. He estado analizando el asunto de las panorámicas, me gustaría conseguir esas superpanoramicas que consigue Diliff pero en la calle. A pesar de que Brazil no posee grandes edificaciones antiguas, sin embargo, en el caso de são Paulo existen diferentes panorámicas que podrían conseguirse de una excelente calidad para los artículos de Wikipedia. Ahora mismo estoy tomando fotos del metro de São Paulo, sin embargo, mi idea es adentrarme en los suburbios de la ciudad y hacer fotos a donde casi nadie va debido a la inseguridad. Abrazos --The Photographer (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Photographer, mas no Brasil não tem embargos quanto a direitos autorais de edificações, pode tirar fotos de quaisquer prédios.

O que há é gente idiota enchendo o saco, mas sem base legal nenhuma. Há alguns prédios modernos interessantes que poderiam ser fotografados...

E SPaulo não tem prédios antigos, e por uma razão simples, até pouco tempo SPaulo era apenas um ponto de parada de viajantes. Mas Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, e outras cidades têm um número relevante de edificações antigas.

Abraços, se não compreender algo, eu reescrevo.

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:
Struthio camelus skeletons adult ostrich skeleton..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2016 (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:
Pig skeletons adult pig skeleton..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Pierre André (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Relevant image produced by a renowned museum in Brazil. Horadrim~usurped (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

One more

RTA, por favor, veja que inseri a imagem da cabra na votação para featured. Você vê se fiz certo, por favor? Como faz para a votação de 'valued"? --Joalpe (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

João

Só faltou uma coisa, que era incluir na lista assim; agora todo mundo consegue ver e avaliar. Depois eu mostro como fazer o VI, é mais complicado, e tem que estar redondinho umas coisas. Mas se quiser, basicamente todas as categorias têm que estarem certas, a imagem preferencialmente tem que estar em uso em alguma wiki, e ai você indica onde ela em qual contexto ela é mais valiosa. -- 19:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RTA, coloquei as duas imagens que você arrumou na lista de "valued". Um usuário deixou um comentário, mas não tenho certeza de ter entendido. Você dá uma olhada, quando der? Valeu! --Joalpe (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Joalpe [8] acho que é isso, eu fiz exatamente o que ele escreveu, vou esperar ele responder para aplicar na outra imagem. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 13:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Mais uma que precisa de sua intervenção: Boto

Saudações, meu caro, tem mais uma nomeação que fiz que claramente não resultou em sucesso:Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Boto_skull_(Inia_spp).jpg . O que dá para fazer? Abrex! --Joalpe (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

HEHEHEHE, humanas... hehehehe

Jão é que, neh? spp. é tipo "qualquer porcaria", é inespecífico, tem que perguntar para algum biólogo qual é a espécie deste boto, temos três:

• Inia araguaiaensis‎
• Inia boliviensis
• Inia geoffrensis‎

Se puder perguntar para alguém, ou a gente espera até o dia 14 e vê se eles podem dizer qual que é... (o do porco passou sem a gente ter certeza, pq a gente escreveu com certeza).

Eu to editando o esqueleto da capivara, que estava bem sujo, dá uma segurada ae pra fazer as nomeações; nomear e editar depois pode dar pau. Blz, blz?

E a previsão eram de remessas dia 31 e 8, vai rolar algo por esses dias? Quantas fotos serão no total? Não quer incluir algumas da em destaque como fotos do dia?

Poxa, coloquei o spp. até em itálico :) . De todo modo, veio-me a informação de que é geoffrensis, mas preciso confirmar com o diretor do museu. Já escrevi.

Espero você mexer nas imagens para carregar, então. Meu único problema é que, no dia 30 de setembro, apresento um relatório de atividades à FAPESP e haverá todo um capítulo sobre o MAV, em que quero destacar as imagens premiadas.

A partir de segunda, o trabalho deve acelerar, pois teremos um estagiário atuando diretamente nesse GLAM. Vou passar as instruções a ele para facilitar no carregamento, nomeações etc. Por exemplo, ele fará os títulos de acordo com o modelo que você seguiu. O nome de usuário dele é: Lucas.Belo . Mas não sei se não faremos isso com outro nome de usuário; te aviso. A princípio, teremos uma remessa em menos de uma semana, mais trinta fotos. Não fechamos o total ainda, mas o diretor do museu me falou entre 300 e 400 imagens.

Como indicamos imagens para foto do dia? Nunca fiz isso!

Hoje mesmo, escrevi ao diretor da Matemateca, Eduardo Colli, para atuarmos em outro projeto. Te mantenho avisado.

--Joalpe (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Más notícias, caro Manja-Menos-de-Matemática-do-que-um-cara-de-Humanas. Segue mensagem do diretor do museu sobre nosso boto impreciso:

Caro João Alexandre,

Bom dia. Infelizmente temos poucas informações referentes a esse belo exemplar. Somente recentemente descobrimos que se trata de um boto - até então estava cadastrado como golfinho... Durante uma visita :::ao MAV, uma pesquisadora do INPA e outra da FMVZ é que reconheceram o crânio como sendo de um boto. O pessoal do INPA diz que só dá para garantir que é do gênero Inia, para saber a espécie teríamos que :::efetuar varias medições no crânio, o que não temos como realizar nesse momento. Dessa forma, só temos como cadastrar como "Inia spp.", boto rosa ou boto vermelho.

Abraço,

Mauricio

O que sugere? Você sabe medir o crânio de botos? Abs, --Joalpe (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Joalpe, medir, medir... até sei, dou o resultado com precisão de 0,1 x 10^-3 mm, só não vai adiantar em nada, pois né... :P

Você pode tentar argumentar que a diferença não é visual, e que os espécimes têm crânios muito semelhantes, ao ponto de especialistas dos museus não saberem precisar qual é a especie sem medições custosas e milimétricas, podendo assim ilustrar qualquer uma das 3 espécies, por isso o mais adequado seria spp. ;)

E fico no aguardo das outras coisas. Estou demorando um pouco mais para entregar essas imagens, pois tenho dedicado o meu tempo livre pra escrever (e fotografar) a aula na Cásper, parar um vazamento em casa, e ficar puto com pessoas que ainda tenho que lidar para fazer trabalhos escolares...

Eu tentei salvar a foto do esqueleto da capivara, mas é... não acho que virará um FP.

Abraços.

Ah, João! como indicar para Imagem do dia... assim

Por cordialidade a gente deixa a imagem lá por último, mas... olha só...

Então, dia 28 de set terá uma imagem do dia do projeto. Se ninguém tirar até lá hehehe, o que não é normal.

Aluna que precisa de uma orientação

Saudações. Tem uma aluna fazendo uma questão interessante na Wikipédia, sobre fotografia. Você quer responder? Abraço! --Joalpe (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Duas novas imagens

Oi, Rodrigo. Tudo bom?

1. Vi que carregou duas novas imagens do acervo do MAV. Que tal sugeri-las para valued/featured?
2. Sobre o comentário na página de discussão sobre a imagem do potro miniatura, só fiz o comentário para justificar a alteração na legenda. Não precisa mudar o título.
3. Você não ia carregar no Commons o arquivo de sua apresentação? Espero que sim.

Abraço! João

Joalpe

Começando pelo fim, vou sim, mas tenho ainda que subir as imagens que eu fiz, a minha apresentação não tem quase texto, e precisa ser roteirizada, lembra daquela anterior? Então, e isso me toma um certo tempo, que eu tenho dedicado a responder os alunos, que ainda mandam emails, estou no meio de provas (sim de novo, é quase uma telecena de hora em hora) e também queria concluir as edições nas imagens do MAV o quanto antes.

É, achei que fosse, até perguntei se era só isso...

Na verdade foram 4:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Valued okay, featured... não sei, talvez o crânio da cabra ou do cavalo, a da capivara se abrirem a foto virão que não é uma foto muito boa, mas se não abrirem a foto será pior ainda, pois a miniatura dela está uma caca na página de descrição da imagem (eu não sei a razão); isso pode impactar negativamente na votação. Já tivemos imagens melhores, mas bem semelhantes que não passaram... 12:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Theobroma cacao (cacau) open fruit.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 IMO, good quality. --Rafesmar 22:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	oi Leonel Abel (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ajuda

Oi Rodrigo! Pra variar, com inveja do seu trabalho com o @Joalpe: . Gostei demais do trabalho de vocês no Projeto Commons da Faculdade Cásper Líbero (Jornalismo) (2016). Me inspirou a ideia de trabalhar com meus alunxs das várias cidades da pt:Microrregião de Ilhéus-Itabuna. Tenho uma máquina fotográfica semi-profissional disponível e alunxs de quase todas cidades. Pensei em trabalhar individualmente com cada alunx para melhorarmos os verbetes das cidades, começando com as fotos das principais construções e atrações. O que acha? Boas! Ixocactus (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Perfeitas suas perguntas! Vou tentar sistematizar para concretizarmos.
  1. Estamos falando de cerca de uns 50 alunos-monitores (biologia, química, física, matemática, biomedicina, agronomia, geografia) e seus professores orientadores (vou confirmar esses números) que participam do progama Caminhão com Ciência. Esquematizei esse esboço, mas ainda falta melhorar e formalizar para fazer um ciclo de palestras-oficinas-orientações com todos. Temos também mais 3 editores iniciantes (2 de veterinária foram meus alunos e já sabem princípios básicos (Volátil nda e HSFVET) e 1 novato de física (Jlfisica) com os quais estou trabalhando num pedido de grant de brochuras e que são meus monitores voluntários da Wikipédia no Caminhão com Ciência. Pretendemos fazer oficinas e palestras para divulgar a WP na UESC e também nas outras universidades e escolas secundárias da região. Nas exposições do caminhão vamos fazer palestras rápidas sobre avaliação de verbetes e uso da WP pelos professores do ensino médio-básico. Vamos manter horários fixos de antendimento para a comunidade da UESC e externa que se interessar em editar e distribuir brochuras nesses eventos. Meus alunos de graduação também podem participar, pelo menos uns 40/semestre de biologia, agronomia e veterinária.
  2. Eu estava complicando à toa. Todo mundo tem celular. Problema resolvido. Em princípio acho que dou conta de os orientar, com seu material deve ficar mais fácil, pois não manjo nada de fotos. A ideia é treinar pelo menos os meus 3 monitores para que possam ser multiplicadores do trabalho Wiki também. Mas seria muito bom o Raylton nos ajudar. Tenho a pretensão de convencer meus colegas de universidade a só publicarem em revistas abertas.
  3. Acho que seria muito bom você vir. Temos muitas espécies endêmicas e raras pra fotografar. Não posso me comprometer, mas podemos tentar um contato com o pessoal das formigas e das plantas, que têm muitos tipos de espécies endêmicas depositados nas coleções, além de saberem onde encontrar as espécies raras. Tenho uma ex-aluna que poderia lhe guiar em expedições de campo, pois ela conhece bem as unidades de conservação e matas daqui. Um problema seria seu deslocamento entre esses locais. Podemos rodar em meu carro nos momentos em que não estiver na UESC, mas isso é questão de programar.
  4. Minha ideia é usar o trabalho fotográfico para engajarmos mais editores e melhorar a cobertura sobre a biodiversidade e demais aspectos relacionados com esse verbete da Microrregião, que estou pensando como portal para entrada dos assuntos. Não tenho objetivos muito ambiciosos porque ainda estou testando qual a melhor forma de fazer isso. Aliás, onde tirou aquela foto do cacau?
  5. Nem sei o modelo da câmera que temos no Caminhão com Ciência, mas mesmo as minhas fotos ficam boas. Muito boas as dicas no livro, tudo novidade pra mim mas captei legal as ideias. Amadores vão produzir melhores fotos com elas. Como diz o Jerry Coyne: "shameless autopromotion" :D.
  6. Perfeito! Da ideia para o planejamento! Valeu! Inté! Ixocactus (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

Please excuse me spamming you. As a regular on Feature Picture Candidatess you will recognise User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

All true, but i tried with Zuiko 60 mm macro, so nearest distance is 16 cm - very far for EVF! But gyess what, try with smartphone ! Or i even try with my older Olympus C-5060, compact, sure its much closer f. Then join that photo with outer photo of camera. Now i try some software update so Pana raw will work. --Mile (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

EVF

EVF Panasonic Lumix DMC-G80

I got also .psd file if you want to try something else. --Mile (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mile! Could pleas send me the .psd? The idea is to simulate a photo one stop lower and one stop higher, to show how the EVF behaves, as different from DSLRs, the viewfinder changes with the settings, right? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 14:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Lembrete para matemática/GLAM

Matemateca (IME/USP), provided via digitalization project by the user: [[User:Rodrigo.Argenton|Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton]] CC-BY-SA 4.0 (as metadata). Please attribute as Matemateca (IME/USP)/Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. This file was published as the result of a partnership between Matemateca (IME/USP), the RIDC NeuroMat and the Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil ([[m:Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Brasil/Report/2016#Matemateca_.28University_of_S.C3.A3o_Paulo.29|Report]]). {{Matemateca-USP-license}} Matemateca (IME/USP) / Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton Mathematical object for illustrating angles of repose (sandpile) on display at Matemateca (IME/USP) --Horadrim (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 19:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very colorful. Are those really grains of sand, or are they perhaps colored glass? -- Ikan Kekek 03:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 08:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 01.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trefoil knot.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 13:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 04.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 Some glare and unsharpness, but gets your point across and good enough for QI, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 12:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2016 (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:
Chladni plates..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 02:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 02:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 02:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 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 Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 08:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Pear!

Happy New Pear! or The Secret Lives of Pears.

--cart-Talk 13:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

W.carter hehehe, tks Cart, happy new pear to you too. With a little bit of cleaning, we could make this a t-shirt :P. 08:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 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 Good quality. Interesting! --Slaunger 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 13.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 14.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 Thanks, Rodrigo.Argenton, I can support it now. -- Slaunger 12:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 16:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to [email protected].

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hebesfenomegacorona.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Lucasbosch 23:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 14.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 Perimeter could have been sharper, but still okay for me.--Famberhorst 16:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chladni plate 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --СССР 02:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Figure-eight knot.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 17:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sandpile Matemateca 21.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 Alright, this one works --Daniel Case 20:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or [email protected]. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tetraedro truncado (Matemateca IME-USP).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 21:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tetraedro (Matemateca IME-USP).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 21:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cubo (Matemateca - IME USP).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 21:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"proper location"

Wrt File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg, if I had been suggesting an alternative crop, which could result in a separate image, then notes at the FPC would be more appropriate. But I was pointing out errors with the image. So they go with the image and can be deleted when/if fixed. -- Colin (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This notes in the file page, Colin, have educational purpose; for evaluation, the proper location more appropriate, as you wish, would be the FPC page. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 23:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, I already fixed the issue. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 23:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Is your rule written down somewhere? I've rarely seen anyone else follow it. The notes on the FPC page are used less often -- they are harder to see, since one has to open the nomination page directly, and the thumbnail is smaller with which to draw the note rectangle. As I said, the errors in the image are nothing to do with FPC. -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Colin, I think it is covered pretty well in No 7. in Examples of inappropriate and not-informative notes: which leads to "used to point out problems in an image" and you said the problem was with the image even if you did not think it had anything to do with FPC. But, if you make an annotation on the file's page, that annotation will show up on every page the image is used on, that may present a problem if it is already used in articles. Had this photo been used in a mathematical article on WP, I doubt that the non-Wikipedian/Commons-readers of that article would have understood why there were annotations pointing out some minor flaws in the photo that had no relevance for the article. That is why "Local annotations" exists. --cart-Talk 18:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cart, thanks for that. I didn't know there was a guideline, and suspect I'm not the only one. Always considered the fact that notes appeared on other pages to be a bug that will one day be fixed. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Colin, I wouldn't have know it myself if I hadn't seen such annotations on a WP article page long ago and had to figure out what they meant. When I came to vote on this FPC, I saw a some comments about annotations, could not find them and ended up at this discussion. Just glad I could shed some dim light over this. :) --cart-Talk 21:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

W.carter thank you, I should have given this link in the first answer, I was in a hurry. As I give lectures about Commons, and it relation with other wiki communities, this was a nature knowledge for me... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Superfície - bordo trifólio.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  Comment Needs better categories (one is red, the other not specific enough). --C messier 15:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC), C messier fixed. --Rodrigo.Argenton 04:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)  Support --C messier 13:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Superfície não orientável - Bordo trifólio.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 08:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galton box.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galton box.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 20:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rombicosidodecaedro parabidiminuído.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. A "red" category on Commons is not acceptable, but a "red link" (which is the correct term, not "broken link") to a Wikipedia article, is only an indication that the article should be, or is in the process to be, written. See: Red link. --W.carter 15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pirâmide quadrada.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 06:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pirâmide pentagonal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. A "red" category on Commons is not acceptable, but a "red link" (which is the correct term, not "broken link") to a Wikipedia article, is only an indication that the article should be, or is in the process to be, written. See: Red link. --W.carter 15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Antiprisma Base Quadrada.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 Some "shadows" at sticking out at the top on objects in column 3 (1st, 2nd and 4th row) plus column 4, 1st row. Easy to fix. :) --W.carter 09:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC), Fixed W.carter, again thank you, by the volume sometimes I made mistakes.--Rodrigo.Argenton 00:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Totally understandable. :) Good quality. --W.carter 10:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Antiprisma quadrado torcido.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 What a huge file! It's not fully sharp at full size, but full size is humongous! I haven't voted in FPC on your other mathematical form nominees, but I would vote for this for FP. Impressive, and a pleasant form to look at at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek 07:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks Kekek, actually this giant size was a mistake hehehe, I'm downsizing the other files, and in a near future put a tiff file for editions in the original size, the sharpness is one problem of this monstrosity. --Rodrigo.Argenton 12:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2017 (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:
Parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Useful. Also a great picture. I'd vote for it at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hebesfenomegacorona (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 Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clumsy wagon (IME-USP).webm, 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 Nice work. --Ermell 19:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 03.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good demonstration although a little choppy at start. --Daniel Case 01:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 01.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good demonstration, like the others --Daniel Case 01:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 02.webm, 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 Another good demonstration --Daniel Case 01:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 04.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good demonstration (hard on the ears though!) --Daniel Case 01:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks Daniel, yeah, I should warned about the sound, image editing 30 of those with a wav file and super high quality headphone... --Rodrigo.Argenton 23:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2017 (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:
Category:Snub square antiprisms.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2017 (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:
Category:Hebesphenomegacorona.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - This is a great photo, but before I vote on it, I'd like to hear from you on why you think it's more useful as a VI than File:Hebesfenomegacorona.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek, thanks for the review and your time. The Hebesfenomegacorona.jpg have just a some angles, making it difficult to understand the whole object. Rotating every 15° we can better see and understand the hebesphenomegacorona. And the museum director also said that this could give the sensation of 7 objects, not one with different angles. This was a pilot to the all the others. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 12:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the green one. Charles (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - I'm good with Rodrigo's reply above on why this is most useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2017 (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:
Category:Hebesphenomegacorona.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - This is a great photo, but before I vote on it, I'd like to hear from you on why you think it's more useful as a VI than File:Hebesfenomegacorona.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek, thanks for the review and your time. The Hebesfenomegacorona.jpg have just a some angles, making it difficult to understand the whole object. Rotating every 15° we can better see and understand the hebesphenomegacorona. And the museum director also said that this could give the sensation of 7 objects, not one with different angles. This was a pilot to the all the others. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 12:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the green one. Charles (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - I'm good with Rodrigo's reply above on why this is most useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Revolução de um cubo (IME-USP).webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 18:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Revolução de poliedros 03.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 18:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 05.webm, 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 OK; one would wish for less choppy motion but it still works --Daniel Case 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 18.webm, 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 Short and sweet --Daniel Case 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 21.webm, 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 Interesting the way the tone changes --Daniel Case 18:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at COM:AN/U

Another editor has posted at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Personal attacks User:Rodrigo.Argenton (RTA) regarding some of your interactions with him. Daphne Lantier 04:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dodecaedro torcido levógiro.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 09:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dodecaedro torcido dextrogiro.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 09:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Just noting here for future reference: Per Daphne Lantier at COM:ANU

Neither of you can communicate with each other, mention each other, participate in the same discussions, or vote in nominations of each other's images at FPC/VIC/QIC. The only exception would be threads here on AN/U. Any violation of this agreement will result in a block of one or both of you, depending on the violation.

This is in reference to Rodrigo.Argenton and The Photographer - Revent^talk 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Superfície - hiperboloide de uma folha.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Superfície - hiperboloide de uma folha 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Superfície - bordo Nó 6,2.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 Good quality. --W.carter 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Superfície - bordo nó figura-oito.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Superfície - Lema azul.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 31.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 08:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bilunabirrotunda.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 08:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 16.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 15:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 17.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 15:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 19.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 15:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 20.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 15:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2017 (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:
Harmonograph.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Harmonógrafo 02.webm, 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 Since this is about "harmonious" things, it would have been better with softer transitions between scenes instead of sharp cut, but it is enough for QI. Good quality. --W.carter 17:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Icosidodecaedro truncado.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dodecaedro.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dodecaedro truncado.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Icosaedro platônico.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 26.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 27.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 28.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 29.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 30.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Tabuleiros de Galton (antes e depois).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tabuleiros de Galton (antes e depois).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prato de Chladni 32.webm, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 22:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Objects representing tautochrone curve 03.gif, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 22:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Animação ilustrando equidecomponibilidade.gif, 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 Looks good to me. Possibly VI too? --Peulle 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Category image

Hi! Could you please upload a red version of so we can use it on CKB wiki? I tried my own but the quality was lowered.Épine (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Épine, I'm sorry I was in a wiki break, too much s*** is going on, do you still need this? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

hey! It's okay, I came up with something else. Thank you and good luck dealing with it, life can be hard sometimes! Peace, --Épine (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabela de nós matemáticos 01.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  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paraboloide circular 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paraboloide circular 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sela do Macaco.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Superfície de revolução gerada por um oval de Cassini.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Paraboloide circular 02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paraboloide circular 02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabuleiro da Vingança Olímpica (trinta casas, fechado) (14).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 18:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabuleiro da Vingança Olímpica (trinta casas, fechado) (13).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabuleiro da Vingança Olímpica (vinte e oito casas, aberto) 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabuleiro da Vingança Olímpica (vinte e oito casas, aberto) 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  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabuleiro de Hex 11x11.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 Some hotspots in the corners, but too small to be a problem --Daniel Case 00:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Máquina de somar em base 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 Would have been nicer with some fill light on the left, though --Daniel Case 00:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:경주 부부총 금귀걸이.jpg

Yours sincerely, — regards, Revi 16:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tic tac toe 3x3x3 3D.webm, 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 OK ... wish there had been a little more --Daniel Case 22:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Brazil

Hi Rodrigo.Argenton, you have uploaded some great interior photographs like File:Interior da igreja de São Pelegrino (Caxias do Sul).jpg. According to the corresponding article at pt.wikipedia.org the painting at the ceiling (and possibly more) was created by Aldo Locatelli who died in 1962. Hence, his works are still copyrighted as Brazil has pma 70. You are free to take advantage of the freedom of panorama in Brazil but this comes with an obligation to attribute properly all artworks still in copyright. You haven't done this. Please do it for this file and all other similar cases as soon as possible. Thanks and kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Andreas I fixed, thanks for the warning.

And what do you think about this: File:Interior da catedral Metropolitana de Porto Alegre.jpg, File:Igreja Matriz São Luiz de Toloza (interior).jpg and this: File:Interior da paróquia Nossa Senhora do Rosário (Porto Alegre).jpg need a info about the author? For me is too small in the photo, and the third lacks originality.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 20:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rodrigo.Argenton, thanks for this edit. Are all frescoes by Locatelli? If possibly, it would be great to enumerate the individual murales with their titles. Who designed the cofferings? Who designed the altar? Please do not forget the architect.

In case of File:Interior da catedral Metropolitana de Porto Alegre.jpg you will need the architect and the artist of the altar painting.

For File:Igreja Matriz São Luiz de Toloza (interior).jpg you will need the architect and the artists of the mural at the ceiling, the altar, and the pulpit.

The architect and the artist of the altar painting (Immaculata) is also required for File:Interior da paróquia Nossa Senhora do Rosário (Porto Alegre).jpg.

If possible, it would be also great to name the designers of the wooden church benches. They appear to be all of very original and artful designs. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Andreas you know that we are Brazilians right?

hehehehe, will be difficult to find the altar creators, the benches almost certain impossible, but I will make a effort. Normally is an unknown artist.

The altars sometimes is a donation of sisterhood, and the church just received it (I know because I'm been talking with sacristans to receive the authorization to take the pictures, and they normally talk a lot about it.)

I'll put the architects, however, this part I know that is grey, and I wouldn't be imposed by the law, but as it is good as an educational information, I'll try to find... some of it had a restoration, the Toloza one, from the foundation... is this case what should I do? Put the original? And one of them, I don't remember it one, had just a contractor that build it, so it's unknown the architect, what should I do?

Well most of fresco are Locatelli, but in the middle there are a artwork from another painter, I just put a note there, and with time I'll list all the artwork that I could find information about it. The coffering I couldn't find any information about, but appear to be Locatelli; the altar is this case was easy, as it's relatively new (2006), so the information is available.

But how do I list this? I never saw a file here with all this descriptions.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – each of them describes the depicted objects and provides literature references. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vagão desajeitado (IME USP).webm, 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 I had doubts about it at FP, but I'll accept it here --Daniel Case 06:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabuleiro representando as sete pontes de Königsberg 02.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 OK for me. --Basotxerri 17:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tabuleiro representando as sete pontes de Königsberg 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fotos Gaensly

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_by_Guilherme_Gaensly — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiFontenelle (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

--GiFontenelle (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Altar da Igreja Nossa Senhora Do Carmo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

500px

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:License_review/requests&diff=309025334&oldid=308653615

Try Commons:Bots/Work requests. What you want is FlickreviewR for 500px. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:32, 2 July 2018 (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:
A Epopeia dos Bandeirantes by Benedito Calixto.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Rodrigo.Argenton,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent 500px uploads

Nice stuff! --Palosirkka (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	A little thank you for the 500px uploads. I was involved with the 500px stuff early on and was glad to see others like you picked it up. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Captions in January

The previous message from today says captions will be released in November in the text. January is the correct month. My apologies for the potential confusion. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Bogotá

Hola, por favor categoriza las imágenes. La categoría Bogotá es demasiado amplia. Gracias, --Felipe Restrepo Acosta (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Felipe Restrepo Acosta,

Ver el historial de las imágenes... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bound But Not Broken (222579241).jpeg

File:Bound But Not Broken (222579241).jpeg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kulmalukko (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa 2019

Dear Rodrigo.Argenton,

You have contributed in the past to the Wiki Loves Africa competition. Your images have helped people learn more about Africa and see Africa more clearly from an African perspective. Overall, nearly 5000 people like you have contributed to this photo contest, and contributed nearly 40000 images about Africa. Pictures from Wiki Loves Africa illustrate more than 7000 Wikipedia articles and they received... 278.859.973 views between 2015 through the end of 2018. WOW ! How does it feel to be part of this and really make a difference when it come to Africa representation on Wikipedia ?

This February, you have another opportunity to create beautiful photographs on the theme of "play" that could change how the world understands people and culture in your part of Africa.

Wiki Loves Africa is a annual public contest where people across Africa can contribute media (photographs, video and audio) about their environment to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia and other project websites of the Wikimedia Foundation.

When does it take place?
The 2019 competition will start on 1st February 2019 and close on 1st March 2019.

What should we contribute?
Pictures ! audios ! videos ! The theme for the 2019 contest is... Play.
This theme encompasses a host of approaches and is intentionally open to interpretation. The theme Play! encourages the submission of visual representations of joyful and serious games, sport, and recreation in the form of board or mental games, physical fun or contests, playful interactions, theatrical and musical performances, etc.

In addition to the value your photos contribute to human understanding and african visibility on the Internet, there are several prizes on offer – including two separate prize categories for photos and media that encompass

• (a) capture Women in sport or
• (b) culturally specific and traditional formal forms of play, recreation or events.

For rules and information about how to participate, or to join the contest, click on: Contribute to the Wiki Loves Africa photo contest.

Warmest,

Anthere, for the Wiki Loves Africa Team

++++++++++

Cher ou chère Rodrigo.Argenton,

Par le passé, vous avez participé au concours photographique Wiki Loves Africa. Vos photos ont aidé de nombreuses personnes à mieux comprendre l'Afrique et à la voir sous un autre angle, l'angle des africains eux-même. Depuis sa création en 2014, près de 5000 personnes ont contribué au concours photo, en ajoutant près de 40000 photos relatives à l'Afrique. 5000 personnes, dont vous, qui ont fait une vraie différence sur la représentation de l'Afrique sur Wikipédia et en ligne. Mieux encore... ces photos illustrent aujourd'hui près de 7000 articles Wikipédia et totalisent 278.859.973 vues entre 2015 et fin 2018 !

Ce mois de février vous avez à nouveau l'opportunité de proposer de fabuleuses illustrations sur le thème du "Jeu", qui participeront à changer la façon dont les êtres humains à travers le monde comprennent les habitants et la culture de votre région..

Wiki Loves Africa, c’est un concours public annuel où chacun est invité à partager des illustrations via Wikimedia Commons, en rapport avec le thème de l’année, illustrations qui pourront être utilisées sur Wikipédia ou les autres sites de la Wikimedia Foundation.

Quand le concours se déroule t-il?
Le concours 2019 démarre le 1er février 2019 et cloture le 1er mars 2019.

Quelles sont les contenus attendus?
Des photos ! Des enregistrements audio ! Des vidéos ! Le thème du concours 2019 est ... Jouer.
Ce thème englobe de nombreuses approches, il est aussi intentionnellement ouvert à l’interprétation. Le thème Jouer ! encourage à proposer des représentations de jeux de détente et sérieux, du sport et des divertissements sous la forme de jeux de société ou de jeux intellectuels, d'activités physiques de divertissement ou de compétitions, d'interactions ludiques, de performances théâtrales ou musicales, etc..

En plus de la valeur intrinsèque que vos photos apporteront à la compréhension et à la visibilité du monde africain sur Internet, il y a de nombreux prix à gagner. Dont deux prix spéciaux pour les photos qui représentent

• a) femmes et sport ou
• b) formes de jeux, de divertissements ou d’évènements culturellement spécifiques ou traditionnels.

Pour plus d'informations, règles de participation et pour participer au concours, cliquez sur Contribuer au concours photo Wiki Loves Africa.

Bien à vous,

Anthere, pour l'équipe Wiki Loves Africa

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:
Canis lupus (Golden Retriever) skeletons.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2019 (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:
Canis lupus (German Shepherd) skeletons.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is not correctly formulated for our rules: take example on the previous appointment. Apart from that, the nomination is perfect.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Archaeodontosaurus fixed, thank you for the note. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 17:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

File copyright status

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the project, one or more of your recent file uploads had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status. Please note that Wikimedia Commons takes copyright rules and infringement very seriously. Files may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our licensing policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. Files that fail to meet those conditions may be deleted, and users who fail to meet them may be blocked. Please follow our first steps, if you haven't already. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the Village Pump copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)