User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive2

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Pythagoras-2a.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"removing gallery of mostly sub-standard pictures"? well, I admit your photo is superb, and deserves all compliments, but why deleting all others? Such drastic action done by the only "survivor" may indicate some COI. With all due respect I would let an objective editor to decide about that. Perhaps you are right, after all. Perhaps not. Etan J. Tal 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

• It has nothing to do with my picture. If you find a better illustration of contre-jour, please go ahead and replace it. It has to do with the basic principles of any written text produced to transmit some message to other people, where pictures are not just decorative but play a specific role in illustrating the concepts addressed in the text. This is true with books, scientific papers as well as with newspaper or encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not an album where we can post our own pictures or even a warehouse of media. For this last purpose we have Commons. (I wonder if we can find any featured article with a gallery. Perhaps not.) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at other Photography Techniques articles (such as

Afocal photography · Bokeh · Contre-jour · Cross processing · Cyanotype · Film developing · Fill flash · Fireworks · Harris Shutter · Kite aerial · Macro · Multiple exposure · Night · Panoramic · Panning · Photogram (Kirlian) · Print toning · Rephotography · Rollout · Sabatier Effect · Stereoscopy · Stopping Down · Sun printing · Infrared · Ultraviolet · Time-lapse · Tilt-shift )

You may see that many of them contain more than a single photo. None of these photos is is Better - each adds a different aspect which enriches the article both visually and in contents. Examples - when relevant and in high-quality - are always welcome. One may think of different aspects of contre-jour too, which might NOT be demonstrated in your really fine photo. Perhaps colour? Night-contre-jour, Fill-light effect, Long-exposure contre-jour ? Are these sub-topics represented by your photo? I would like to suggest a photo of mine, NOT instead of yours (it is not Better but perhaps of some value still)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BeitShearimSarcophagus2.jpg

Would you be so kind and comment? Is it of adequate quality? relevant? Etan J. Tal 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

• It is all right for an article to have more than one picture, of course! As long as they illustrate particular aspects of the subject (preferably addressed in the text), have adequate captions and good enough quality. After all these are the normal rules applicable to any illustrated text. But I am against inserting a repository of images in the articles, in the form of galleries. That is Commons' business. As for your own picture, I'm afraid the quality is not good enough for illustrating a typical subject of Photography. The main problem is chromatic noise, due to the lack of light, high ISO rating (for this type of camera) and poor quality of the sensor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status Your image, File:Wasp August 2007-23.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Elekhh (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that picture is kept on the article for one month, do you think it would stand a chance of getting promoted? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to valued picture status Your image, File:Mosquito 2007-2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you were also the nominator of this image. Very nice work. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just to let you know that I listed File:WInd Rose Aguiar.png for delisting here to be replaced with this SVG version. I hope this is OK. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention that there are some new reply options for this question, which also serves as an example of how the poll should progress when none of the available options suit the contributors. The question on dealing with unclear consensus has apparently been the most controversial so far. I remain hopeful that we will succeed in representing people's opinions by the time the poll ends. Feel free to change your vote or add a new reply option if the three new ones still don't quite work for you. (But obviously, try to create something general enough that it's likely to gather a following.) Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joaquim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Missing square edit.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 6, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-05-06. Yes, this is very late. I had put it in as a possibility for April Fool's Day, but it didn't get picked, and then I forgot about it again until now. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Papaver April 2010-8a.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Papaver April 2010-13_crop.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Papaver April 2010-9.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maedin\^talk 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joaquim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 31, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-05-31. howcheng {chat} 17:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I finally remembered to schedule File:Spider and bee June 2008-1.jpg on June 1. Sorry for the delay! howcheng {chat} 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joaquim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-4.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 16, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-06-16. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joaquim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 27, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-06-27. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-five suggested extending the voting period for undervisited, unanimously supported noms. I can't think of a way this system could be gamed, but thought I'd pass it by you as you seemed at previous discussions to have some expertise in game theory. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joaquim,

I posted a few questions I had at Talk:Porto Covo, but no one seems to have acted on them. Since you seem to have edited the article heavily, perhaps you can take a look? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howcheng,

That part of the text was there since the begining and I didn't understand its meaning either. It is simplified now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.

— raekyT 00:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Full moon detail1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Full moon detail2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you improve the translation of the article Transportes Aéreos da Índia Portuguesa? It has been translated from the Portugese Wikipedia to English, but needs some help from a native speaker. Thanks. --92.8.153.90 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..............................................

Hi Alvesgaspar, The editor's page said I had to give you a notice that I had made a comment, so, here is your notice: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. on your comments on "edit warring".

I am new to Wikipedia, and I have not been part of any scientific edit warring, and I only want to use the drawings of why sunsets and sunrises are red and orange and peach colors.Wanbli-g53 (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Wanbli-g53[reply]

Could it be helpful to inform also the people who recently partecipated to editing/discussion, that is
Grafen (talk|contribs), Falcon8765 (talk|contribs), Spiel496 (talk|contribs), Kbrose (talk|contribs),
about the thread ? --GianniG46 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I've just informed those users. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Jorge Aguiar 1492 MR.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the updated lifeguard photo? --71.200.70.155 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the existing one illustrates better the function. Please seek a consensus in the talk page first. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, VP got shut down. (I know this is sort of a late response to your edit.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you removed two labeled pictures from the page, on account of it being "low quality". I reversed your edit. The purpose of those pictures wasn't "quality" but the identification labels of the individuals on the monument. Until someone comes up with a better picture and does the labels, I believe it is useful to retain these. Walrasiad (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eu não sei o que posse dizer: monitorizar a página, editar excessivo imagens e registar as suas opiniões com a comunidade. Eventualmente o "blotting" vai ser viste por pessoas com mais experiença e ele não pode escapar. Tive problemas com o numero de páginas nesta página no passado, mas as adicicões recente foram excessivo. Fiz alguns editos hoje para diminuir, mas acho o minimo uma imagen por cada tema seria suficiente para comunicar as ideias (ou numa imagen também). Como ele tem uma historia de edição e colaboração no EN Wikipedia estou suprendido que o Caliphat123 não começe um diologo. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have unstruck the vote from the new user. Yeah, anonymous votes are typically ignored, which is bad enough to start with, but you feel we should extend this to the votes of new users? How should a new user offer an opinion, if not creating an account and then posting? If you have evidence that there's something up here, by all means, present it, but striking the vote of a new user (especially when the new user is supporting something you happen to oppose) just because they're new is more than a little bitey. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You will certainly agree that this has nothing to do with my opinion on the nomination. Trying to game the system by creating new accounts is not, to the best of knowledge, a common phenomenon in WP:FPC. I just acted boldly (in the ways of Wikipedia) to prevent something that may become more frequent and fashionable. You are certainly aware that, in many Wikimedia projects (including COM:FPC), voting is restricted to accounts older than a certain number of days and with a minimum number of edits. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean to imply that it did have anything to do with your own view of the image, I was only meaning that it doesn't come across too well- be that to regulars, non-regulars or the new user themself. I don't think new users taking part in FPC is necessary a bad thing- I don't see how this is "gaming the system" at all unless, as I say, something is untoward (sock/meatpuppetry...). Yes, I am aware of voting restrictions used on other projects, but that's not really related to this issue. J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joaquim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Jorge Aguiar 1492 MR.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 10, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-06-10. howcheng {chat} 22:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Coreopsis July 2011-2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Why did you change the infobox picture? How do you consider it more appropriate? --Muhammad(talk) 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Muhammad, I believe you already know the answer to your question: it is common practise here to show the whole animal in taxo boxes, not just part of the head. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but the image you inserted does not show that either. Additionally, that image is already used in the article once and is IMO not as compelling an image as the one I had uploaded. A taxobox image should attract the reader, I believe my picture does that more than the one you have placed --Muhammad(talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on Muhammad, cuteness is hardly an acceptable criterion for choosing a picture for a taxo box! The one there (for about 9 months, now) is not perfect but has much better ev than yours, as it shows the animals swimming in their natural environment. It could be replaced by a better one, of course, but your depiction is clearly not the right choice. However I don't have the truth in my pocket and don't own the article. If you are really convinced of your rightness you should start a thread in the article talk page. Anyway (please forgive me if I'm wrong about your intentions), you don't need to put the picture in the taxo box for nominating it to FPC. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will do that. Anyway, I thought we were supposed to assume good faith not the other way round. Had I wanted its placement solely for a nomination why haven't I nominated it yet? --Muhammad(talk) 14:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm assuming good faith, Muhammad. There is nothing wrong in nominating a picture to FPC! We only need to be careful in keeping the correct perspective and avoid affecting the more general goals of our encyclopaedia. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alvesgapar. I am Portuguese and I know what I say about this topic. I will easily find a ton of references about anti-nuclear in Portugal and restore all the statements done before. I will remember you the Ferrel affair, near Peniche, in 1976, when the anti-nuclear movement, with the overwhelming support of the civil local population, defeated a project for the first nuclear power plant to be built in the country. Mr. Joca (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The protest of a local population hardly justifies your claim that Portugal is a nuclear free zone by choice. Projects for the construction of nuclear power plants were always dismissed by the governments and a majority of the local populations. Please restore everything the way it was before. I'm considering your edits as trolling actions and will act accordingly -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Moscow July 2011-7a.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When reporting editors to an Administrators' Noticeboard, you are required to post a notice to their talk page. You failed to do so in your complaint against User: Mr. Joca. I will place a notice for him; however, it is your responsibility to directly notify all involved parties when you report incidents to noticeboards. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 06:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joaquim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Pythagoras-2a.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 9, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-10-09. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For your wonderful picture of the day, File:Pythagoras-2a.gif, which proves everyone's favourite mathematical theorem in a simple and clear manner. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Knight, that was a very nice and unexpected compliment ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Raghith 04:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this incident is exhibit A in why I would have blocked you. The fact that you so egregiously violated WP:Don't bite the newbies that Mr. Joca has not returned in a month is exactly why we have such policies and why your actions and attitude are so disruptive. You have driven a prospective editor away from this project, and those editors are a valuable resource that we cannot afford to waste. So congratulations, you've won. As your prize, you have your own little plot of scorched earth. Enjoy! VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your prompt response. May I say again that I'm happy you are not an admin, as more qualities are necessary for the job other than blind political correctness? Btw, I didn't win anything, the article and Wikipedia did. Greetings. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Vasco da Gama, as the material you restored was excessive coverage of a film that, at best, rates a very brief mention as a bit of trivia. -- Donald Albury 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, fine. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this message left by you in on my talk page: "Please stop forcing your photos into the sunset article. A discussion has taken place here on what pictures to put in the article and images much better than yours were left out. Please understand that your status of professional photographer is not important here and that Wikipedia's articles are not showcases for our images". Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My reply to you is this: I only continued to post the photo: Large Blue Joshua-B.jpg because I beleive a quality photo that enhances a page for which there is a perfectly good space open for it under the 1st photo, should not be deleted by another editor without the courtesy of at least a brief explanation. I finally squeezed one out of you yesterday. For that I am greatful. My feelings are not hurt over your comment about other images much better than mine were left out, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think you're beholding too much. I can understand that everyone thinks they are a photographer; and everyone has a favorite Sunset photo they've taken. So I will respect your wishes and not re-post the photo, not because I don't think it adds to the beauty of the page; but that this section must be a Royal Pain in the Butt to keep under control; so I won't add to the confusion. Thank you for finally stepping forward and letting me know who has been deleting this photo. I truly believe that all removal of another's work deserves an explanation by the remover. By the way, in my short time here and only about 100 edits, I have NEVER removed another's photo or text, but only corrected grammer if I found an error; or added text to the already existing text; or a photo in a spot where I really thought it would enhance the page for the reader. Perhaps you can learn something from a New Guy. Pocketthis (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your message. Please understand that there is nothing personal in reverting the edits of other users. That is a very common practise in WP as a way to protect the integrity and quality of the articles. On the other hand the purpose of the pictures is to illustrate the articles with the best possible depictions of the subject, not to decorate them. In many articles the illustrations are chosen very carefully among the best available pictures, taking into account their encycoplaedic value as well as their photographic quality. That was the case of the leading picture in Sunset, which was selected from a set of wonderfull high quality pictures, after a long discussion. Being a professional photographer you are certainly aware of the fact that the image quality of your photo is on the poor side. Though it is a beautiful photo in thumb size, very obvious chromatic noise becomes visible when viewed in full resolution. That is, of course, the result of using a small sensor. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it's the result of being retired and selling all my Nikon equipment. I just tinker around now with a Leica Lumix Point and Shoot. Whenever you are using small digital equipment in low light situations, you are going to run into some noise.

Let me leave you with these thoughts to ponder about the Sunset section. First of all you've made it a RED page. There is every single color in the spectum at sunset during a variety of Atmospheric conditions. That is the main VOID on that page. Also, when a reader finds himself on the Sunset page, it is with the anticipation of seeing the most stunning photos of Sunsets that Wiki has in it's valt. There too is a BIG Void. My suggestion would be a Gallery section at the bottom of the page where an editor would be allowed to choose only 1 Sunset photo from his favorites to display if he is so inclined. This will solve all the issues you guys seem to be having with this section, and also leave it up to the READER to decide what is beautiful and what is boring. Because in my opinion......that page is a giant Bore. Thanks for your reply, Pocketthis (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Sunset 2007-1.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Delist procedure changes. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]