Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Common Eggfly02 - melbourne zoo.jpg

Common Eggfly

Common Eggfly, Melbourne Zoo

Perhaps not the best specimen, but the best I could find. I really like the setting of the butterfly, surrounded by deep green leaves - really makes a nice overal composition IMO. Appears on Hypolimnas bolina

• Support Self NOm. --Fir0002 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice picture. An off topic comment: the bug and butterfly pictures are getting to be too many and too boring/ repetitive. But whatever. -Midnight Rider 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Great image. --Cody.Pope 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support An amazing picture!!Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I miss link to related article(s) JanSuchy 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Fir has fallen out of the habit of including the article illustrated in his nominations, but you can tell what it is by going to the bottom of the image description page and looking at the File Links section. Debivort 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry --Fir0002 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nice guy ;). - Darwinek 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great quality. - jlkramer 11:04, 10 February 2007 (PST)
• Support Very nice. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support- but if you could refrain from nominating butterflies for a while, I'll bribe you with a strong support. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)06:35, Sunday, 11 February '07
• Oppose Never have been wowed by an insect. Nice picture though.A mcmurray 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please base your opposition on the criteria rather than the subject of the image. Maybe you're not wowed by insects, but we're here to judge the photo, not butterflies in general. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the criteris a featured image is one that has a definite wow factor. Please base your insolence on something real.A mcmurray 11:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Or eye catching in some manner (which I would say is synonmous with a wow factor). There is nothing eye catching about an insect. Even if it is a good picture. It becomes irrelavant. Not to mention the fact that I think your previous comment was absurd, and out of line. I am not a child, don't condescendingly act like I have never read the featured picture criteria and that you somehow have some greater knowledge of them than me. I do not appreciate it.A mcmurray 11:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who is making comments way out of line. You are the one demonstrating insolence to a high degree. --Fir0002 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, you're effectively saying your vote is based on the subject matter: you will never vote for an image of an insect. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of FPC. Stevage 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't say that, I said I haven't ever been wowed by an insect. I don't consider insects to be eye catching which is one of the criteria. Would it be right to say support for something I don't consider eye catching? No. It wouldn't. Regardless the condescending tone of mr.admin from the Netherlands was uncalled for, I didn't ask for him agree that it wasn't eye catching.A mcmurray 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration: My point is when I see a picture of an insect (usually, especially boring ones like this) on the front page it is so not eye catching that I completely ignore it. So i believe my oppose was in the spirit of the FP criteria. I didn't realize I had to explain myself with a novel, no one else does. I have been hanging around here for at least a month with little activity just trying to get the hang of everything. I probably won't be back. This is just too cliquish. I feel like I am in High School or something. This is absurd. I don't like that picture deal with it.A mcmurray 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, your opinion is not important. Neither is mine. This isn't supposed to be a forum where we all get to make ourselves feel good by sharing our incredibly important opinions with each other. There are clear FPC guidelines, and as far as we can be objective about the quality of images, that's what we do. Maybe I don't enjoy certain types of images, but I can certainly recognise technical and artistic merit. Try leaving your ego to one side, and just comment based on whether the image in question is worthy: since other people clearly appreciate well-executed macro shots of insects, try and adapt, and we'll all be happier. Stevage 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're opinion isn't important then what is the point. The fucking criteria says eye catching.A mcmurray 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A mcmurray, your tone is extremely offensive - far worse than the "condescending" tone of MGM. Comments like yours are not acceptable on FPC. Comment on the pic not the people. And at the risk of descending to your level, I would think based off the maturity of your above comments, being in High School is an experience you either haven't yet come to or are just beginning... --Fir0002 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good I hope I made you angry. Because Stevage and the other person made me angry.A mcmurray 05:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration:My beef isn't with you or your picture. My beef is with the other two users who I tried to rationally explain my oppose to. That wasn't good enough for them. So thus the descension to what you have termed my "level."A mcmurray 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I am stepping away now per WP:DR, regardless, use of the word "fuck" is not a reflection of maturity.A mcmurray 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, people, speaking of maturity. I probably am not as old as many of you, however, I have seen enough of this world to know that both condescending comments (which they were) and offensive language (which it was) are counter productive. The fact of the matter is that the subject of the image needs to be eye catching or have wow factor. These, unfortunately, are the very definition of subjective terms. If I submited a picture of some gray pixles no matter how good the focus, lighting, exposure and composition, I wouldn't get a single support vote. My point is that mcmurray's reasons are perfectly justified. One would hope people can overlook any baises and judge just the technical aspects of a picture but the criteria explicitly state that the picture needs to be eye catching. Who is to say then the difference between this picture and my gray pixles? surely not you MacGyverMagic. Please think before being mean. -Fcb981 06:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Because this isn't a beauty contest. It's not up to each person to vote based on whatever criteria they come up with. The idea is to leave personal biases to one side as much possible, and collectively decide if the image meets Wikipedia's featured picture requirements. If someone says "I vote oppose because I hate black", that reason is simply invalid, and it is not condescending to say so. They're wrong. Their vote should not be counted. Stevage 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A mcmurray's reason is justified. This picture doesn't have the wow factor for him and we have to respect that. His language wasn't offensive at all. He said fuck the rules (and probably he was angry). So he didn't attack a person. I agree with Fcb981. --Arad 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Come off it Arad! He was clearly over-reactionary/offensive towards a statement which is entirely in keeping with FPC policy. --Fir0002 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Superb image. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Boring. "offensive language" that's funny.67.80.223.204 22:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You need to sign in for your vote to be considered. This is in order to avoid sockpuppet votes. --Janke | Talk 08:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Flawless from a technical standpoint. Noclip 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Common Eggfly02 - melbourne zoo.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)