Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 18:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach edit 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach edit 1.jpg
So what are you going to do? Bully every one who criticizes your images into submission? Get a restraining order for every hapless user who dares to comment on your clumsy cloning? Who is next? Alvesgaspar no doubt, and many to follow. Your 'fix' came rather speedily anyhow, didn't it? Ah, if I opposed everything you nominated (FP, QI, VI) indiscriminately, you might have a bone, but I only contest poor/insufficient quality images, just as I do with my best friends. Don't flatter yourself, you're nothing special in my book. Lycaon (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! I mean it. It was a first time in more than one and a half year you talked directly to me! lycaon, you are not everybody, and you know it. I will ignore alvesgaspar's review. Tomas said it all. I've nothing more to add. But with you, Lycaon, I wish we are to start from the beginning, much before CU request, and you'd tell me what have I done to you back then, when all this have started. I literally begged you to talk to me, a few people wanted to meditate for two of us. I was ready on everything, on any mediator of your choice. You refused. You do not respond my questions about your reviews of my images, you just do not wish to talk to me at all, and then it was that infamous "kicking back on me" I will not provide the link, but you know what I am talking about, don't you? In such situation, it will be better to avoid each other, isn't it? It's all I am asking. Oh, and BTW, if you noticed the problem was fixed, maybe you could change your the reason of your oppose, or remove your oppose altogether as no longer valid? After all you should know better than alvesgaspar and kuiper do that the subject of this image deserves to be featured.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The correction just made to the stitching errors in the surf looks so clumsy as to be almost almost offensive to the reviewers in this forum. I wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template if I could. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template, if you could? Really? I thought there is no more need to prove that Tomas was right.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact you're visiting FPC so very rarely , that you added your note to a wrong place. It should be added to a nomination, and not to an image, but you came here not to review the image, and you know that.--Mbz1 (talk)
Oppose - I also looked at previous versions, there is too much manipulation here. Anyway, decaying sea animals on the beach are not the most appealing subjects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing, the subject of the image is a whale, or rather the mark of the bites of great white sharks. The whale was not retouched. The ocean was. There were a big waves that day, and it is all, but impossible to stitch the waves automatically. I did my best in stitching those waves, and I believe I have done a good job, but once again, the subject of the image is the whale, and the marks of shark bites.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please add note to the nomination? But I very much doubt there's one. If there were alvesgaspar and/or lycaon would have noticed it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to ask everybody, who is here to review the image, if you'll see a stitching error, please do not oppose it right away, but add a note (not to the image, but to the nomination). Please also notice that the subject of the image is not the waves. One more time, I would like to stress out that the subject is quite unique, very rare to see, has a great EV, and reviews like "Anyway, decaying sea animals on the beach are not the most appealing subjects" should not be taken in the account.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. I think its a great subject, and a very valuable and unique picture, too. Who cares if it isn't a butterfly on a flower? I'd honestly rather see a decaying whale, which is a very interesting subject matter that isn't something you see everyday (a big factor, I would think, in whether or not something is worth featuring). As for the stitching, I understand why manipulations on the ocean had to be done, and I fail to see why that's a deterrent; the subject in intact and looks good (not that type of good...), while the ocean is an ocean, and isn't a big factor in the image. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare, impressive and moving image. Here I am sensitive to the rarity of the event (on Commons at least), the contact between human and (dead) animal, the damages made by sharks and vandals, the sadness of this huge beached body. --Myrabella (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Trycatch, for pointing out some errors. I believe I fixed them. When you have a time, may I please ask you to take another look. I left your notes as you put them.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note the imperfect source for the id, quoting a marine biologist, says Sei (B. borealis) or Bryde's (B. brydei) [doh! Fin (B. physalus)] or Blue hybrid. I imagine the boffin blathering on about uncertain taxonomy of the genus, and the reporter seizing on rare and hybrid to fill the column, but noting it as a species of w:Balaenoptera is probably reasonable. Beached whales are not rare, neither is being chewed round the edges before they land. Questions: This was taken with the same camera that produced the image at the Great White article? Is it possible to see the source without retouching? Where is the citation that states it was that shark species, or is that assumed? cygnis insignis18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, beached whales are more or less rare, and appear only in some regions, even at ocean shores. I live 10 minutes walk from the ocean. I see a beach wale about 1 time in 2-3 years in 40 miles radius from my home. It was only second time I saw a whale with the bites by a great white shark, or any shark for that matter at all. I saw elephant seals with the bites of sharks. All the images were taken with the same camera. Also amazing were the huge bites taken out of the whale that experts said were from great white sharks. I am not sure why do you need to see the source files.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't cite that source, good copy is the priority. I can't cite you until you are published and reviewed, but dead and dying whales turn up on beaches more often than other regions, if not always. I see and hear of them in my immediate vicinity many times a year, I've never thought to photograph them, is there an audience for deserted and dying humpback calves. This used to drive the locals nuts, keeping them awake all night with their wailing until somebody went out and shot it. Stinking up our favourite beach isn't much fun either. I had the idea that making the original data available was sop, at least for restoration, and I fancied having a look after I zoomed up on the retouched file. Is it impolite to ask, ignore me if it is. cygnis insignis19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count four in the last three months, on beaches I can see from my window. One was 'resting' in the harbour for a fortnight, then was blown up; again, I didn't think to get a snap of that. BTW, you should add a warning about touching dead mammals, not a good idea. Rarity is not a consideration here. cygnis insignis20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Very obvious cloning on the first wave front. Please fix. Lycaon (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- The correction just made to the stitching errors in the surf looks so clumsy as to be almost almost offensive to the reviewers in this forum. I wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template if I could. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
