Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fine-art-nudesunpine.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2013 at 03:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Destailleur - uploaded by Destailleur - nominated by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This appears a hasty choice of image, apparently to show that {{Nsfw}} is in use. A check of the uploader shows they have made a total of 32 edits, with only one edit being made on another project. Most of the edits have been to upload glamour and nude photographs of women (12/18 photos uploaded).[1] I am concerned at edits made by anon-IPs on the same days as the Destailleur (talk · contribs) account was active, for example the 18 edits from this Nordnet (FR) address and the edits from this Nordnet address which only relate to Destailleur's account. The uploads of nudes are widely available elsewhere on the internet, mostly in relation to the photographer promoting his work, however here this same image is for sale but may be unconnected with the photographer. --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the WLM images are from people that have only uploaded a few images in relation to the project. Do you scrutinise them with as much zeal? Regardless, raise a DR if you have concerns as this is not the place. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- If a single purpose account is choosing to intermix anon-ip edits on the same pages and the same day as using their main account with uncertain and undeclared intentions, then this is relevant context for understanding the provenance and copyright status of this FPC image. I doubt that anyone would be happy at publishing a POTD, to have it then removed because of these concerns. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not my concern, although the simple explanation of him adding categories while on an IP address seems lost on you. Again, raise a DR. As soon as they sort the issue out with the template use on the nomination page this will be going up. Happy to consider an alternate or additional noms. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- If a single purpose account is choosing to intermix anon-ip edits on the same pages and the same day as using their main account with uncertain and undeclared intentions, then this is relevant context for understanding the provenance and copyright status of this FPC image. I doubt that anyone would be happy at publishing a POTD, to have it then removed because of these concerns. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the WLM images are from people that have only uploaded a few images in relation to the project. Do you scrutinise them with as much zeal? Regardless, raise a DR if you have concerns as this is not the place. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for me there is a problem of definition of the shadows. I am a bit 'fussy with the cuts of the frame, this is not perfectly centered (but counts for little compared to the definition of chiaroscuro (light and dark).) . Beautiful flooring but you notice too much curvature of the sheet (background) on the left. --Pava (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Aesthetically pleasing and nothing to complain about here. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support A good example of careful lighting and b&w photography to emphasise form. -- Colin (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 01:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support and thanks for your pointless censorship "Saffron Blaze". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC) P.S: what we do now, if we see this image on the main page (POTD)???
- Good point. I think that issue arose there before. I wasn't here then and not sure of the outcome. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Alchemist-hp. JKadavoor Jee 05:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support nice and because I like to see it as Potd ;) --Slick (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice and well done, good job with light and shadow, but not enough IMO. For the such a picture, the skin of the lady should be perfect, even with digital manipulations (I mean "of the photo", of course...), and it is not the case. Furthermore, the ground is very dirty, and it does not work to me. Bad faith argument, just for kidding: who wrote here, as argument for a decline of another picture, that "the world is colorful" ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I also like to see this image as a POTD! and show the absurdity from our nsfw-tag . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support イントレピッドサンダー (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Feel free to vote until 08:26, 03 December 2013. Do not change to "Confirmed" now. JKadavoor Jee 06:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Claus (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 10:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)