Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG

File:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG, withdrawn

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2008 at 17:56:06

•  Info I've started the process that I hope will end up with the delisting all FP taken by me. It is my way of expressing my strong disagreement with the FPC criteria as they written now, and with inability of some reviewers to follow very few right criteria that are there now. In other words I do not believe in the purpose of FP any more, and would not like my images to be a part of this. I'm going to nominate my images for delisting one image in a time in order do not disturb the order on FPC. Some people say the FPC process is working. Well IMO it does not.I hope the Commons community will agree that the images of a photographer, who does not believe in the purpose of FPC should be delisted. Thanks.(Original nomination)
•  Delist -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep I dont think that the opinions of a photographer have any connection to the quality, value and wow-factor of a picture. This is one of the best pictures contributed to Commons so it clearly became a FP and it still is, imo --Simonizer (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep - Though I may simpathize with your frustation in not recognizing in FPC your own values and criteria (I know what I'm talking about), I'm sure this is not the best way to deal with the problem, as it won't have significant impact and will cause to you further discomfort (to say the least). Why not go on trying to influence things from inside? We all know your talent and there is no doubt that you still have much to share. As for delisting your pics, I'm sorry but they don't belong to you any more... Cheers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep as Simonizer and Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree you are not approaching the problem correctly. I don't know if you are saying the FP's don't have the quality they should, but I feel that is the case. I don't know they best way to improve the process. I just submitted one for delisting and uploaded another to replace a weaker photo, and hope we can all work together make this work. Tomfriedel (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I need to clarify my position. Tom, I cannot care less about size and quality of the pictures nominated to become FP as long as the pictures have value.Sure, it is better, when valuable images are also of a great quality and of a big size, but IMO it should be not nearly as important as the value of the image. For example there's a very interesting nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Punaise mangeant une chenille sur des orties (by).jpg, which is getting opposed because of the size. I see everything that is there to see even in a thumbnail. Why in a world oppose a rare insect action shot only because the size is small? You just nominated a beautiful bird photographed in Botswana in a wild for delisting and nominated a very common pigeon for FP. The pigeon image is good, great quality (I do not like the crop), but it does not matter to me. FP has already one pigeon featured, and as far as I am concern it is one too many. In other words your pigeon might pass (I wish you good luck!), and it is precisely why I would like my images to get delisted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• While the argument that the images no longer belong to Mila is true, it is also true that they do not necessarily have to appear here or be featured. She is not requesting that the images be deleted from Wikipedia, but rather, to be delisted from this particular forum that she no longer has confidence in and is in strong disagreement with its policies and the opinions of certain individuals whose taste, or lack of it, have managed to establish photographic values that are contrary to photographic evaluation practices and criteria and who, in my opinion, are causing more harm than good to this effort. At the very least her wish as an author should be complied with as a courtesy and at the same time serve notice of the fact that a very valuable and quality contributor is being run out of town by what she considers unfair and rude treatment by some. Now, if people want to turn a blind eye to this, so be it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your understanding, Tomascastelazo--Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree about value, and remember supporting Mdf's Trogon photo because it was a rare and difficult to shoot bird shot at 1000mm, but it was not selected because some said the branch was too big. Regarding the Lilac-breasted Roller, you can easily see with Flickr or elsewhere there is no shortage of photos of this bird. Someone we have to balance value, technical, and artistic considerations. And value is by far the most difficult, I think. For that reason I never comment on anything that isn't an animal photo, where all of whatever expertise I have is. Tomfriedel (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tom, if you see a better image of a subject on Flickr and this image has a free license, of course you could upload it to Wikipedia, nominate an old one for the delisting, but if there are better images somewhere on the NET that are not free, IMO there's no point to mention them here. Tom, it is very good that you avoid commenting on the subjects that you feel you have no expertise about. I'm afraid that at least some reviewers here do comment on the subjects that they have never seen no only in the real life, but not even a image of the subject bedore they saw a nomination, yet they believe they could comment on the subject and on the quality of an image.For example here's what Lycaon said while opposing my image Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anemonejelly.jpg :"It is a rare shot, because this is not the anemone's standard food, but a chance catch and so rather an anecdotical picture". How could he know that there is a time, when thousands of brought to shores by the wind and are caught by sea anemones. So my image is rare, but for sure not "anecdotical". One more example: what Benh, Sanchezn, MichaelMaggs,Beyond silence and others could possibly know about sunset mirages and green flashes to comment on my images? Sometimes it feels as some reviewers vote as they are robots, like they were programmed to oppose images that are less than 2 megapixels and they do, no matter what an image is about and what value it could have. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Commenting only on one of your points, I do think it is worthwhile to point out a superior commercial or non-free photo, because I don't think Wikimedia should work on a lower standard than the rest of the world. It might also help show some of the voters what they should be looking for. We have photos that are at the highest level of quality (however that is defined, some combination of value, or technical or artistic merit), and I would like for Wikimedia to only feature those. Since different people value these three criteria differently, maybe the photo must exceed in all three. And there goes the pigeon. Tomfriedel (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• IMO one should be careful trying to point out a superior commercial or non-free photo while opposing a nomination. I probably could find better images of many, many, many current subjects represented in FP now.BTW you reminded me a story: Once I nominated sunset mirage image on English Wikipedia. Of course it got opposed and I challenged opposes to find a better image anywhere on the NET. In few days user Pengo got back to me with a "better" image he found on Flickr. Guess what, it was another my own image, which was not better at all. To me this story proves one more time that one might be better off, if one avoids opposing the images he has no expertise about. I'd also would like to comment on one more of your points, please.IMO because Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not high quality photo contest, value of the image should be the very first criteria. I also believe that FP will only benefit, if there will not be so many similar, almost the same images as we have now. Sometimes it is getting really funny like for example with those two Aquila heliaca photographed by the same photographer in the same zoo on the same day.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Milla, keep your shirt on :-) Delisting is no place to get attention for solving problems/anger with FP as everybody more or less has. We have a very nice discussion page for this - or develop/create your own diligence badges like Slaunger has done with Valued Pictures. IMO - if you donate or nominate your pictures it's unpolite to backtrack this - cling together swing together I have to say. I can remember a time when you can't get enough in nominating lots of your pictures where a few justifiably gained consensus and you was happy with that - you should have considered it carefully before. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Richard. I agree it is not the right place to disscuss the problems, yet I believe we did have a nice discussion here. IMO to call me nominating my own image for delisting "unpolite" is a litlle bit too strong (besides I was not the one, who nominated this particular image on FPC in the first place, if you'll be kind enough to notice), but, if you believe it was unpolite, I am sorry. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I forbear from offend you personaly in any kind (you should know me, eh !), maybe uncivil is a more precise term - concerning backtracking of donations and awards without cogent reasons. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, Richard, there's no offense at all. As I said you are right, and besides you did so much good for me in my time of need that now, if you say something like "uncivil" or ""unpolite" (I believe the right way to say is "impolite"), I simply consider these as friendly remarks, and of course I do know you :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep   ■ MMXX^talk  07:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep - I sympathise with Mbz1, but these images have been awarded a (deserved) high accolade by the Commons community and I think it would be unfair to withdraw it, implying that the author's vote/opinion is worth more than the rest of the community's. Anrie (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep --ianaré (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep I vote for keeping, even I can understand the feelings of Mbz1. I thing, that everybody, who is workig with wikipedia for longer time has somtimes similar feeling of frustration and inability to enforce his own ideas. For example, from the year 2005 when I have started on Czech wiki I stopped my cuntribution two times for some one, two monts. But wikipedia was stronger than my frustration and I came back. And this is, what I like to advice to Mbz1. Take some wikivacation. 2 weeks, months, its up to you. And you will see that you will be back. Your images are really good and valuable and I believe, that we shall see many, many others from your camera. --Karelj (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep All I see is a good image. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep A great image. Whether an image is listed as a Featured picture is based upon the opinions of the community, not the creator, especially where the purpose of the delist request is to make a point. Adambro (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  From all our disagreements of the last few days I could say that I agree with you on this one only, Adambro. I should not have been making my point with this nomination the way I did. Sorry about this! Besides it was one of a very few of my images that was supported by Lycaon, and for this fact alone it should have been preserved for the eternity, and not nominated for the delisting :) I believed the nomination time has expired a long time ago, but, if it is not, I  , and I'm sorry I took so much of everybody time, although I still believe that we had a rather interesting discussion, which involved some users, who usually do not go to the project talk page to discuss the issues.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)