Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Closeup.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 01:49:33
- Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Info A mature black swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes) caterpillar on its host plant.
- Support -- Ram-Man 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support excellent --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 09:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good! --kaʁstn 13:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Beautiful 144.32.2.205 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Please log in for voting --kaʁstn 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)- Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy background. Could be edited in photoshop. —kallerna™ 19:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral noise prevents my suppport --ianaré (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Durova (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support this one is actually stunning --che 07:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Restrictive license prevents me to support.Lycaon (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)- There is nothing wrong with the GFDL 1.2 and the fact is that it is one of many acceptable licenses allowed on the Commons (Commons:Licensing). This comment is nothing more than a personal opinion that does not belong here and has nothing to do with the rules for evaluating FPs (and could potentially sway other voters incorrectly). If you don't like the license, don't vote. -- Ram-Man 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- My vote is per de:Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen für Bilder. Images on Commons should be usable on all wikimdia projects. I didn't oppose because of the good quality of the image, though I can't support for said reason. Lycaon (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's totally rediculous. There are hardly any images here that qualify under your overly restrictive terms. Since Wikinews uses the CC-by-sa-2.5, only those images that use (or explicitly allow) creative commons licenses (of the correct version) would be acceptable for your standards. Creative Commons licenses are too weak copyleft and they do not adequately defend the rights of copyright holders and provide too easy a way for abuse in violation of the whole purpose of copyleft, which is to increase the number of works available under free licenses. Why don't you just oppose and say "Not a Creative Commons copyleft license or weaker". It has never been the mission of Commons for all images to be useful for all projects, as that is extremely difficult since not all current (and future) projects must conform to the same licensing terms, nor are all images even useful for all projects due to their specific content. The fact that you site a German Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the Commons and further supports my position that this is not a valid argument to make here. Until Commons policy changes to support your opinion, I ask that you withdraw your comments. This is not the proper forum to push your own personal philosophical and/or political opinions on which licenses are the "best". You show great disrespect to those of us who believe in the standards of copyleft and free images but don't happen to agree with you. -- Ram-Man 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- It might have been totally ridiculous if I had opposed. I didn't, I just can't support. Please next time react like this to real opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's totally rediculous. There are hardly any images here that qualify under your overly restrictive terms. Since Wikinews uses the CC-by-sa-2.5, only those images that use (or explicitly allow) creative commons licenses (of the correct version) would be acceptable for your standards. Creative Commons licenses are too weak copyleft and they do not adequately defend the rights of copyright holders and provide too easy a way for abuse in violation of the whole purpose of copyleft, which is to increase the number of works available under free licenses. Why don't you just oppose and say "Not a Creative Commons copyleft license or weaker". It has never been the mission of Commons for all images to be useful for all projects, as that is extremely difficult since not all current (and future) projects must conform to the same licensing terms, nor are all images even useful for all projects due to their specific content. The fact that you site a German Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the Commons and further supports my position that this is not a valid argument to make here. Until Commons policy changes to support your opinion, I ask that you withdraw your comments. This is not the proper forum to push your own personal philosophical and/or political opinions on which licenses are the "best". You show great disrespect to those of us who believe in the standards of copyleft and free images but don't happen to agree with you. -- Ram-Man 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- My vote is per de:Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen für Bilder. Images on Commons should be usable on all wikimdia projects. I didn't oppose because of the good quality of the image, though I can't support for said reason. Lycaon (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the GFDL 1.2 and the fact is that it is one of many acceptable licenses allowed on the Commons (Commons:Licensing). This comment is nothing more than a personal opinion that does not belong here and has nothing to do with the rules for evaluating FPs (and could potentially sway other voters incorrectly). If you don't like the license, don't vote. -- Ram-Man 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support A little noisy at high-res, but not fatally so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)