Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-14-Edzna-Campeche-Mexico-RalfR-WMA 0700.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2015 at 06:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Building Five Storeys, Edzná, Yucatan, Mexico - all by -- Ralf Roleček 06:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Ralf Roleček 06:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)- Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but Colin is right. --Tremonist (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The third right is blurry, and there are green fringes in the trees at left. (Please see notes).--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Info new version uploaded. --Ralf Roleček 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support--Vikoula5 (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment The right part is still very blurry, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I've noticed the blurry area now, it's indeed still visible at the now much smaller resolution. Sorry. — Julian H.✈ 22:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Weak
- strong oppose Please add a free suitable licence for FP (GFDL 1.2 only is insufficient). The are several very blurry areas, as Jebulon notes, which I suspect are problems with stitching. The quality of light, sharpness, contrast is ok but not outstanding. But my main objection is that the image has been reduced from 25+MP to 6.5MP during the nomination without pinging those who have already voted (and after the above "new version" comment, which is insufficient notification anyway). @Spurzem, Tremonist, Jebulon, Daniel Case, and Vikoula5: , @Julian Herzog: . -- Colin (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I need a viable and meaningful license and not what you here later or in future on your mood change ("Migration"). That's important to me, I do not need FP, i need a good license. --Ralf Roleček 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ralf that's a long time to continue to hold a grudge about "migration": many of the people on Commons won't even remember that far back. You've dual licensed images at FP before. If you actually were concerned that your images could be "used by anyone for any purpose" then you wouldn't restrict your photos in this way. There's nothing that a "free content" project should be celebrating about this restricted practice. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- GFDL is a free license. --Ralf Roleček 18:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- ... but not a license suitable for images. — Julian H.✈ 09:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- GFDL is a free license. --Ralf Roleček 18:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ralf that's a long time to continue to hold a grudge about "migration": many of the people on Commons won't even remember that far back. You've dual licensed images at FP before. If you actually were concerned that your images could be "used by anyone for any purpose" then you wouldn't restrict your photos in this way. There's nothing that a "free content" project should be celebrating about this restricted practice. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
