Do we really need this disgusting, nauseating graphic in the Commons? It is enough for me if I have to see it in numerous other places. -- Spurzem (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Given that it's in public domain, it's a natural to promote as a VI, as it's used all over the place. It's fine if some of us can't take supporting it; I need someone else to help by judging which photos of Nazi selection ramps are best in scope (hint, hint!). But this is a total no-brainer to promote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it illustrates a disgusting thing, then naturally the picture should be disgusting. P.S. I'm not very good at judging Nazi selection ramps either. Sorry! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spurzem, your opposing vote is illegitimate. Point to any guideline that permits opposition to a photo not based on whether it's not useful, not best in scope or not a useful representation of the scope but "just disgusting". Many disgusting things are important and very useful to have images of. Besides, there's nothing per se disgusting about this image, anyway; it's what it represents that produces a visceral reaction in you. By contrast, we've promoted many nominations of photos of heinous crimes by the Nazis, the Japanese militarists, the Khmer Rouge and others (and definitely should have promoted them). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo —Percival Kestreltail and Ikan Kekek, am I insulted here as a Nazi? This is going a bit too far as I think! And why should I not reject a picture if I think it is disgusting and unnecessary? Maybe someone will take a picture of his excrement in a beautiful composition soon. Can I not reject that because others consider it to be artistically valuable? Some people seem to understand little or think little about free expression of opinion. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think someone called you a Nazi, you're just not understanding English well. A photo of excrement might or might not be useful. VIC is not, or at most only incidentally about beautiful compositions; it's about pictures that can be useful in illustrating all kinds of things, whether those things are pleasant or unpleasant. This isn't about free expression of views; we have a job to do, and opposing an illustration of a virus simply because it's an illustration of a virus isn't part of that job, but instead represents a type of intentional sabotage of VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as best in scope with the caveat that I think there is also a separate scope for a micrscope image of the virion. Buidhe (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spurzem, you are absolutely entitled to your oppose vote, but just the same we are entitled to our opinion that your oppose vote is baseless and unfounded. This is "valued images", not "beautiful images", and if a picture of one's excrement is useful in illustrating the subject, then we promote it. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
