Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Image:Phasia hemiptera male sideview2 Richard Bartz.jpg

• Well I was thinking that some kind of location info could be valuable as it gives an idea of where you can find a given species. Just a general thing that adding location to wold life shots of given species is valuable. But no, I was not thinking of opposing it. Actually I do not think I am going to place any vote on it - because I've grown a little tired of the flower-insect photos. However, I do not want to let my general negative feeling influence a vote on a picture which is probably very excellent. It would not be fair. -- Slaunger 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  Although you excuse yourself, nonetheless you insist your negative opinion about flowers/insect photos. FPC is not for to entertain you :) This is not a tv channel. If you want to be a serious reviewer in the macro photography category then there should be no difference for you if you reviewing the 10.000th insect on a flower picture. Maybe you should think in categories. Me for example, i dont like most of the illustrations here but i know how much work it is to draw them, so i never would arrogate to give a comment onto this, because its not my category. We have smart reviewers for macro photography e.g. Lycaon, Böhringer a.s.o. But feel free to oppose, i would like to know your opinion about this picture and not your general opinion about macro pictures, sorry this is not the place here ! --Richard Bartz 21:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with you that a professionel reviewer should not have a negative opion about a photo a priori even if it is the 10000th regarding the subject. In that case he should not review it. The reason why I did not want to review the photo was two-fold; first I do not feel very competent at reviewing the insect related photos, I am simply not experienced enough and a good enough reviewer to give qualified feedback on most of them. Thus, I normally do not review insect macro photos. Secondly I must admit that I have seen enough of these kind of images for a while which is my second reason for not wanting to review it, because I realize I would be inclined to have a negative opinion regarding the photo, a bias which would neither be fair nor professional. My error is of course that I wrote this explicitly and this is tactless towards you, the contributor. For that I apologize. I should have kept that for myself as the photo does not deserve such a comment. The reason why I asked the question about the location was just that I thought it could improve the value of the image page. I had no other intentions than that. -- Slaunger 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  Another thing, which I would like to state just to be very clear about it. You and and other macro photographers should of course keep on nominating these types of photos and disregard/ignore the sometimes discouraging comments about these types of photos. I am happy to see that there are still many professional reviewers, who keeps up their enthusiasm for the subject. I think in this case I felt a little provoked by you initial speculation that I was warming up to oppose the photo (which you also restated in your second comment). That I think, trigged my generalized not-so-nice comment about being bored about these types of photos. As you've said previously: "You get out what you put in, just my opinion. No robots here". -- Slaunger 07:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  The way users voting on pictures are really changed between the last 6 months, when i was staring uploading pictures to commons. In the meantime i bargain for everything. Sorry. :) --Richard Bartz 17:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)