Oppose I disagree. Per COM:VIS, the words “in a cabriolet” makes the scope overly descriptive (too narrow) and does not add anything to the value of the image. If the scope was just “Dogs with Doggles” matching the scope link to canines wearing a particular brand of goggles, there are better images that would be more valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spurzem We have had this discussion a few times already and you well know the issue. For the benefit of others - per COM:VIS(2) a scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example. Additional and unnecessary description beyond the scope link, in an attempt to make the image seem unique, does not add value. The scope link, Dog with Doggles, would be an acceptable scope. The extra "in a cabriolet" is an unnecessary descriptor and limitation. Dogs can wear doggles anywhere. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: Do you not realize how ridiculous and stupid your reasoning is to declare my photos useless and worthless? I feel your behavior towards me as a deep hatred. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think simply a statement "Funny motif, scope OK" can be regarded as a support vote. Please be calm, anyone could voice out their opinion on the nomination. You should respect other's vote, and @Palauenc05: If you wish to vote support on this image, please use {{Support}} and give a reason. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the discussion, but if it's not on the admin problem board (I can't remember the name of it), I don't think it'll produce any result. Either there's a request for him to be suspended or we just continue to tolerate his abusive behavior because he contributes great VIs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
