|
 Comment
- You voted and explained why. I voted and explained why. Full point. I don't care with your "bad guy" game, like others I understand that it's only a game and a "posture", and I'm absolutely not afraid, just only bored a bit with this "soap opera". Oh yes, I know its easier (and maybe more funny) than to be kind. I don't want to continue this "discussion". Furthermore, your comment ...art...?! is unacceptable. But:
- Enough foreground. To me, trees and light add.
- I like the original angle and composition. I disagree with the general opinion about "non day-light" pictures, because it sounds "fundamentalist" to me (yes I have read the guidelines, I disagree with this special point)
- In my opinion, nobody (even you) can say that another shot would still be a fairly ordinary shot. I don't know the English words for "procès d'intention", but it's exactly what you do. It IS contemptuous, and I have here an answer to a question asked somewhere else about patronizing (a formal answer in QIC page is now useless, thank you). I think the choice of the photographer is a sufficient reason to do it at night, even you may (and have the right to) dislike it.--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry, but you have to support here what I "basically say" (so do I with you). If not, leave.
- According to the (ancient and new) rules, I have no to explain why I support, but I do.
- Without giving reasons at all. The reason was and is: I like this picture. It's enough.
- J'adore me péter par écrit en Anglais avec quelqu'un, je trouve ça marrant !
- Be happy, summer is coming soon ! (in the northern hemisphere of course). Drink fresh, make love, life is beautiful, in Dresden by night too !!--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, péter is a very fitting term, I must say. Anyhow, don't get all worked up if someone calls you up on calling other peoples opinions non relevant. --Dschwen (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- CommentNobody is playing bad guy here. We are just giving our own opinions to the nominations. The aim of FPC is on the one hand to promote very good pictures, but in my opinion the most important aim of FPC is that people improve their photo skills - and no one learns anything when you just "play nice guy" and always tell people how great their pictures are. (If you have the time you should have a look on the FPC on the German wikipedia) --AngMoKio (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- I’m with Dschwen on this one, FPC is an open forum and all opinions (and votes) are considered equally relevant here. As for the flatulent comment (se péter en Anglais), it has two main components: (i) it is a vulgarity, considered by many (I included) as bad manners but occasionally used by some when short of logical arguments and moderately tolerated here; (ii) it is an attempt of using this forum to 'make a point' (the so-called POV, in Wikipedia’s jargon) and considered by many users as a serious fault . I don’t give a s* (sorry) damn for this peccadillo though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- CommentPatronizing n°2 ? Please don't give me lessons about french slang. Here, "se péter" is not flatulent, but means " to have a (hard) quarrel with somebody ". Not to be confused with "il se la pète" which means "he is patronizing a lot". "Péter la gueule" is litteraly "to break the face", and generally, "péter" is "to break". But OK, it's slang and not very elegant. And no, FPC is not an open forum : it's impossible to have a divergent opinion without to be harshly humiliated. --Jebulon (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- Let me start with the minor issue. Because I'm no expert in French slang, I went to the 'Larousse de Poche' where I found 'Pet' = Gaz qui sort du fondement avec bruit; 'Péter = faire un pet, se briser (fam.). The same meaning can be found by other users in other dictionaries, as Dschwen did. Now for the serious issue. Nobody here is trying to humiliate nobody and the object of all opinions are the pictures, not the creators or the nominators. Yes, the evaluations are often direct and harsh, though their tone have somehow softened in the last times. Most users understand and accept the criticisms and find them to be a valuable way of improving on their work (that is clearly my case). Very few, who don't accept the evaluations, consider the reviewers not competent enough to asses their pictures or the guidelines to be flawed, react negatively, sometimes with violent personal attacks. Fortunately they are a very small minority. There are no VIP or leaders here. The influence of each user's opinions is usually a function of the quality and consistence of his/her work here (as a reviewer, a creator, an organizer or a general contributor) and is not dictated (obviously) by his will, the loudness of his voice or the length of his comments. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- CommentTraduttore, traditore. Or convertitori, sovertitori...--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's a multilingual project. So you either are at the mercy of "google translate", or the foreign language skills of the people who read your comments, or your own proficiency in a foreign language should you choose to use it. Ich haette auch nix dagegen hier in meiner Muttersprache zu diskutieren, aber es bringt einfach nix rumzulamentieren darueber, dass Englisch hier der de facto standard ist. Alle varienten, die ich oben aufgefuehrt habe haben ihr Fuer und Wider. So und jetzt noch ein schlecht zu uebersetzendes Wort: Popelnase! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Entschuldigung, ich verstehe nicht was "de facto" bedeutet...
 --Jebulon (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm compacting this, as this has nothing to do any more with this particular FPC. --Elekhh (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with compacting, but I disagree with where you began your crop...--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
|
.jpg/398px-Hofkirche_bei_Nacht_(Dresden).jpg)
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutral I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's much better than this one. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Not enough foreground. Trees and lights are distracting. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC).jpg&action=edit§ion=1){kind=link}
.jpg&oldid=40395827){kind=link}