Commons:Valued image candidates/Cane skipper (Nyctelius nyctelius).JPG/Archive of previous reviews

Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With this angle, it is not clearly distinguished positioning and complete drawings of the wings. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Medium69: This attitude is unacceptable. it is highly desirable to change behavior.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you find that my remark is unjustified? I do not see the full reasons; I do not see the positioning of the wings properly, I do not see the whole back of animal. What do you find in these unjustified remarks? Certainly I am hard with the author, but not more than it is with me or many others. I wish valuable images that are truly valuable images. There are too many poorly valued image representing them have been accepted. We must stop being complacent. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An image like this is correct for the scope dorsal : File:Tropical fritillary (Euptoieta hegesia hegesia) J.JPG. You understand the difference? --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medium69 does not understand that skipper butterflies never display their wings like the one he references. Charles (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What prevents the photo seen from above? It is not representative. Stop crying constantly. It is high time that a VI is actually a VI. Complacency of some vote has lasted too long. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 02:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]