Reason: Info Michael Belozerov — science fiction writer from Ukraine -- Butko (talk)
Question Can you establish the notability of this writer? He is not mentioned under "Belozerov" at least until page 11 (!) on Google search (I stopped the search there). W.S. 11:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Question I think you can't nominate an image for each piece of remains of this archeological site in Crimea, unless it has a high and special interest. Is it the case here? --Myrabella (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Is this an extinct species? If not, this doesn't illustrate the subject well. A photo of a live specimen should be used. --MichaelBueker (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it's still alive, but the scope is of it's skeletons, so Best in Scope. --TheHighFinSpermWhale 05:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Perspective should be corrected IMO. Criterion 3 requires a good illustration, and for a skeleton this is not the best representation. Lycaon (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I seem to find that this may be one of the synonyms of Trielis octomaculata (Say 1823). This however needs confirmation. Lycaon (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose until resolved: This seems to be a synonym of Stagmomantis carolina (Johansson, 1763)[3]. Lycaon (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed I change scope to Stagmomantis carolina --Butko (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Scope changed from Stagmomantis dimidiata to Stagmomantis carolina
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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
template added by --Myrabella (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC).
Info I've added the scope change template. Please notify previous voters. --Myrabella (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Too dark, wrong color temperature. There are in the scope of much better like "2011. Лекция о современом искусстве 043.jpg" --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Could you please give us more reasons why this person and the other three ones you nominated deserve their own scopes.--MrPanyGoff 10:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
They are writers. Please see descriptions for categories and images. See also related articles --Butko (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I should object against this nomination as well as the other three ones that are nominated at the same time. Let me rephrase the so popular line from the scope guidelines: Not any writer is worth a Valued Image scope. If some writer is eminent enough so that, in the future, to be placed in a list like this: Famous writers and poets from Ukraine - then he deserves its own scope. I've been working on these four nominations research for a week and as for the present moment I don't think that they reached notability for their own scopes. So I Oppose. Note that I don't eliminate the probability some of them to have potential to develop durable significance for the Ukrainian literature but for now they are just writers as thousands like them in the world.--MrPanyGoff 19:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Info This writer has created 13 large stories (fantasy novels). It is far enough for the valuable. --George Chernilevskytalk 20:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Please note that in most of the countries in the world at least one novel is published every week. Can you calculate the numbers of the published works just for the last decade? The quantity of the written novels is not a feature of notability. Can you imagine images of all these writers to be nominated for VI? There won't be room enough for authors like Pushkin and Hemingway in the galleries. Once again, I don't mean that he is a bad writer. I'm sure that there are eminent Ukrainian authors, our contemporaries (still alive or recently deceased), that are suitable for VI. Let's find photos of them.--MrPanyGoff 22:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Support We are not here to judge the literary value or level of popularity of those we presented. They are a public figure and as such it can be included here. The question boils down to: This photograph is the best? For me yes. When the number of images, this is not a good argument. We are currently capturing more than 100,000 species ammonite, several million species living or extinct, this should fill us with enthusiasm. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this review. I've been waiting for officially expressed opinion, with these exactly statements, for months. Now I'm completely satisfied more so the statement was by the so reputable and highly awarded user. Moreover, I think we can use this review as a reference (even criterion) to clarify similar cases in the future. This is a chance to reduce the subjectivity and the unequal treatment. Now I withdraw my opposition in the name of the clear and equal evaluation for all of the nominated images. I'm not going to insist retribution for all the photographs that was unfairly dismissed because of the lack of this exact statement. I hope that their authors (or nominators) will restore their killed enthusiasm. I hope that you are going to stand behind this statement and will give your support not only for the superstars of Wiki Commons when such cases arise. By the way at the same time in the neighboring box in the candidates list some discussion, contrary to your words, is underway ;)--MrPanyGoff 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for these wise words and pleasant. I try to pay attention to problems that may exist but does not hesitate to ask me if you found it useful. A Ukrainian, Bulgarian and French in a common task. Life is beautiful. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevskytalk 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Comment Maybe the reason why he can be supported, considering the number of aesthetes and entomologists cruising here. --Myrabella (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Funny. Audio-book too expensive. I'm not entomologist. Half price for me ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevskytalk 20:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Reason: Info Sergey Vaganov — photographer and journalist from Ukraine. Winner the X Ukrainian competition among sports journalists of «Ukraine Olympic» in the category of «Best Sports Photojournalist of the Year». --Butko (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC) -- Butko (talk)
Reason: Info Vladimir Dedov — historian from Ukraine, Director of Svjatogorsk Historical-Architectural Reserve, Honored Worker of Culture of Ukraine -- Butko (talk)
Support - Most representative, imo.--MrPanyGoff 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
*Support Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. Both surfaces of the leaves are visible in the leaf picture. Please consider using ru:ISO 8601 for the date. Walter Siegmund(talk) 17:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 08:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thomisus onustus with Apis mellifera.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomisus onustus with Apis mellifera.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Butko -- Butko (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Butko (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Good action shot!--Mbz1 (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support--Miguel Bugallo 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Отличное качество и редкий момент. --George Chernilevskytalk 06:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Support хорошо --Mile (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Ницца подробно и действий Athyllis (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Support A rare shot --Schnobby (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- A good picture but not comparable, imo, with the existing FPs of the same type (please check our gallery here). I wonder why a smaller aperture was not chosen by the "Creative program (biased toward depth of field)" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Very good, considering it was taken with an Olympus point-and-shoot. --TheHighFinSpermWhale 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
See also: User:Butko/Declined VI candidates. 
Support Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. Both surfaces of the leaves are visible in the leaf picture. Please consider using ru:ISO 8601 for the date. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Butko -- Butko (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- A good picture but not comparable, imo, with the existing FPs of the same type (please check our gallery here). I wonder why a smaller aperture was not chosen by the "Creative program (biased toward depth of field)" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)