User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive112

No. 1 background less distracting. Could use slight cropping at right to eliminate red. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 -- Samir 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Giggy (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. *1. (per Durova.) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) re Brewcrewer. LOL! Yes, now that you mention it ... Pdfpdf (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Looks a little less constipated. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) - Agree with Durova that some minor cropping might be in order though. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Bastique ^demandez 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 is better -- Tinu Cherian - 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 because of the full face shot but the red is a bit distracting.—Sandahl (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. - Bilby (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The blue background looks less distracting to me. Sarvagnya 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is 3 a new one? - I don't think it was here first time I looked - but it's the go for me :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "is 3 a new one" - That depends on what your definition of "new" is. "I don't think it was here first time I looked" - No, it wasn't - it's the picture (from 2007) that is on the target page.
3. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3, but consider cropping to make his head larger. Right now he looks like a skeleton. Khoi khoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 - the crazy background on 1 and 2 are too distracting. Also 3 gives greater clarity to his features. Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Nice Modeling Photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleView (talk • contribs) 07:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1-- Y not? 03:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. vi5in^[talk] 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2 -- Samir 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2. Better lighting and contrast, more active pose. Durova^Charge! 07:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Giggy (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Durova Pdfpdf (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Raised hand looks awkward. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - Though it is a bit tall of an image, I like the activity in it. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~~1 - Dimensions of 2 are distracting~~ is a good crop of 2 and works for me. Bastique
2 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~2, but, because of the proportions, I would cut it a little bit at the top (until the hand) and at the bottom. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
4 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unai Fdz. de Betoño: Is 3. anything like what you are suggesting? (I think, perhaps, I may have cropped too much ... )
4? ~~3? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)~~ Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the 4th one. That's what I said. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is indeed what you said. And I agree that 4 is better than 2. For me, it's 3 or 4 - probably 3; like brewcrewer, I find the raised hand awkward. Perhaps something between 3 ond 4 would be better again? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, if you cut the hand it seems that you want to hide somethig (maybe, he was doing this)... ;-) --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point. (And your example is an excellent illustration of it!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 Sarvagnya 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 for me Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Khoi khoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3, but I can live with 4. (I like tight crops, but the missing had in 3 isn't quite perfect, so 4 is still fine). 2 is a tad too revealing. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Nice Smile sign PurpleView (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Can't live with the crotch on 2. -- Y not? 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. 2 is a possibility, but his arms just look too long? Maybe it's the angle... --vi5in^[talk] 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aka Aliaksandr Usau, Aliaksandre Usau, Alexander Usov, but NOT Aleksandr Usov

(no previous picture)

(no previous picture)

3. 2 makes him look like Golum. Khoi khoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(no previous picture)

File:Andoni Lafuente 2.jpg

Poll: Aaron Kemps

Poll: Aitor Hernandez

Poll: Alexandre Usov

Poll: Anders Lund

Poll: Christian Knees

Poll: Daniele Nardello

Poll: David Loosli

Poll: Dries Devenyns

Poll: Francesco Chicchi

Poll: Francesco Reda

Poll: Frank Hoj

Poll: Graeme Brown

Poll: Guillaume Blot

Poll: Hilton Clarke

Poll: Hubert Schwab

Poll: Imanol Erviti

Poll: Inaki Isasi

Poll: Ivan Dominquez

Poll: Javier Megias

Poll: Jeremy Roy

Poll: Josu Larrazabal