I understand your noble goal to keep the guide with only the best images of the best specimens, but applying that rule to the rest of images in the guide, would leave BugGuide as a mere skeleton. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of photos could meet such a stringent criterion. Usually, I don't care if my images are frassed for whatever the reason, but I believe that neither the specimen nor the quality of the photos cannot be used for ID. Actually, lots of arthropod images on BugGuide are left at family, subfamily, or tribe level forever. In this case, there are very few images of Uroleucon ambrosiae and none of a winged aphid!
This discussion is leaving me with a bad taste. From personal communication with several editors/experts, I've learned that many have stopped contributing to the guide for precisely this kind of attitude or approach. I thought that BugGuide was a community effort and not the property of one of its editors. Do I have a say in the matter or are you the final arbiter of all things aphids?

Because I want us to have a discussion about it. Maybe if you would speak to me in a reasonable tone I would actually listen. Instead you continue to insult me and act as if I am being a dictator that doesn't take anything else except my own experience into consideration, and I would think after working together that maybe you would have learned what type of person I am. I do not appreciate you speaking to me this way. You are leaving me with a bad taste because you are not having a reasonable discussion and this does not make me want to help you.

From your comment on this second post, it did not seem as if Dr. Moran was absolutely positive that this is Uroleucon ambrosiae, and you left it at the genus level instead of species. Now if you want to move it to the species page because you think that's definitely what it is, that is different. If Dr. Moran is confident in her species ID and this is the only image of an alate specimen then I agree, its important to keep it. For the purpose of keeping it at the genus level, which is where you placed it, there would be a lot of other images that are much better specimens.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm not trying to just be a dictator and what I say goes and no one else is allowed to have any sort of opinion on aphids. I am trying to organize things and make some headway on getting rid of images that we cannot ID or are not great images so we can get the decent ones organized. No one else is working on the aphids, even when I try to contact other people and ask for help, so I'm sorry that I'm it and started trying to make some decisions.

but you deserve a reply.

I don't remember saying or even thinking that you are "useless" (I see, after deleting the word "useless" from your previous comment, my sentence seems out of context) or having insulted you in any way. Sorry if you believe that I did. There are very few people who care about aphids at all. That makes your expertise extremely valuable and I do appreciate your help, but of course, it is up to you, to help me with aphids or not. Either way, the world will keep on turning just the same. In regards to tone, I think we both could do better.

Dr. Moran said: "It is almost certain Uroleucon ambrosiae." Plenty of image placements on the guide have been made based on more tentative diagnosis than this one. I refrained myself from placing the images at species level, and mention that this was a tentative move, because I do not want to go above your authority. Most likely, I will never reach your level of expertise on aphids, so I must defer to your diagnostic judgement.

This discussion pushed me in the wrong direction from the start because I knew that the specimen was not discolored or desiccated and that the photos were a true reflection of a very much alive and agile creature.