Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zimski pejzaz nad Kozjak.jpg
File:Zimski pejzaz nad Kozjak.jpg, not featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2014 at 07:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by MartinDimitrievski - uploaded by MartinDimitrievski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Noisy sky, soft throughout and HDR like PP is readily apparent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support Noise is not really an issue here. Might be an HDR, but the result is convincing for me, looks very pleasant. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support Leitoxx Work • Talk • Mail 01:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- weak Oppose there is something interesting however the composition is too much geometrical for my tastes, centered river, centered sun, a very big centered shadowded area... -- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Dainomite (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Overprocessed. Sorry, but the sky is darkened far too much. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Overprocessed, and noisy. Nice place.--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support--ℳ₪Zaplotnikcontribs 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Heavily overprocessed. --Graphium 05:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The introduction text on this page clearly states that simple votes of opposition, not to talk about something like "strong oppose", with no reason are not helpful and only show a full disrespect to the author of the image. Please follow the rules of civility and our code of conduct before I take the matter further and report you for your behaviour to higher authorities. People simply don't like to put efforts on something that is going to be averted in a such cruel way. My advice for you is to inform yourself about the rules on voting in the intro or simply follow what the others do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Kiril Simeonovski: Hi there. I'm sorry that you feel offended. Just to make things clear, it is acceptable to add "weak" or "strong" to the "support" or "oppose" vote to show the degree of it. I have added a reason for the strong oppose. Cheers. --Graphium 08:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Now it's fine. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Frankly I find it objectionable that people place the extra ephasis of 'strong' or 'weak'. The former implies the opinion should carry more weight and the latter shows a lack of commitment to one's opinion. They should be done away with as I think both are incompatible (I think Jeb said this earlier) with the ideals of this project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody here objects on using 'strong' or 'weak' support or oppose. The problem is that it's not acceptable to oppose something with no reason, and the fact it was a 'strong oppose' is even a bigger problem. My personal view on it is that a 'strong oppose' must always reflect numerous problems with the nominated image. It's also unacceptable to emphasise the opposition as 'strong' by using a reason that was previously used by others to support their 'oppose' or 'weak oppose' votes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)