Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyard in Napa Valley 4.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Vineyard in Napa Valley 4.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the vibrancy of the colors, but the composition is messy :branch on the left, line of horizon right on top of the trees, background trees blending with the "main tree". --S23678 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I might agree with branch on the left, but what could have been done to avoid "background trees blending with the "main tree""? I wanted to show the hills behind the vineyard, so I could not play with the DOF.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe a different perspective would have worked, but as a personal opinion, I think a shallower DOF would have had more advantages than disadvantages. --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I might agree with branch on the left, but what could have been done to avoid "background trees blending with the "main tree""? I wanted to show the hills behind the vineyard, so I could not play with the DOF.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support, interesting and really visually appealing –Juliancolton | Talk 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as S23678 - there's no one focus point. Everything blends together making this picture very messy. Here shallow DoF would be appropriate. --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1 (cropped out branch on the left)[edit]
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as with original one --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per top discussion, less the branch --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Alternative 1[edit]
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as with original one --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per top discussion again, less the branch --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Please, try some self-criticsm before nomination. Just look to number of your nominations! Images are good, but do you really think, that every of them should be FP. --Karel (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did I understand you right? Did you opposed my "good image" because in your opinion I nominate too many? I'd like to let you know that I could nominate as many images as I want, and you could oppose them all, or better yet you could ignore them, as I am ignoring your nominations that are way too boring to even bother to review, but please do not tell me what to do. Okay? Thanks. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that the nominated image (as well as others I nominated) is good enough and different enough from other FP to get promoted. Of course I never know what reviewers would say. How, for example, should I have known that one will oppose an octopus taken in a wild with "no wow" reason, and in few days is to nominate a boring, dull fish taken in a local aquarium :) BTW here's advice for you - please try not to look at the name of author/nominator, just look at the image itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forget to express that my Oppose is becasue I think (as others here), that this image is not good enough for FP. That´s all. But additinally I just wanted to give you friendly advice, but from your nearly hysteric reaction I see, that it was not the best idea. Regards, --Karel (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- So was my reaction "hysteric" or "agressive" :) Ah, anyway... I am glad you understood that I could do just fine without your "friendly advices". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forget to express that my Oppose is becasue I think (as others here), that this image is not good enough for FP. That´s all. But additinally I just wanted to give you friendly advice, but from your nearly hysteric reaction I see, that it was not the best idea. Regards, --Karel (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did I understand you right? Did you opposed my "good image" because in your opinion I nominate too many? I'd like to let you know that I could nominate as many images as I want, and you could oppose them all, or better yet you could ignore them, as I am ignoring your nominations that are way too boring to even bother to review, but please do not tell me what to do. Okay? Thanks. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that the nominated image (as well as others I nominated) is good enough and different enough from other FP to get promoted. Of course I never know what reviewers would say. How, for example, should I have known that one will oppose an octopus taken in a wild with "no wow" reason, and in few days is to nominate a boring, dull fish taken in a local aquarium :) BTW here's advice for you - please try not to look at the name of author/nominator, just look at the image itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Staying mellow - please bear that in mind. You usually aggressively respond to any critics of your behavior or your works. People have right to have their own opinion, to state it, and to have different opinion than yours. And if there are no strict rules in given subject, they can use any criteria they want. --Leafnode✉ 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is that I know your take on self nominations, Leafnode, which is the same as Karelj has. It is against the rules. I have the right nominate as many images as I'd like to. I will just repeat that a good and fair reviewer should not even look at the nominator's name, but only at the image.Oh and btw could you please provide few diff of my so called "agressive responds"? I mean, if it is "usually" you should be able to provide quite a few diff, don't you, Leafnode? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I won't start a new pointless discussion. Just be mellow! :) --Leafnode✉ 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- IMO it is a bad tone to claim something without be able to provide the diffs to confirm the claim. I've no more questions to you. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't said that I can't provide diffs. I just said that it won't help in anything --Leafnode✉ 15:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it will help, if you are to provide the diffs. How should I know what of my comments you consider to be "aggressive", if you do not want to point them out to me? How would I be able to correct my "usually aggressively respond", if I have no idea what you're talking about :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but only if it'll help you ;) [1] [2] [3] [4] And yes, I find it aggressive - negative reaction towards one's personal opinion. --Leafnode✉ 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. They are really soooooo agressive and there are soooo many of them that I believe it is a time for another block :) Everything is clear to me now. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but only if it'll help you ;) [1] [2] [3] [4] And yes, I find it aggressive - negative reaction towards one's personal opinion. --Leafnode✉ 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it will help, if you are to provide the diffs. How should I know what of my comments you consider to be "aggressive", if you do not want to point them out to me? How would I be able to correct my "usually aggressively respond", if I have no idea what you're talking about :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't said that I can't provide diffs. I just said that it won't help in anything --Leafnode✉ 15:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- IMO it is a bad tone to claim something without be able to provide the diffs to confirm the claim. I've no more questions to you. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I won't start a new pointless discussion. Just be mellow! :) --Leafnode✉ 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is that I know your take on self nominations, Leafnode, which is the same as Karelj has. It is against the rules. I have the right nominate as many images as I'd like to. I will just repeat that a good and fair reviewer should not even look at the nominator's name, but only at the image.Oh and btw could you please provide few diff of my so called "agressive responds"? I mean, if it is "usually" you should be able to provide quite a few diff, don't you, Leafnode? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results: