Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose Not a sound scope. Charles (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment "1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6". Wow! Is it just me, or do others find that monumentally unhelpful to the point of patronising? What happened to a collegial attitude? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone has made no effort to read the guidlenes then, that's where they should start. Ввласенко has clearly done that now, but is still confused. So why don't you start by giving some collegial advice and I will fill in any gaps. Charles (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if you will start by stating exactly which of the six criteria and subcriteria you think are not met. There used to be a user called Steindy who took a similar arrogant attitude to nominations, to the point of dickheadery, but he's gone now. As I face death in the face, paradoxically, I think there's still room for a collaborative approach rather then just throwing a bunch of numbers at a good-faith contributor. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If all opposers like you don't make it clear to the nominator what part of the VI criteria is not followed, we won't have 30000 VIs. I doubt we will even make it past 5000. This type of attitude disgusts me. pandakekok9 03:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This 'disgusted' user has made a deliberate policy to (I quote) blitzkrieg the VIC. And has refused to do fewer. Please adopt a 'collaborative approach'. I have helped dozens of new contributiors to VI over the years, so I don't need a lecture from you two. When you make a few well-constructed nominations (a max three per day) by looking at previous nominations then you will get help. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ironic you are preaching about "collaborative approach" when you're the one refusing to do so. As many other people would say, do as you preach. If you want to impose a limit on daily nominations, please do start a discussion at the VIC talk page, and I would be happy to participate and attempt to establish a consensus. That said, I won't be replying further here. pandakekok9 11:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Good enough for me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose At review size this is a nice portrait shot. But given how specific the scope has been made, I'd expect the image to make the location clearer, and with such a limited amount of background, and the background being so blurred, it's difficult to see where this officer is standing. And there's no visible sign of the gate mentioned in the new scope. Also, I don't know that narrowing the scope to just "Female Metropolitan Police officers" would work, because I'd argue that this image was more valuable due to its showing more of the equipment (stab vest, handcuffs). --Bobulous (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose My thoughts are the same as Bobulous'. It's not obvious that this was taken in Buckingham Palace. --pandakekok9 01:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done O'k, I change the scope. -- Ввласенко (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Scope changed from Female police officers on duty at the Buckingham Palace gate. to Female police officers on duty --pandakekok9 08:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 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".
|
