Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zimski pejzaz nad Kozjak.jpg

File:Zimski pejzaz nad Kozjak.jpg, not featured

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.

Featured picture candidates/File:Zimski pejzaz nad Kozjak.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zimski pejzaz nad Kozjak.jpg

•  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₪Zaplotnik^contribs 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)