Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ajaxf

AjaxF

Nomination I found this picture and it is amazing!! The two guinea pigs are so cute!! Is there anything that the picture needs to make it better? Here is the picture:

Daniel10 15:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"'Strong Oppose'" . The picture isn't particularly special or stunning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.85.31.9 (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I doubt it will pass FPC. The red-eye in the left guinea pig would have to be corrected, and the white balance is off (the picture is too red). The image has noticeable jpg compression, ans thus is not particularly sharp. There is also some colour noise on the background. Unfortunately, "cuteness" is not part of the FP criteria, and isn't valued in FP (though if a picture is good quality and cute, that's quite all right). It's a nice photo, but it's not high enough quality for FPC, sorry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the left guinea pig's eyes are red.Joshua dude 11:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its true, guinea pig's can be white with red eyes. Daniel10 11:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. I think that this picture has a very good quality. I think it can make Featured Picture. Sigeway 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no chance at all, the left hand animal is too blurred - Adrian Pingstone 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think that the left had guine pig is blurred. Its a very good quality picture. KodiakB3 11:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very good quality picture. TriceraGuy 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support A very good quality picture such as this deserves to be featured. Since lots of people have supported it, I'll change it to featured picture. KangarooFan1 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't change it to Featured picture if voting just started, I changed the template back to {{fpc}}. Also, the vote right above doesn't count, since there isn't a signature. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just hate guinea pigs. I'm changing it!! 85.210.43.199 12:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support I love the quality of the picture. Also, how do we make a signiture? Zooyak 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support The quality is amazing!! Monster1000 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vehement Oppose because of apparent ballot stuffing (puppeting?) by users Zooyak, KangarooFan1, TriceraGuy, KodiakB3, Monster1000 - all are new accounts. (Also because it is not FP quality - DOF problem, and the butt ends of both animals are cut off!)--Janke | Talk 12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Comment: anon users are still placing the Featured Picture template on the image's page. —sd31415 (sign here) 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention! I suspect that all support votes here are made by the same person having different usernames: Daniel10, Sigeway, KodiakB3,TriceraGuy,Zooyak,Monster1000. Olegivvit 12:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. And this is breaking rules. It says make comments on the picture, no the person or people. I should tell the administrators. Daniel10 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not you, you should not edit comments of others. Olegivvit 12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just put a strike throough it? Daniel10 12:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to others' comments. —sd31415 (sign here) 12:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can only strike out comments that are yours. You MAY NOT, SHOULD NOT, CANNOT (and WILL NOT) strike out other people's comments. -- Alt iris Exeunt 12:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he already been told that Altiris. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose (after 5 edit conflicts) This isn't a great picture, and featured status shouldn't be imposed; whoever is doing it should stop. Also, shouldn't this page be deleted? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn. That's my birthday! -- Alt iris Exeunt 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This image was also added to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals twice and two new WP:POTD subpages have been created for this image (at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 1, 2007 and Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Febuary 1, 2007). Additionally, 85.210.43.199 struck out all "oppose" votes on this page. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the POTD pages and I'm keeping my eye on Daniel10. It seems to me he's just a kid who likes the picture. Raven4x4x 12:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and I'm not doing anything wrong. It just nominatedit, that's all. Daniel10 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can a kid use so much vocabulary? -- Alt iris Exeunt 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course there are other explanations for his behaviour, but I'm trying not to read too much bad intent into this. Raven4x4x 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; this opinion will stay until all the flak has exploded. -- Alt iris Exeunt 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Forget the flak! Oppose; on closer inspection, this picture has a small amount of blur picture-wide. Also, I highly doubt that many people will appreciate this picture. The shot is above average as compared to normal shots in my estimation, but it just doesn't seem to be very eye-catching. -- Alt iris Exeunt 08:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image is okay but it is pretty blurry on the left side, while the image is nice it is not FP nice. — Arjun 14:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and kicks away sockpuppets. Animals cut off edge of photo, focus problems, unattractive composition, and honestly not all that cute. --Bridgecross 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per my comment above. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Pharaoh Hound. --Tewy 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above.--Andrew c 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not even close to FPC quality. Could we get some checkuser action and blocks on the disruption going here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong 'Oppose. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here - there's a very bad picture that somene took and that they will create multiple socks to try to get it featured. When that failed they just went straight ahead and featured it themselves. But, back to the picute, it's uninteresting, bad composition, bad lighting, unencyclopaedic and has retina reflection. Witty lama 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose <sarcasm>Finally some drama in FPC!!!</sarcasm> --antilived ^{T | C | G} 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't even see the whole entire body of both of the guinea pigs, and there is white splotches on the picture. --¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --DonES 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Exactly what is encyclopedic about this photo? Becuase it's cute? This is an encyclopedia, not Sesame Street --UCLARodent 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<facetious>Superstrong AWESOME Support!!!111!! So so so cute, and I had one just like the one on the right. You peoples is all me@n.</facetious> ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mean? No! We are voting here for the very best pictures on Wikipedia. To say this is pic is one of WP's very best is simply ridiculous. The left animal is is well blurred which puts it out of contention immediately. You clearly do not know the standard that FP pics are required to reach - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made it clearer for you. ~ trialsanderrors 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's nothing particularly special about this picture. The pigs aren't even particularly cute. —Psychonaut 11:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - awful picture by FPC standards, compromised nomination by Daniel10 (talk · contribs · count)'s various sockpuppets: Sigeway (talk · contribs · count), KodiakB3 (talk · contribs · count), TriceraGuy (talk · contribs · count), KangarooFan1 (talk · contribs · count), Zooyak (talk · contribs · count), Monster1000 (talk · contribs · count), and possibly 85.210.43.199 (talk · contribs · count) (although that's just an IP so not a sockpuppet). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing anything wrong. I just nominated the picture. You guys are so me@n. Daniel10 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and MumDude (talk · contribs · count) can also be added to the list of sockpuppets of Daniel10, and warned for a personal attack against Adrian Pingstone. Bollocks to AGF, this guy's verging on WP:POINT. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support my 12 year old son took this picture and posted it. pretty good for a 12 year old. so all of you out there who opposed it are either blind or just plain stupid. open up your eyes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MumDude (talk • contribs).
Oppose. Featured Pictures are not supposed to be "pretty good for a 12-year-old", nor is "cute" one of the criteria for featuring. No credible reason has been advanced for featuring this picture - it does not provide the "thousand words" for any article. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As Guy says, the age of the photographer has no bearing whatever on the acceptability or otherwise of the photo, and we are not blind or stupid. We rarely meet bad manners like yours on Wikipedia, thank goodness. I've been voting for or against FP candidates for about 3 years now and I've got 1500 pics on Wikipedia. What's your record? - Adrian Pingstone 14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~From your picture Pingy you look about 103 I am suprised you started so late!!!!!!! Get a life!!!~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MumDude (talk • contribs).
Comment Hmm... would that account be counted as a meatpuppet, or a possible sockpuppet? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWill everyone please stop argueing over this picture? I took it to show off my guinea pigs, and now it's just leading to war! It's either a nominated picture, or not. If anyone starts to argue again I may call the administrators. Joshua dude 14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ aesthetically pleasing. Should be a featured picture MumDude
- Comment I struck out your vote, because you may only vote once. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose. Focus problems, excludes parts of the guinea pigs, and overall the animals in the picture are in a very bad position. Some dirt on the camera can also be seen. I suggest MumDude to mind WP:NPA and reconsider his messeges. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will request a checkuser once this nomination is closed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They'll probably decline it as blatantly obvious. ~ trialsanderrors 20:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Probably not seeing as Daniel10 denied any relation to them. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Cuteness is not a way of determining what a FP is, and it is plainly obvious that the uploader has created multiple accounts to try to feature their picture- no user who votes dishonestly deserves FP status. SuperFly2005 18:42 December 30th 2006 (UTC)
- The only punishment for said behavior is a block. If the community (besides the socks) decides the picture is still FP-worthy, then it will be made featured, regardless of any inappropriate behavior in the voting (not saying that's the case here). Whether a user voted dishonestly or not is not reason to prevent featured status. --Tewy 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Calm down, Tewy. Daniel10 is not worth getting worked up over. Blocks are not punitive, by the way, although if Daniel is seriously using sockpuppets I suggest he admits so. Yuser31415 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, was the tone of that comment a little strong? Sorry, I can assure you I'm not getting worked up over this. I was just saying that a nomination shouldn't be prevented featured status because of how the nominator acted, and I hoped that SuperFly2005 wasn't voting "oppose" primarily because Daniel10's behavior. --Tewy 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lighting not too good, not a brilliant angle, red eyes on the white guinea pig; and then there's the possible sockpuppet issue. Sorry Daniel, but I don't give points for sockpuppets (or extremely likely sockpuppets). Yuser31415 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Mediocre on technical grounds, nominator is using sockpuppets to rig the vote, and the original photographer's contribs show a strrong correlation with the nominator so one may be a puppet of the other as well. Don't upload a so-so photo of your pets and then try to scam people into putting it up on the main page. —Dgies^t c 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exactly FP quality. The red eye puts a damper on the whole affair. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just wondering, Sharkface (as well as anyone else who is turned off due to red eyes), what exactly is wrong with red eyes? -- Altiris Exeunt 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usually, red eyes are caused by reflection of the flash light from the subject's retina. This is considered a no-no in photography. However, some animals do have naturally red eyes (white rabbits come to mind), and apparently guinea pigs, too. --Janke | Talk 09:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whoops.... I was not aware that Guinea Pigs had naturally red eyes. I still vote oppose due to the fact that meatpuppets are ~~voting~~ errr.... contributing here. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: and I think that the poster above me (Dgies) has just summed it up perfectly. Not only is the original photographer using sockpuppets to try and rig the vote, but he/she has also just copied and pasted his/her own sockpuppet comments from the Peer Picture Review. I don't think there's a single SUPPORT vote from a genuine user at all (apologies if I'm wrong). The photo itself is hardly FP quality... Ackatsis 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; to put it very bluntly to everyone here, we only care about the quality of the images here. There is a reason why this page is called Featured Picture Candidates and not Featured Photographers. On this page, all we care about are extremely well-taken, free-use images. We don't care if the photographer is 10 years old or 1000 years old; as long as the picture meets our standards, and it's free, we'll vote for it. Simple as that. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, yes. But in this case many editors are upset by the "unethical practises" of sockpuppeting and unauthorized inclusion of the photo in PotD and FP lists (which has been reverted) - so, this cannot be handled by discussing only the photo, the offenders need to be discussed, too. --Janke | Talk 09:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then what should we do? Take off every 'ArbCom'? -- Altiris Exeunt 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL, but if you introduce fraud into your own nomination, it should go down in flames regardless of the merits. —Dgies^t c 07:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's important to establish consensus on featured pictures and meatpuppets mess it all up. --⁪froth^{T C} 07:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an unremarkable photo, cropped too tight, and the image quality isn't that great. Good for a portrait of the family pet by a 12 year old maybe, but this aint about that. Dubious practices to sway the vote don't help much either. Bobanny 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This is a joke. --William Pembroke^(talk) 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:SNOW? Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW is for an early close, and this has gone on long enough to be due for closing in the usual way. —Dgies^t c 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This nomination's week is up now anyway. --Tewy 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You guys responded quickly; do you have this page watchced? (I do). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I watch all the pages I vote on, in case something comes up (and it usually does). --Tewy 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that explains it. Maybe I'll do that too... | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor focus and sockpuppet issue 205.250.109.113 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, forgot to login. The above comment was made by me. Dan M 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]