Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/AntinousPalazzoAltemps

message: ** This link is Broken 21:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 6/3 (two-thirds majority) doesn't meet the standard consensus to promote? It has more than four 'support' votes, and with 6/3 has reached the median standard for consensus. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely, User:Cryptic's comments can be interpretted to fit under the no promote category (Although Rama could be interpreted as being positive) and User:csloat's points don't seem very positive. I usually don't look at vote counts but the general feel. Also, three pictures are shown here, which picture do those support votes go towards? I think the vote was split (if only by the time ranges in which they were cast). Also, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TouchWall where a FPC was failed with an even higher percentage of support. I wouldn't oppose a short extension to give people time to see the updated versions. The spamming that has happened in the past concerning this picture makes me think the ballot box could be stuffed if an extension was held. This link is Broken 22:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I don't think it's right to parse comments made during the comment only phase, nor during the actual voting phase, as votes. That's unfair. Second, you might want to step away from the decision and let someone without an opinion make the assessment. Third, very few of those individuals voted - I passed them emails intentionally during the comment period, to gather their input. Re: Touchwall - that image had 'other issues' which mitigated it's nomination - in this case those 'other issues' were resolved by good faith efforts on my (and others' parts) at retouching and correction. As for Rama, and csloat -t hey didn't vote, so I didn't count them, nor did I count Cryptic. csloat exhibited no opinion, and only asked the credentials. This is my first nomination, and your attack on me smacks of biting the newcomer. I'd ask you to put it back on the page and let someone else, with a more dispassionate view, assess the nomination. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, your right my "spamming" comment was written too hastely. In fact I edit conflicted with you as I wrote a retractions of that. I didn't mean to bite a nwecomer (I didn't even know you were new). Wikipedia isn't a democracy so calling this a vote isn't reall accurate. We are looking for concensus. If someone doesn't bold their opinion why shouldn't it be taken into account? Both comments were made out of the peer review stage (right?). You suggesting that I have a bias isn't quite fair since I didn't vote (I find the second striking but a bit obviously photoshopped and am fairly neutral in general). You didn't respond to my reference to another case with a higher support level. Saying " I'm not sure what the criteria are to make this a featured picture." to me means "I don't what criteria this picture falls under", not "I don't know what the criteria are" but you are right it gets tricky when trying to interpret their statements. By the way (shameless plug) I hope everyone looks at my proposed policy WP:WIAFP. Once again I appologize for making this seem like an attack. I'd gladly have another user review my decision. This link is Broken 22:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted and thanks. I would hesitate from attributing a decision to support or oppose unless someone uses that very language. Also - you'll find I updated my post with a partial response - but it is also true that others have likely passed with lower %'s... and I though I hesitate from digging thru the record, I'm sure I could. I just think this image passes the threshold stated and deserves promotion on the basis of the comments thus far - if you want to leave it up, and if there are no new comments, not promote it, I still think that's an incorrect assessment of this image's status, but I appreciate the gesture and welcome an extension. And thanks again. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)