Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1

message: When people see canvassing messages on their talk pages, they usually support the other person's request - 
A) Sorry but your claim is not approved in a factual way. I'm not here to discuss human nature nor are you here to do that. 
B) You were also asked, but you didn't support - another good example of the fact that there is nothing wrong in asking appreciated and established editors to REVIEW an article. 
C) Someone agrees, someone doesn't, someone objects and someone ignores the message to keep neutraliry. Again people are intelligent enough to have their own opinion. You had your own opinion and thus did not support. I can't see why other editors are less than you. They also have. 
D) Many of the editors have added comments and suggestions to improve the article further. 
E) None of them wrote "Support - per Blofeld's request", everyone gave it a comment which easily and directly stated his opinion on the article. 
F) Many of them came and copy-edited and you can see that on the history page of Preity Zinta.
G) By saying "editors usually support the other person's request" you're indirectly underrating them. In other words, you're saying: 
:(1) "They are biased, they don't care, they just support. They have no personal view. They are doing things just to do it without any basis, just to satisfy someone."
:(2) "They are not intelligent enough to go through the article and read it." 
:(3) "They cannot read. They see that someone wrote 'Please review and leave comments' and decide to write support."
H) Please see Blofeld's original request and tell me what's wrong with it. In fact, even if he'd asked editors to support the article, it'd have been accepatable for the simple fact that editors on Wikipedia have their own personal view.
I) Again, When people see canvassing messages on their talk pages, they usually support the other person's request - How can you prove that? Who determined that? Where is it written?
J) Please tell me, what is the main reason to this discussion? What are your expectations to get from this? Do you want to invalidate all the supports? What are you trying to get guys?
K) Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 04:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final reply

message: The thing is that regardless of whether this is a canvassing instance, it generally will not have a significant impact on FAC - it isn't a vote, so all Oppose votes which are reasonable will be expected to be addressed, regardless of the number of Support votes. As little as one well-opined Oppose can sink an FAC if it is ignored. I believe that Raul himself also reads through the articles prior to deciding the outcome, just as a final check for any egregious problems. In brief, it's not an easily gamed process to begin with. Now we've addressed the concerns, and I believe that Blofeld is mature enough to be more conscientious to avoid actions that might raise such concerns in future FACs, but what's done is done; let's wrap this discussion up here and get back to the FAC itself. Girolamo Savonarola 05:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Yet I think that there is nothing wrong in doing that. Shahid • Talk2me 07:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving on