Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Surfing rainbow

Surfing rainbow

 * Reason:Good quality, high EV, adds value to the article it appears in
 * Articles in which this image appears:Rainbow
 * Creator:Mbz1

Well, welcome to wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose- A nice picture of a mediocre rainbow. Not the subject of the picture. It is the surfer instead. Abisharan (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, you recently replaced an older image of yours with this which was subsequently reverted (and called vandalism for some reason...). I'd recommend letting its usage in Rainbow stabilize before it goes up for an FPC. gren グレン 17:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Who thought I would have a problem with replacing of my own image?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdraw untill it is stable in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment don't know if it will reach consensus on the article, but personally I think the surfer distracts from the rainbow, and your other spray bow picture you replaced seemed to have a stronger rainbow than this one. Fletcher (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right the rainbow was brighter in the other image. IMO the surfer improves the composition, but basically I decided to let go on that nomination, as well as on the article itself, and let them do as they wish. I was upset my change was called "vandalism" so unfairly, and if you add to that the absolutely ungrounded accusations in canvassing down below, you may figure out what my day was like :( Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * and I was called "strange" who knows why. I guess people like to use adjectives and labels for emphasis. Abisharan (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More likely she saw it as unusual that someone with no contribution history would immediately find his or her way to FPC. Are you an established user who had to start a new account for some reason?  Fletcher (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * why would that matter in any way? It is the picture the main business here. The most attractive part of the main page is the picture of the day... the rest is just following links, and this was the one on top when I commented. No need for conspiracy theories and it makes no difference that I am not a new user. Abisharan (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Abisharan, you are right,there is no need for conspiracy theories. I am sorry I came up with one. Please do accept my apology. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense was intended and I don't assume bad faith - but you shouldn't be surprised it's a red flag to start a new account and jump right into a forum where voting goes on. Fletcher (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * why is it a red flag? what could it imply? If at least there were a second oppose vote but there isn't. I don't take it as an offense, it would be really hard to offend me in the web environment but I do think it should be taken as a lesson, to take a vote with cold blood and as impersonal as it should be. In the end, it is supposed to be something about the picture, in this case. 128.100.68.3 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

--J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)