Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Biohazard symbol


 * With all due respect when used here it means that the person can't think up a legitimate reason to oppose the image so they say it's the wow factor which as a pure matter of opinion doesn't have to be based on any criteria other than one which is "because I think so" you may not have you're "wow factor vote discounted" but you won't garner much respect from me or from many other people if that's the only reason you can think up to oppose an image. Coming from the current selection of people that troll, yes troll, on the FPC pages every single graphical illustration, flag, and a good number of good images are essentially disqualified from becoming featured because they lack the "wow" factor. Cat-five - talk 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * editorial note: scratching out with all due respect since respect has to be earned which goes against the rest of my statements below that phrase. Cat-five - talk 03:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, FP is not about "good images". The "wow" factor is the subjective side to the same qualities the criteria try to quantify: any work that meets all the criteria (number 3 in particular) surely has a "wow" factor. Regardless of how good an image is, its usefulness alone is not enough to qualify for FP. And I'd be careful about tossing around the term "troll" lightly; you may accuse us of being the FPC cabal, but I, for one, have not seen trolling around here. BTW, I believe there's a VI proposal that may better fit your idea of recognizing good images than FP does. Thegreenj 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it so much as a cabal as a cabal implies organization and structure which happens on RFA, RFAR, FA, INB, INB:A and any number of Wikipedia specific acronyms but I hardly ever see the type of organization here that would define a cabal. Cat-five - talk 09:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Cat-five - talk 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear it if you can think of a better term than trolling for what is happening on FPC now, objective criteria are being widely interpreted to be subjective, subjective criteria are being abused to give a scapegoat reason when the person really only wants to say "I don't like this image so it shouldn't be promoted" and essentially everyone is ignoring all the rules to a point I haven't seen since RFA was unilaterally shut down by a cabal of administrators about 2 years ago for a period several days. Cat-five - talk 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Petty may be more appropriate than troll actually after reading over the Millenium Bridge de-nomination which rightfully will be de-listed due to it's faults but the fact that it's black and white vs color being the main reason for opposition certainly backs that assertion up that people oppose for the sake of having a reason of oppose even if it's just for the stupidest of reasons. Cat-five - talk 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So if you don't like the system, you have one of two options: suggest a way to make it better, or leave. We have come up with the most efficient, fair system that we can. Don't go throwing personal attacks (i.e calling us trolls and a cabal) becaue your pet picture isn't good enough to get passed. Clegs (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP editors are not generally stupid, and saying otherwise hardly proves any point. And who appointed you to judge how good oppose reasons are? If everyone is opposing by the same reason, which you happen to think is invalid, that should be some sign that you need to question your own sense of opposes rather than ours. This is a community-driven project. It doesn't matter what you (or I, or anyone else for that matter) think is stupid, but what the community has accepted as a set of guidelines. And for the last time, we're not trolls. Trolls look for a fight. If everyone's opposing by the same reason, the opposite is happening. Thegreenj 16:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)