User talk:Makeemlighter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Rockpocket 08:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Ohio

Hi, you are listed under Category:Wikipedians in Ohio or one of its subcategories. WikiProject Ohio has been slowing down and we're looking for active Ohioans to turn that around! But first, let us introduce ourselves; we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ohio and we're sure there's somewhere you'll fit in just fine. The project's departments include article quality assessment: We have over 5,000 articles to assess for class alone, newsletter writing: This has been delayed by a few months, and new page patrolling: Which has also been slowing down. We also have a newly formed taskforce on our over 1,000 townships at WP:OHTWP.

We have 132 members, many of which are not active within the project. If you are listed there and still received this message please accept the auotmated porcess's apologies. If you are interested in joining us please list you name here. If you're not interested please note this is a one time invite and you will never hear from us again.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to leave a message at our talkpage or with any member of the project, we'll be happy to answer any of your questions. We look forward to seeing you around!

Delivered by: §hepBot (Disable) 04:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FPC

Just wanted to say thanks for you contributes to Featured Pic Candidates! We always need good reviewers, and yours seem to be well-thought out and articulate! Hope to hear from you a lot more! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Passionfruits

FYI they are quite delicious even if they are pretty horrible-looking.(Yeah, yellow snot with black seeds is a little bit strange...) If you get the chance to try one, you definitely should! :) One of the things I miss most about living in Australia (where the photographer is from) is the availability of cheap passionfruits. I'm guessing from your messages you're from the US--if so, you probably can find them from time to time in good supermarkets, though they're quite expensive (like $1.50 a pop, for tiny ones!). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tom Cobb (2)

Information found, as requested. Sorry this took a while. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Midnight at the glassworks

Thanks for (weakly :) supporting file:Midnight at the glassworks2.jpg at W:FPC. I agree with the contrast issue raised (i.e., that there was too much of it). I made an alternative which all things considered I prefer too. Could I bother you to ask for a support alternative at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Midnight_at_the_glassworks? Thanks! -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The first Wikipedian meetup in Ohio

Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NagasakibombEdit.jpg

Just so you know, there's a proposed replacement. wadester16 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mistake at FP for delisting

I made a mistake here, sorry about that. ZooFari 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sawfly larvae

Aye, I usually move last, so I can double-check everything. But I'll figure it out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Battus philenor

Please see my update at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Battus philenor. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I went back to the RAW file and backed off the exposure and contrast so that there aren't any blown highlights now. Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For catching my mistakes when I close noms over at Featured Picture Candidates, no matter how small the mistakes are, I award you the Barnstar of Diligence for going through all those edits. Thanks! wadester16 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the quick revert on my User Page. Everyone is always quicker then me when it has to do with my own page :) Jamesofur (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sometimes it's good to be slow. After I reverted, he shifted his focus from you to me! Wikipedia sure can be fun sometimes. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling I spent almost 45 minutes with one vandal a couple nights ago me and 2 other users with no admins in sight :) Jamesofur (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Turn It Up (Pixie Lott)

Is that the actual cover? 89.100.254.126 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Check [1]. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:File:Antanas Smetona 2.jpg

Hello. Sorry, for the delayed reply but I have little time. No, I did not find original wording of permission. If I have time I will ask curator again about this issue. M.K. (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up - EB has image under similar conditions [2] [3]. M.K. (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams and Jackie Kennedy

Maybe it's a difference in wikiphilosophies. The Kennedy FPC stands out in my recollection as one of the more fickle EV discussions: a lower quality version of the same image had remained in the heavily viewed/heavily edited article for around two years while many of the article's other images had been replaced. From this perspective that seemed like one of the most empirical demonstrations of consensus support for encyclopedic value. It truly came as a surprise to see that challenged on EV grounds during FPC. Similarly, when I uncovered the Adams drawing among LoC files it felt like a revelation--especially getting a glimpse during preliminary editing of what the heavily damaged original might become: a forgotten image of a US president during his final hours of life. And of all presidents, that one, the last of the revolutionaries who died under such dramatic circumstances. It's one of the most difficult restorations I've ever done, and among the most intrinsically satisfying: the sort of thing that makes this volunteer work feel meaningful. The original was probably too stained and faded to reproduce in textbooks; his eyes were almost lost. The expression seems so well to fit his final words "This is the last of Earth. I am content." So maybe there's something we ought to discuss. Because I very much respect your reviews in general. Would like to understand where you're coming from. Durova³⁰⁵ 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I spent some time thinking about this. This is the best I can do for now. When I look at EV, I look for three things: what the image and its caption teach me about the subject, what the image adds to the article, and how the image relates to the article. These are, of course, intertwined, but I think they're distinct enough that I can usually cite one of them as a reason for lack of EV. The Kennedy picture fell short in the first area; it didn't really teach me anything. It did add something to the article, and that's why it's been there for so long. And, of course, it was related to the article's content. Since it didn't really teach me anything, however, I felt that it fell short on EV. Same thing for the John Quincy Adams picture. It just didn't give me any additional information. I understood the article without it, and viewing the picture didn't enhance my understanding. Again, however, it's a nice addition to the article since it breaks up the text. It makes the article more interesting and appealing too. I just think it doesn't have the exceptional EV that we require. Sometimes I ask myself the question "If this were a print encyclopedia, would this picture be worth printing?" Now, I know that Wikipedia isn't a print encyclopedia, but I think answering this question can help determine the EV. Only extremely valuable pictures make it into the print encyclopedia because there just isn't enough room for that many pictures. So the JQ Adams article in our hypothetical print encyclopedia will only have the pictures that do the best job of explaining the subject and enhancing the article. The portrait of JQA would probably be a shoo-in, but I just can't see that pencil drawing making the cut. Again, it's a very cool image, and you did a great job restoring it. I just don't think it passes the EV test. That's not to say it wasn't worth restoring. It's still a tremendous addition to the encyclopedia, just not one that fully satisfies the FPC criteria. I do hope that you can continue to provide us with more images like it. I love going over to FPC and getting to see what cool images have been nominated today. Anyway, keep up the good work. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful answer. That's a very well reasoned response--a position worthy of respect. Durova³⁰⁶ 15:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Amethyst. Magaliesburg, South Africa.jpg

As far as I can tell, there are absolutely no problems. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 197 FCs served} 09:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Yea we fixed the page at the same time but ive already fixed the problem so your ok.--Dcheagle (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem--Dcheagle (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

CPl Bronson mitchell

Hi, I changed the template on this article, there was some nasty enough stuff on it. GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Leaf morphology no title.png

Hi Makeemlighter,

Anything happening with this? Doesn't look to me like the creators are interested. Perhaps we could ask Zoofari to fix the typo and perhaps do some of the other edits he mentions (he supports the replace but then lists a number of suggested fixes, probably most importantly use of a websafe font, so I don't quite get his support; anyway...). I think he knows what he's doing with SVGs. I might unsuspend in the next day or so, hopefully get the fixes done, then I'll close it. If not I'll probably close it anyway. --jjron (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it sure doesn't look like anyone is interested in it. I'll ask Zoofari if he'll make the fixes right now. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't bothered making changes to it because I would have to manipulate the SVG and upset the creator. I don't think the creator is active anymore, so I will upload a separate file without bothering the original. ZooFari 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made input on the nomination page. The captions IMO should be removed. ZooFari 23:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Zoo, I don't know that much about this SVG stuff. Could you give an 'idiot's version' of what has to happen to convert the PNG to SVG. Like I think it was Debivort did the PNG - how hard is it for someone else to actually turn that into the SVG? Is it basically just a matter of opening in the correct software and doing a 'Save As', or is there more to it? And then how hard is it to edit the SVG once created? I'm just thinking more in terms of how we acknowledge people at FPC as regards editors, creators, etc. (Hope Makeemlighter doesn't mind this discussion happening on his talkpage. :-) --jjron (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For precise vectorizations, you need to redraw the image all over. The higher the resolution of the raster (png version), the easier to trace. There are auto-trace options that automatically trace rasters for you, but it needs to be used with caution, otherwise you end up with a sloppy image. For example, making rectangles is very easy to do, but customized shapes (e.g. the leaves of this image) require some drawing skills. Or you can auto-trace the leaves and do tweaks from there (because they don't end up neat as you think). Editing already-made SVGs are definitely easy. It's basically adding, removing, or modifying current elements present in the SVG.

So improving diagrams is endless, and you can keep going on and on. If you are interested learning how to vector or draw SVGs, you can always stop by my talk. ZooFari 00:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the offer. I do want to learn how to do it at some stage, but need more free time to do so! Anyway, the above at least gives me a better understanding of the work involved in converting PNG to SVG. In terms of acknowledging it at FPC it sounds like you should really credit both the original PNG artist and the SVG 'convertor' as creators, if you're working on an existing SVG then you're pretty clearly an editor. Would you agree with that as a rule of thumb? --jjron (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, just like a restoration or tweaked image. ZooFari 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alternative added. ZooFari 03:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reginald VelJohnson

Dear Mr MakeemLighter -

I would like to update the article on Reginald VelJohnson to include the fact that he is gay. I provided a source with my last update. What is wrong? 71.135.60.59 (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at that article, but feel free to edit it as long as you provide sources. See WP:RS for more information about citing sources. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FPC

Could you close Ty Cobb please. Ta, --jjron (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you're not interested in closing some VPCs per this request are you? --jjron (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember FP mainpage too (see my talk). --jjron (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look later if I'm not too busy. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL!

Happens all the time. It's a bug in the software and when it does happen, it's because we both caught it at the same time. Thanks for the help; no apology necessary.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

One minute

It only took one minute for you to remove my vandalism (on the Barney Frank article). I must commend you on your speedy revert skills! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.208.106 (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Haha, thanks :) By the way, don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~. And definitely feel free to contribute constructively! Makeemlighter (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

War on Vandalism

This user, Makeemlighter, is hereby recognized by User:Dromioofephesus as an Ally in his War on Vandalism. (Ally list)

If you join me, we can restore order to the galaxy. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re FPC delist noms

No, have been on holidays so only dropping by pretty irregularly. Am back to work Monday so will probably start to get in a more regular rhythm again, though am expecting to be very busy with work up till xmas. Anyway I will close them in the next few days if you don't mind waiting.

Eh, no probably wouldn't bother with shifting all those thumbs. It's hard to maintain that in any consistent way. That's the problem with keeping it at 100 per page. Maybe it's something we just 'look forward to' as we approach each 1000, putting it back in order, so should give a bit of breathing space at least. What I find more annoying is when I stumble across a thumbs page with huge numbers, I think one was up to about 167 when I was reshuffling a month or so back.

I actually kind of regret that it was never kept consistently at 100 from the start and then delists just pulled from the page. What would be interesting would be to look back and see how many have gone from each page. I seem to vaguely remember that I somehow figured that out of the first 100 there were only 40 odd left. --jjron (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good. There's no rush to close them. I'm glad I don't have to shift all the thumbs :) Makeemlighter (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I award this Working Man's Barnstar to Makeemlighter for being a significant force in closing Featured Picture Nominations. This is indeed a thankless job... until now. upstateNYer 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Awesome! Thanks :) Makeemlighter (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

VERTREP Composite Pano.jpg‎ FP

6 supports and 3 oppose, what exactly is the criteria again for promotion? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• 6 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. That's 60% support if we're playing a strict numbers game. Considering the reviewers' comments, it's clear to me that no consensus has been reached. You are, of course, welcome to re-nominate some time in the future. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus according to the top of the page is 2/3rds, and I judging by the controversy that this image and it's oppose votes created I'm sure it will get renominated. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I have to say I'm quite annoyed at that too - It has a 6-3 consensus (2/3rds in my opinion) as I don't see the point in counting the neutral as it's not really a vote more someone sitting on the fence (who ever considers Switzerland in anything for example?!!) and thus meets the criteria for Promotion... Bad decision in my opinion sorry... Gazhiley (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • After all, the instructions on how to nominate state (and I quote) "How to comment

If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons.

If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. "

No mention there of Neutral as a form of Vote, and thus it is null and void... Gazhiley (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whether or not you count "neutral" as a vote, this would be a no consensus result. Consensus is not determined by simply counting votes. 6-3 is a borderline result. When I considered that one editor originally opposed and changed to neutral and another editor's comments suggested the picture was not FP quality, I decided that the nom had not received consensus for promotion. As always, consensus can change. As I stated above, anyone is welcome to re-nominate this image at some time in the future. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm inclined to count "neutral" as a vote, at least in this situation, because it's telling that the editor did not support the image. He didn't feel strongly enough to oppose it, but he also did not feel it was worthy of his support. This strengthens my conviction that no consensus was achieved. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Well aware that I did vote in this nom, but having been a continuous closer in the past, I support Makeemlighter's ability to determine consensus, keeping from simple vote counting. Also, some people close based on a +/- system. Right now, this has a score of 0 (6 support, 3 oppose; 2 support=1 oppose). Another support is necessary to give it a +1. Just saying. upstateNYer 03:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • EH?!!! 6-3 and 2-1 does not equal 0... How do you come to that conclusion?!! And if you support refraining from simple vote counting, why on earth have rules?!! The rules clearly state that a nom must have at least 3 supports, and win by 2/3rds majority, which this did... I don't care whether you count neutral or not, but the rules state clearly either Support or Oppose, and thus no other votes count... And if other random votes count, I might as well vote "Yeeha" at the next FP and see if that gets included... Otherwise what's the point in having the rules?! I might as well go drive 60 in a 50 and just say to the officer "well i know the rule is 50 but the way see it is that it isn't, it's 60"... What a silly thing to say... Gazhiley (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
        • If you re-read what I wrote, it says that 2 supports = 1 oppose (coming from the rough guideline of 2/3 supermajority: you need at least twice as many supports as opposes, which essentially make an oppose worth twice as much as a support). Therefore 6/3=+6(1)-3(2)=0. Capisce? upstateNYer 07:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
      • "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support" and "If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." Makeemlighter (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(out dent) I'm not making a stink about it because I know it will be renominated again in the future. I do see the point that it did reach 2/3rds level of support if you ignore the neutral vote (Which I think by rules it should be), and I do see the point that EXACTLY 2/3rds is a net zero vote, or more accurately "tie." Either way it's basically up to the closing admins decision to close it as pass/fail when such a situation is raised. But like I said this one is up for renomination here soon anyway, it was a fairly controversial vote anyway. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 09:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship?

Hi there. I have, after careful consideration, decided to make the FP section my home here at Wikipedia. You all are nice people, and really, I love the work being done there. I have an interest in becoming more actively involved. Any guidence you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to post on my talk page. Also, I am interested in learning the closing procedure, as that seems to be the key (unless you can edit or take great photos) to becoming a power player in the FP section.   Nezzadar ☎   17:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice is just to learn Wikipedia: Featured picture criteria and refer to it when you're reviewing nominations. Sometimes discussions/arguments get pretty heated, so keep Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith in mind too. Once you've been around for a while, you'll get a feel for how things operate. I've been around since early this year, maybe January, and I only started closing in August. It takes some time to get a feel for what consensus is and how to apply it. And with all the discussion during the summer about the closing process and reforming FPC, things got very complicated. I'd say just do whatever the FPC page tells you to, within reason. I try to close noms as close to 7 days as possible, but I don't mind leaving them open a little longer so we can achieve consensus. I can't think of anything else now, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Right now I am combing through some of the better illustrators on commons and finding worthy nominees.   Nezzadar ☎   01:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Thanks for fixing those closing errors. It can be pretty time consuming. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vauxhall

Looks good. Categorisation's awkward - I normally put things like this in a couple categories as a courtesy to people trying to find things, so I shoved it into Entertainment in addition. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 09:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Delisted img of Fir's

This was delisted and I've already decreased Fir's counter. What was that other step? I'm not sure if I'm supposed to remove it from Fir's FP gallery and what not. ZooFari 16:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Leave it in the gallery and change the caption to "Former FP". Makeemlighter (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • With no offence meant to Fir, but IMO it's not up to us to continue to maintain his personal galleries - I'm sure he will do that if he ever returns. Of course you can do so if you want to. --jjron (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You're right, of course. I hope, though, that if we continue to maintain those galleries for him, he might be so gracious that he'll return and submit a bunch more pictures! Makeemlighter (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpg

It appears that you are the only uninvolved usual closer. Can you go handle this nom please? There really should be a COI exception for unanimous support noms with 10+ votes, but there isn't.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  19:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

FPC change of minimum

Hi Makeemlighter,

Not sure if you've seen my proposal Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Changing_to_Minimum_of_5_Supports, but as a regular closer you may like to express an opinion. If not, be aware of the impending change. :-) --jjron (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Replied there. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Closings

While on the topic, there's a couple of noms that I've been involved with that need closing. They both look pretty clear cut and easy, but would rather someone else close them, if you wouldn't mind. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• 10-4. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --jjron (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Valued Pictures

What are the minimum votes needed to promote a valued picture candidate? Please respond on my talkpage ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. How about Feature pictures? Please Respond on my talkpage. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Burj Khalifa

The image has been deleted on Commons. Could you close the discussion? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Battle at Lanka, Ramayana, Udaipur, 1649-53

Discussion continued on User talk:Jjron for consistency. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Russian cruiser Moskva

Hi, I think this is a promote based on votes alone. 5 supp vs 2.5 opp. Any particular reason you closed it not promoted? --Muhammad(talk) 11:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• In close votes, I take into consideration the reasoning of the voters. The objections seemed reasonable enough to me. I probably should have put "No consensus" or an explanation there. Anyone is, of course, welcome to re-nominate it. More votes would have helped clear up consensus. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your request for comment on carinatus

Done. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Credit for File:Desargues theorem.svg

Hi Makeemlighter, thank you very much for giving me credit for the edit I made to File:Desargues theorem.svg, but I don't think I deserve it! The edit was quite minor and only took a couple of minutes. I think the original creator of the image should get some credit; while Jujutacular certainly put a lot of effort into the alt, he was working from a template, so to speak, which probably shouldn't go unrecognised. I'd suggest the entry in the library should be something like, Desargues' theorem, by Jujutacular (based on original by DynaBlast). Hope you're okay with that, and thank you again, :) Maedin\^talk 08:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the bit of talk page stalkery at User talk:UpstateNYer ;). I closed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vexi Salmi. Could you take a glance to make sure I did everything correctly? Jujutacular ^T · C 23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FPC for USS Santa Fe

I was under the impression that SNOW did not apply to FPCs, yet I see mine was closed less than 24 hours after opening. I feel that I have been cheated of my chance to obtain more information about the flaws of the picture from those who may have commented had the image been left out for a longer period of time. At the very least, a message informing me of the early closure of the FPC nom would have been nice. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. It was actually 46 hours and 5 minutes - so nearly 2 days out of a full run of 7. In this case, I believe the nomination was open for enough time to determine consensus. I applied SNOW in this case because the image had no chance of being promoted: it simply did not meet the technical standards required of Featured Pictures. Moreover, at the time of closure, it had 5 oppose votes to only 2 supports, 1 of which lacked a reason. The image would have needed at least 8 more support votes to pass, a number nearly impossible to obtain considering the number of contributors we have at FPC. Seeing as the oppose votes had valid reasons, it is highly unlikely that many people would have come around to support. Early closures are fairly common at FPC. Speedy close is an option for pictures that obviously fail the criteria. Finally, we have Wikipedia:Picture peer review if you'd like feedback on the quality and EV of any images. PPR is a recommended first step if you're unsure if an image meets the FPC criteria. I hope I've addressed your concerns. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • One more thing: nominators are not notified when their FPC candidates are not promoted. Because of this, I never saw the need to notify nominators of early closures. I will consider doing so in the future. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		It looks good. I would suggest mentioning the valued picture system as an alternative to featured pictures, while I myself refuse to use the process others may wish to pursue that avenue if it means getting their image additional attention. Otherwise, I like the notification, and salute you for this great idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks :) Makeemlighter (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Raw garnet FPC

I didn't nominate the raw garnet image. Why did it say I did? (I did nominate the mercury one.) 'FLaRN'(talk) 03:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good question. I have absolutely no idea! Makeemlighter (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please close this again

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Raven Manet E2.jpg 2, the 'vote' has the required five users confirming the consensus at the article, and in the real world, the one that accords with all reliable sources. There has been one abstention from voting, by a previous keep vote. This situation has created a substantial amount of disruption and ill-will. The restorer promised to provide an adequate response to objections "within a few days", this has not happened; the opinion of professor, if it ever emerges, will have no bearing on this until it is published and reviewed by his peers. Please close the discussion again. cygnis insignis 15:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • All nominations run for approximately 7 days. It will be closed once the 7 days are up. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • There are other considerations, ignoring that rule provides a graceful resolution. One of these considerations is reducing the affect on the brand 'FP', which has hosted this obvious error for quite sometime. That this was pointed on numerous occassions before is utterly perplexing to me, contributors and readers would be justified in regarding this FP review process with scepticism. Any rule, or guideline, is intended to assist with improvements to the site; how does adhering to that rule and ignoring all others achieve that? cygnis insignis 04:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Even if I disregarded the 7 day span that nominations run, consensus is not yet clear. 3 votes for delist and replace, 2 votes for delist, and 1 comment leaning toward not making the replacement a FP - that adds up to a hard decision for the closer. Frankly, I wouldn't close this yet even if 7 days had passed; it simply needs more time for consensus to form on whether the replacement should be a FP or not. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
        • How many months has this been a FP!? There has been too much discussion, that is not purpose of this site; forestalling resolution of concerns, when reliable sources contradict a tendentious position, is counter-productive. You are not doing the creator of the error any favors by preserving it, and the mutual animosity is allowed to fester and poison. If the creator of that corrected file wants it to be an FP they can put it up when they are done, another user proffered it as a suitable replacement, but they do not want it to be a FP. This an irrelevant tangent, you showed no hesitation in closing, and then reverting me, on the basis that discussion continued past 7 days (and the rest). cygnis insignis 08:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Maybe it shouldn't have been a FP all that time, but it DID pass with unanimous support and no one thought to nominate it for delisting until a few weeks ago. And that delist nomination DID NOT gain enough support for delisting. Closing that first nomination was the right thing to do - at that point it had 2 delist votes versus 2 keep votes after 12+ days, 5 more days than we typically allow nominations to run. It didn't matter whether the image met the FP criteria - I wasn't going to overrule the consensus (in this case, the lack of consensus) and delist it. The current nomination will probably result in delisting, and it will close in a few more days. I see no reason to cut the nomination short. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
            • I'd be careful with the "unanimous support" statement. I think it's clear that several of the commenters disapproved of the rotation, and I'm quite sure they would confirm this if you asked them now, even though they didn't spell out the word "oppose" at the time. I'm not saying it was a faulty close, just that interpreting it as "unanimous support" is perhaps a bit too strong. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Agreed. "Unanimous" was just quicker to type than "only support votes, no opposes." Makeemlighter (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re PPR question

Hey. Yeah, no big deal I'm sure. If they are from Jan-Mar then they should go into that archive rather than the April one.

I created that info box/instruction back whenever so don't worry too much about breaking it, but just for consistency decided the archiving would be best to go by creation date (since they have a tendency to sit there for ages). Whatever you've done now I guess just leave it as is. --jjron (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominated

Thanks. I have nominated one. See here. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

I'll just mention that there are some new reply options for this question, which also serves as an example of how the poll should progress when none of the available options suit the contributors. The question on dealing with unclear consensus has apparently been the most controversial so far. I remain hopeful that we will succeed in representing people's opinions by the time the poll ends. Feel free to change your vote or add a new reply option if the three new ones still don't quite work for you. (But obviously, try to create something general enough that it's likely to gather a following.) Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Seaweed farming

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Seaweed farming -Nusa Lembongan, Bali-16Aug2009 edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Maedin\talk 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Chichen_Itza_3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• The Rollback user right is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Maedin\^talk 06:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you don't like the [rollback] links in contributions and/or your watchlist, you can remove either or both with some CSS. Add

• /* hide rollback from Watchlist */ .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}

and/or

• /* hide rollback from contributions */ .page-Special_Contributions .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}

to your css subpage. Maedin\^talk 06:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Maedin\^talk 06:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Human Heart

Don't "Welcome to Wikipedia" me. I am perfectly familiar with Wikipedia. And my edits are strictly for the beneficial experience of all Wikipedians. That edit helped give a good visual for the Human Heart. This was not "VANDALISM"!!! Tell that to your little Twinkle Bot!

Hello...

You are invited to participate in Project Cleveland, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about Cleveland, Ohio.

(If you're interested... we could really use your help!) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

cleveland rocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.77.184 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, duh! :D Makeemlighter (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sega Dreamcast comment

Hi, Makeemlighter. Can you tell me what your comment here meant? Just curious. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 04:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry. I clarified my comment there. It was not directed at you; it just happened to come right after your comment. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		FPC, VPC and peer review of images. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Makeemlighter (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Theatre

Just in case you don have the freshly closed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Theatre on your watchlist. I left a comment there. --Dschwen 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dealt with there, in case anybody was wondering. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

FPC?

Where do I open a discussion at the FPC? And, also, how do I start a thread below a cookie? ==, :, * didn't work for me. Thanks. Gut Monk (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd start it at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. That page gets a lot more views than the criteria talk page or the FP talk page. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't know how you do it, always closing the FPC candidate pages. So far I've done it 5 times and I know it's not easy, the regular way anyhow. So since I see you already have a bunch of barnstars, here's a cookie. :-)
--I'ḏ♥One 05:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! I try to be as methodical as possible. Once you've closed 15 or 20 nominations, it becomes fairly routine. Thanks again. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quartz/Gold picture

I changed my vote to “Support” at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dolomite-Magnésite- Navarre.jpg Greg L (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Signpost "Features and admins" column

Hi Makeemlighter. User:Tony1 is on vacation right now, but before leaving he told me you might be interested in doing this week's Signpost Featured picture "Choice of the week" for the 23 August edition. Are you still up for it? If so, the page should be ready by Saturday for your text. Let me know if you have any questions, or if you are unable to do it. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, I'd be glad to. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Makeem, the list, from Saturday to Friday UTC, is ready for your scrutiny! Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to provide the link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-23/Features and admins. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a few changes (added one missing promotion, put the #, got rid of delisted since there weren't any), but I'm not ready to make my pick yet. Choosing the best of the week is tougher than I thought it would be! Makeemlighter (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks—good timing: I was just fussing around wondering about which images to display. And I was about to ask you whether we should put a button there for the 360º viewer, but you've displayed the link in your piece. Thanks. Tony (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image thumbnails

There's something wrong with the thumbnail creation server. Commons' village pump has a few threads about it. Rumour says it will be fixed in the morning. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's a relief. I thought my brain was malfunctioning. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, was just dropping by to say the same thing. People on IRC were working on it last night, but, it would seem, no luck yet. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Delisting FP

I penned a few words over at the nomination. Thank you for the message, btw, many people do not take the time to leave such invitations to discussions anymore, which saddens me. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi do you know anything about copyright? If so, could you chime in on the discussion here regarding a FP nom which you suspended. There's three editors which seem to agree it's PD, but one disagrees. An extra opinion would be welcomed. Sandman888 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I only know enough to get by. I couldn't add anything to the discussion. It looks pretty close to resolved, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Resolved per Milburns consent: diff. That was a long one. Sandman888 (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Earl Roberts

Re: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Earl Roberts duty5.jpg, isn't the simple fact that it's not included any article make it a prima facie automatic delist? howcheng {chat} 04:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think it should be. I considered delisting, but I figured I'd catch some flak for doing it without 5 delist votes. I'll raise this at FPC talk to see if we can get a better solution. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buildings along Chicago River

Please see comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buildings along Chicago River.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe

Hey is it possible if i could withdraw my withdraw on this nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vatican Museum Staircase. I changed my mind Spongie555 (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Actually_no_consensus_at_Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates.2Fdelist.2FFile:Kiwi_aka.jpg

Querying your "Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and delist this regardless." when the required five votes were not obtained. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to do something about these now? I see that you've been online since I raised the problem and suggested solutions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What?

I know that the 9/11 picture makes sense to be featured on 9/11 but why was it promoted in less then 2 hours after it was nominated? It didnt get the week required for a nomination. Even though it makes sense for 9/11 and it did have support votes i think it would be fair if it's goes through the normal procedures like the other nominations. Spongie555 (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh lol. If you're referring to the Picture of the Day, it was promoted a year ago. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pentagon Crash Site. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • oh nvm. I didn't see the 2009 part I thought it said 9/11 2010. Spongie555 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was looking at an old nomination and i have a question on it. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Peacemakers has one support vote(not counting nominator) and no opposes but you closed it not promoted. Why? It has no opposes but it has a support. Spongie555 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's a minimum requirement of 5 support votes in order to promote an image. At one point, it was only 4 required supports, but it changed some time in the past year. For images that fall short of 5 support votes but don't encounter any opposition, it is sometimes wise to re-nominate them. Lack of attention might imply that people don't care for the image enough to comment, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

FPC Question

I've never done an FPC nomination, and am new to the process. Would File:Iowa Highway 165.jpg be a good candidate? Something about the tree and bush, along with the grass just looks really great to me...I've taken quite a few pics, and this is the only one I've thought of nominating. CTJF83 chat 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the future, please consider Picture Peer Review. People there will critique your image and let you know what sort of chances it has at FPC as well as possible means of improvement. As far as your image goes, I'd say it probably would not pass at FPC. It doesn't really illustrate anything in particular. A picture of Carter Lake would be more illustrative for that article, and one of the highway would be better for the route 165 article. At FPC, we call this EV - Encyclopedic Value. One of the major criteria is that pictures have high EV, i.e. they do a great job of explaining/demonstrating/illustrating an article. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I looked at some of the other images you've taken. Some of those subjects have a much better chance, the Iowa Supreme Court and the Figge Art Museum, for example. But the image quality isn't high enough. Check out the Featured Pictures of architecture to get an idea of the quality level expected of these types of shots. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you think those 2 have a good chance? If so, I'll reupload them on high quality. I usually lower it by 40-50% just for ease of viewing on Wikipedia...probably should just leave them the resolution they are. CTJF83 chat 01:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately probably not. The museum is cut-off: that's usually a big no-no at FPC. The court picture has problems with lighting and perspective (the verticals aren't vertical). Even the higher-resolution versions you uploaded probably aren't big enough. For better or worse we have very high standards for architecture shots. Take a look at this recently-promoted picture of a court. The level of architectural detail you can make out is pretty impressive. The lighting is also good, you can easily make out the building's name, and everything is vertical. Finally, the picture is fairly eye-catching. That's an issue some FPC voters have been stressing lately. Depending on what type of equipment you're using, it might be fairly difficult (if not impossible) to take shots of a similar quality. It stinks for those of us who cannot afford a great camera, but there's not much to do about it. For lower-quality images with high Encyclopedic Value, there is Valued Pictures, but that project is sort of in limbo right now. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • If necessary I can easily get a new picture of the museum...as for the court, A slight rotation can fix that problem...I put it up for review, I'll see how it goes. CTJF83 chat 17:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Messier 82

Thanks. The closing statement seems very sensible. J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A little appreciation

Hello Makeemlighter, just stopping by to say thank you for biting the bullet and closing this, this, and this. I saw them lingering there for ages, but every time I thought about closing them, I was daunted and backed off. If not for you . . . who knows, they'd probably still be there next year! Thanks for all the closing work, :) Maedin\^talk 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I considered closing them every day, but I kept thinking maybe someone else would chime in. Sitting Bull was pretty easy to close: it was alt 2 before asking for more input; the input made things more confusing but didn't change the result. Messier 82 was tough, but J Milburn made it pretty easy but suggesting it be closed as not promoted. The death mask one was the toughest, but Howcheng made it easier by commenting about the original, hi-res version. So mostly thanks go to the FPC voters, but I'll accept your thanks graciously :) Makeemlighter (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)