User talk:Makeemlighter/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ The "New" Blue Marble

Hi, I've added an alternate version to the Featured Picture Candidate: The "New" Blue Marble. As you have already voted at the nomination (linked above), could you please give some feedback or show a preference between the original or the alt? Thank you for your time. Dusty777 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you do for the featured picture candidates. Colin°Talk 11:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Makeemlighter (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australia women's national water polo team set

Hi. With respect, I would recommend you take into consideration Bidgee's circumstances here; given that he was unable to edit Wikipedia at all thanks to his town being flooded, closing this even after he has told you so is highly disrespectful. — foxj 08:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but not at all. I closed the nomination 2.5 days after the voting period ended. No one chose to suspend the nomination in the week following Bidgee's note, and the nomination's success or failure didn't hinge on edits being made. The images can be re-nominated once edits are made. There was no reason to leave the nomination open. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Party of New York State

Hey friend,

I see you have worked out a neater derivative map for the Voter ID laws article. I have just finished a map for the NYS conservative party and would like your help in adding a title and captions. I'm sure you're busy, but if there is anything I can help you out with, I would love your favor in fixing this image.

Thanks! --Screwball23 talk 03:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured pic

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page. I understand your point and will be back with better pictures :) RickTyers (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) Makeemlighter (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Noise and pixel peeping

Re: your vote at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/King's Cross Western Concourse. I'm fine with the lens/blur not being to everyone's taste (I expect an encyclopaedia to be conservative) but "noise"? Sure there's a small degree of luminance noise visible at 100%; the blurred people have a sort of texture to them which is unexpected; there's no ugly chroma noise. However, this image hasn't been cropped or downsampled from the original 14MP. The reason any noise is present is because this is an interior shot taken in the evening where the shadows can't be "pushed to the right" as that would overexpose the ceiling. I think the "noise" criticism is unfair: the FP criteria do not demand 100% noise-free pictures. Try downsampling this to 7MP or even 3.5MP (half the width/height) and see if you can see any noise at all. Should I join with the other FP nominators and upload downsampled versions at 6MP? Or should I crank up the NR slider so it looks as pure as a supermodel's face, but no longer contains 14MP of detail? Because this was take with a modern DSLR at ISO 100 so what's a guy to do? I'd expect someone who closes FP nominations to not fall into the pixel peeping trap. -- Colin°^Talk 11:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Have replied to your comment at the FPC. Colin°^Talk 16:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.2 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't recall doing anything special, though... Makeemlighter (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wood Duck

It seems we both tried to close this at the same time, and you beat me to it. Luckily I planned for this and the script stopped me! Nice to see that it worked :) Jujutacular (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Script has been working great for me lately. I can't remember the last time it gave me any problems. My continued gratitude for the work. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New workshop

Hey there. Please take a look at this proposal to start a new workshop in the graphic lab. Please add your views on this. Roshan220195 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First colored senator and reps.jpg‎

Hi there, I'm writing you regarding the close. The discussion reflects that the image meets the FP criteria, demonstrates encyclopedic value, has 2 Support votes, and no Oppose votes. I'm wondering how you came to your decision. Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 00:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• An image must receive support from at least five reviewers in order to be promoted. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Header. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:National Library - Sofia.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:National Library - Sofia.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Script Bug

Not sure if you noticed, but it seems that some sort of bug appeared in the script, made it impossible to go through and promote an image. It's not my fault! :) Should be fixed now. Jujutacular (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Good thing I haven't been particularly active lately! Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sign painting

The image was kept a few days ago- you may want to reopen this one. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I think that I'll just close it as a non-promotion and ask John to re-nominate it. It'll be cleaner that way. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

For your tireless efforts in closing featured picture candidates, I present to you the Working Wikipedian's Barnstar! With over 2000 edits to your name on the main FPC page, your work has helped to foster a community that produces some wonderful pictures. Thank you for always keeping a cool head in disputes and for your consistent service to the community. Jujutacular (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! Makeemlighter (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

GFDL

There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposal:_Change_to_FP_criteria_for_new_nominations:_disallow_.22GFDL_1.2_only.22_and_.22GFDL_1.2_and_an_NC-only_license.22. Please participate. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Launch pad

Hi, Makeemlighter: Re the above FP nomination: I see you closed it as a not promoted. The !voting went 5 support (one weak) and 1 oppose (mine). I am surprised at the outcome, tbh. I'm not familiar with the way these things generally go, being only an infrequent contributor to this area (basically, I turn up and run through what's there and then forget all about it for another year or 2...) but I am curious as to how you reached your decision here, though I understand if you don't want to go into it. AtB, Plutonium27 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. At FPC, we count weak support as one half of a support. Thus, the nominated image had only 4.5 of the required 5 support. I suppose it's sort of goofy and arbitrary, but that's the way we do it... Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't know there was a needs 5 requirement but, far from it being goofy (and now I've got this weird yodel for an earworm), I can see the reasoning. Without it, an FP could be obtained with the !votes of 2 or 3 partial enthusiasts ("It's a dolphin!/ a Deltic!/ a dangleberry-and-Drambuie donut! Cool! Support); friends of the photographer ("the technical flaws are irrelevant with such rare skill and artistry...a great photo. Support") etc etc, thus blowing the integrity and the entire point of the process and classification out of the water. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bicycle diagram

Hi, just to say one of the opposes was added after the voting deadline; those before were split 7-3 in favour, above the 2/3s threshold. However that's only discretionary and so I'm not complaining per se; I merely wanted to make sure you felt you have the option to promote when you closed it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I did notice, but Spencer had expressed reservations prior to the deadline. I don't see the deadline as a strict one, particularly when someone has already commented on an image. More importantly, a number of people commented on potential fixes or changes, but no one responded to the suggestions let alone actually attempted them. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.

If you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Closure?

Please explain your closures.

A minority raised concerns about accessibility to the general public, which is not a criterion, to my knowledge. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Neither image received enough support. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? You wrote above about a five point quota, which does not seem to be documented. Where is this policy or guideline? Why not just keep the pictures open until enough comments are given. We could have asked at the mathematics and economics projects for comments if some deadline for reaching a quota were known.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It's in the header. "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

      Ah, the old "hiding in plain sight" ruse. ;)

      For David's pictures, most votes were positive. The negatives were most concerned about accessibility, which is not a criterion, and which I suppose is discounted.

      Can you relist it and give it a few days, and I'll ask for reviews at the wikiprojects mathematics and economics? (If the reviews were evenly split or even negative, then it would be a waste of time to relist.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

      • Sorry for the delayed response. You're free to re-nominate the image at any time. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tadorna tadornoides female - Perth.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Tadorna tadornoides female - Perth.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tadorna tadornoides male - Perth.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Tadorna tadornoides male - Perth.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on matters pertaining to photography. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)