User talk:MIckStephenson

This is the place to leave Wiki-related messages and any stuff about my gallery; if you leave a message here, I'll (mostly) reply to it here; if you want to leave a personal message, you can stick it on this page.

Searchable talkpage
I hope you like it:

I love it! Thanks :-) mikaultalk 00:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

220px
Hi Mick. I keep asking at Bugzilla. Nothing happens. No response. Hmmm. Tony  (talk)  12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mick, have you seen the disappointing news at Bugzilla? (You don't seem to be subscribing to email updates there.) It means we'll have to badger them, keep tabs on when new servers are brought online, saying "OK, now?". Very boring. Why, I wonder, can't they increase it gradually if they're concerned about the server load. Type in 190 tomorrow, 200 next week, 210, then 220. Would be over a month. Tony  (talk)  12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound too good at all, apart from the neat image of servers being thrown into pools. Image servers for enwiki I'd imagine to be already furnished with backup drives..? But I don't think incremental upsizing would be any different; it's the processing, not the size, that creates stress. The line between patience and boredom seems to be gone now, I agree :-( What timescale are we talking here, I wonder? mikaultalk 18:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The default thumb size saga
Mick, I've raised the recent postponement of the site-wide increase at Jarry's page. Tony  (talk)  04:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
I reckon you should nominate your picture of Picos de Europa for En:Wikipedia FP. It's pretty good in every respect. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks. It was originally only in one article but I see it's populating a few more now. I'll give it a whirl when I get a chance. mikaultalk 12:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Winery list mergers
(going to crosspost this on Tomas' page as well) Well it looks like we ended up getting an admin who didn't want to spend time reading the discussion to see where "consensus" is aligned with policies. That is a shame because, as other unbias editors have noted, the distinction between WP:LIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY is more clear cut than what people on the AfD were giving it credit for. That said, I fully support the "plan B" option of merging these smaller sub-lists into a larger List of notable American wineries. Though to be fair this standard should be applied across the board to List of notable Australian wineries, List of notable Greek wineries and (god help us) List of notable French wineries, etc. I am absolutely horrid when it comes to creating tables so if you would be willing to create the initial page, I would help comb through the categories and populate it. It would also probably be better for you take the initiative with merging the List of wineries in the Barossa Valley since my efforts to improve the article weren't so warmly received. As for the format itself, I don't have any firm inclinations of what exactly they should look like. They definitely shouldn't have external links to the wineries websites or a horrendous, blatant POV advert section like "iconic wines". What ideas do you have? AgneCheese/Wine 15:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Whcih brings me to outlines. The whole WP:OOK concept is a hot potato at the moment but I could see this kind of list (Outline of notable Australian vineyards structured according to region, rather than just listed alphabetically) being a good way to go. The only other thing that springs to mind is using our existing categories to build the lists with. I seem to recall some tireless gnome went though and fixed them all some time ago. If they can be relied upon, most of the donkey work is done. RL work unfortunately takes up 90% of my waking hours at the moment and my wiki time is snatched here & there. I'm quite good with tables though and if we have a good to-do list and we're not in a mad rush, I'd be happy to draw some up. I have a feeling Tomas is better at it than me and I'd be interested to see what he comes up with in the way of style and layout. As things stand, I think the Aussies would make a good starting point. First thing would be to post merge proposal templates on the relevant pages, I guess. mikaultalk 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I did learn something from all that, at least. It's pretty clear that stand-alone lists need notable entries (redlinks mean "article needed") unless they list finite, unchanging items which the list would be meaningless without. Does that make sense? Wineries on a national level would list very well, broken down into regions, as summaries of our coverage. I know you don't like them (and spending ages compiling them isn't going to be fun!) but they do generate a big developmental aid for the project, quite apart from the nice overview they give.
 * I can see your point about outlines. I am not completely "anti-redlink" as much as I am completely "anti-spam" and against the inclusion of non-notable wineries. I have drafted up a "compromise idea" on how to deal with red link notable and non-notable wineries but still keeping the mainspace free of being a directory over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine. I totally understand how RL work goes. I would take on the task myself if my coding skills were better, but once either you or Tomas get the initial layout down, I will certainly help with the "grunt work" of populating the pages. As for the next step, I strongly suspect some of the same figures who created an issue over at List of wineries in the Barossa Valley would object to a merger idea off the bat. I think we may want to create a draft idea of your Outline of notable Australian vineyards (with my incorporated "compromise idea" of a talk sub-page for the red links)  and show that to them before we put the merger proposal templates up. Maybe seeing something tangible and workable would temper their objections. AgneCheese/Wine 06:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We can but hope, although I do think we have best (wine) practice and policy on our side. Thanks for your support re the outline idea; I do agree with you re. talk page redlinks, the idea may need tweaking but it would certainly help us build feature-quality lists rather than tricolour travesties. Also agree on the draft version. Worth pointing out that there's an RfC being drafted on outlines but in all honesty I can see only naming being a big problem; if it's not "outline" it'll be "Topical list" or somesuch nonsense... there's always going to be a need for structured lists. Anyway, looking at possible opposition, on the Barossa list talkpage we have User:Stefan, a member of the outlines project as well as a WIkiWino and the other user, as the only real antagonist, has a history of wine-appreciation type edits; the same editor created the list with the notorious "icon wines" column, for example. I've posted a note on user:SpringSummerAutumn's talkpage, as s/he seems to be very actively interested in Aussie wines. Best foot forward is a strong WP:WINE project consensus and the conviction to see it though, as ever. mikaultalk 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The more I read your comments, the more I think it is possible to create a Feature List worthy article with some of the ideas laid out. Going along with the Australian winery example, I can envision it divided by state (New South Wales, South Australia, etc) with a column for picture, name, establishment date, location and maybe "historical notes" (like first winery to plant XXX in XXX, etc). I'd rather keep that last section labeled with something like "historical notes" rather than just "notes" because the last thing we would want is for someone to try to slip "iconic wines" or other non-encyclopedic text in. I wonder if this is something we could get the Aussie wine editors to rally around. If we can get 1 featured list quality article crafted, it would make it very easy to hold all the other "List of XXX wineries" articles to the same standard. AgneCheese/Wine 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New Napa image
Hello MIck. May I please ask you what do you think about that image File:Napa Valley vineyards 8.jpg for the vineyards article? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a nice spot, you got good light and think there's enough vineyard in there that it would make a really good addition to vineyard. It would be great with a Wide image tag, to run it across the width of the page. A couple of things bother me: if you look at the size of it relative to the detail it shows, I think it would be better downsampled to around 7000px wide. It also looks very colour-saturated, is this something you do afterwards or a camera setting? I'd say it would even be worth putting through FPC if you can fix it up in those respects. mikaultalk 03:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One other minor thing: always a good idea to mark the description (on the description page) as Six-segment parnoramic image of... (or however many you stitched it from) to make it clear an image has been compiled from more than one shot, maybe including a mention of exactly where it was taken. Nice stitch, btw. mikaultalk 03:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MIck. I just ajusted contrasts a bit in post processing. I will downsample the image later.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Vineyards in Napa Valley 14.jpg downsampled and added the required info. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any time. mikaultalk 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If any time :), maybe you could take a look at one more about the same, but more complete panorama File:Vineyards of Napa Valley panorama.jpg. Which one is better for the article in your opinion? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Me and my big mouth... although impressive – judging by the shadows, something like 270° view? – I don't see a great advantage over the other one. I'm also not sure that a 27Mb file is needed to illustrate the idea of a vineyard. Photographically, you'd want the whole thing, but encyclopedically the detail and scope you have there isn't so appropriate and might actually deter viewing at full size. That's just the way I see this particular one, don't take that as any kind of rule. Although I prefer this version because it loses the road in the foreground, the mountain to the left spoils it for me, forces a height to the image that shows only more sky, rather than more vines. mikaultalk 06:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do agree about too much of the sky. I was thinking about it myself. The thing is it took few hours (like 5 hours) for my slow computer only to stitch that panorama. So I just wanted to share it with the others after all the work was done :) MIck, maybe you could add the image you like to the article? You know better, where the best place to put it is. Thank you for your time, and no more big panoramas of Napa valley for you to review .... at least for the next week or so. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church and National Assembly of Bulgaria PPR
Thanks for the advice on those two PPRs, it was extremely valuable to me. My ambition is to increase the number of Bulgarian featured picture and take at least a couple myself, and such tips are of great use. I guess I have to consider more even and less dramatic lighting conditions somewhat earlier in the day and not so close to sunset. My camera seems to do well with detail when light is abundant, so that should rarely be an issue.

I was thinking about submitting File:Sofia University Rectorate TB.jpg to WP:PPR too, but it too has shadows in the lower part and what's more, the right side of the facade is covered by vegetation.

Best, Todor→Bozhinov 14:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For all of your shots I've seen so far it looks like you've just been unlucky, as if you arrived 5 minutes too late to get good even light. There's no problem with that time of day, and in winter you get plenty of time with the sun nice and low, but it does mean inner-city buildings tend to be shaded by nearby structures, even earlier on. Search for a good spot, be prepared to return if the weather's not right, and at the very least you'll get some very rewarding shots. You have a good eye and a decent camera, I'd say all you need is time and patience. And good luck! mikaultalk 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Best, Todor→Bozhinov 12:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Mick,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 13, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-12-13.  howcheng  {chat} 06:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Important Wine Project discussion needs input!
Hello, the Wine Project is currently in the process of hammering out a proposed policy relating to Notability (wine topics). As Wikipedia and its wine coverage continues to grow, the need for a clear, concise guideline on how Wikipedia's notability policies such as WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE relate to wine articles has emerged. Please review the proposed policy and take part in the talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics). All input and view points are welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 21:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Mick,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Bartholomeus van der Helst, Banquet of the Amsterdam Civic Guard in Celebration of the Peace of Münster.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 30, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-01-30.  howcheng  {chat} 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DiseasedTempranillo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DiseasedTempranillo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Image113-649647.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Image113-649647.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SoaveGrapes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SoaveGrapes.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tempranillo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tempranillo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:TempranilloVineClusters.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:TempranilloVineClusters.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 05:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

NZ Wines: Colours on map
Hi. I was about to post this "Hi. I presume that the different colours stand for the different cultivars/ grapes/ wines. Would someone be able to add this information?" on the article on NZ Wines, having already posted it on the actual map page, when I saw your post on the subject and the lack of reliable sources. I came across this map, http://winefeeds.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/new-zealand-wine-regions.jpg, which indicates where the different wines/ grapes are produced. Perhaps you can use some of the info or get ermission to us the map if you think it better. http://winefeeds.wordpress.com/ Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Mick,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:SotresPanorama.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 25, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-12-25.  howcheng  {chat} 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of your picture
Dear Mick, Thanks for your picture with the bottle & wine glass. I did post this on my website. Reference/Licence at the bottom of the page. Hope that's ok for you. German: find wines Best regards. You find me on German WP as HCass and in Commons as Holger Casselmann. --HCass (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 10:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand wine map
Hi Mikaul - if you're still around, your skills with making maps would be appreciated over on New Zealand wine :-) Cheers, Jon (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:World War II poster commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Uzbek SSR.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:World War II poster commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Uzbek SSR.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata.jpg nominated for delisting as an FP
File:Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata.jpg has been nominated for delisting as an FP. Please see:. MER-C 11:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)