User talk:Makeemlighter/Archive 2

What?
Why wasn't Featured picture candidates/Susan B. Anthony promoted? It has more support votes then opposes and it has the required 4 supports for it to pass. Spongie555 (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From the FPC Header: "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support..." 6 supports out of 9.5 votes is just under the 2/3 requirement. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it still can get promoted if it has more supports then opposes. Spongie555 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At least 2/3 of the votes must be supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jmilburn commented on the nomination it if you want to see Spongie555 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought this to FPC talk for exposure. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Octopus marginatus.jpg
Just to let you know that four out of six favour the crop now, so I think we can move it along. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Chicago Interstates map
I thought we were closing 3/0s as promoted now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Improperly, if so. The guideline on the page still says 4 supports minimum, so that's what I went by. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the closers are closing 3 supports as promote because of the low level of activity on the page. I don't close, but closers need to get on the same page. I will mention at VPC talk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Metra Locomotives F40PH-2 & MP36PH-3S
Did you mean to close this one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually did, but the "not promoted" was on the same line as the last vote. I added a break to make it clearer. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Without the break it looked like you had signed in support. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! I try to do a little bit of everything. The variety keeps it interesting. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PPR to FPC
Hi! Just wanted to thank you for your comments on Picture peer review/Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Also, I've never done that before, so could you please tell me if I need to do anything for that one to move from PPR to FPC or not? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll need to create a new nomination page. The instructions are near the top of WP:FPC under "How to Nominate". They're similar to the ones at PPR, so you shouldn't have any trouble. If you need help, just let me know. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just did that, and it's in the FAC, but how do I get it out of the PPR? Or should I leave it alone? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of that. Thanks for reminding me. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page length
Hey, there, great work you've been up to. Also Ohio rules, wish I lived there myself as it's home to such great bands like The Devil Wears Prada and Salt the Wound. Ahahaaa. Well anyway; I'm mainly here to tell you that you might wanna archive this talk page of yours, it's getting kind of long. • GunMetal Angel  22:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd been thinking about archiving but never got around to it. I guess I didn't realize I was up to 82 sections! Anyway, I started the process, so I'll be archived within the next 24 hours. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Alexz Johnson
I don't know if you're willing to close this. It seems that my tally is uncontested, so I at least think that the solution is obvious. Original closer has been notified twice, but doesn't seem to be willing to do the obvious thing. Letting it hang around is unlikely to lead to great revelations imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OMG what a lie, 2 other users and myself completely contested your 4 > 8 tally! -- I'ḏ ♥  One  14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I just removed the additions to Template:Announcements/New featured content and Goings-on because afaik these get used by Signpost and possibly other projects. Haven't done the same for the FP pages and FP thumbs just to keep flames to a minimum, hopefully. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise you didn't have to take it, so thanks a lot for looking into it. Hopefully things will be a bit quieter after this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure. I'm used to controversial closures by now, so I don't mind dealing with the fallout. But yes, I'd love to see more clear cut results. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we've spent enough time listening to Jfitch. Do correct me if you find differently, but I don't think we've heard any new arguments. I think it's time to either enforce the consensus, or, failing that, go straight to an RfC. What think ye? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been trying not to think about it! At the start, I didn't really care which image was used. I just knew we'd probably end up dealing with it through a delist/replace nomination, so I wanted to be proactive. As far as I'm concerned, it was and still is an FPC issue. Jfitch didn't edit that article until after the FPC nomination, and then he only did so to change the image back. So, I was a little bothered to be pointed toward the article talk page, and it bugs me that an RfC would even be the solution. Frankly, I don't really care which image ends up in the article. As I've argued, the white balance edit is an accurate representation of the character. The arguments to the contrary seem more like FPC arguments than article usage arguments. I don't particularly care to take this any further. I try to avoid discussions like this. My main concern is FPC housekeeping (i.e. where, if anywhere, does the FP star end up?). If you want to start an RfC, feel free. I'll drop in to offer my two cents, but I'm not sure this is an important enough issue to justify RfC. Like I said, I shy away from stuff like this. That probably didn't help you at all - sorry! Let me know if I can offer any more mostly useless wisdom :) Makeemlighter (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/delist/Backlit mushroom.jpg
Hi Makeemlighter, I thought the closure of the backlit 'shroom might have been invalidated by the image's placement in an article, which happened during the nomination. It's difficult to tell which votes were based mostly on its use in article space, but I think it's fair to say that it was probably the primary motivator. Hope you don't mind, but I've relisted the nomination (by way of that, overturning the original decision), and we'll see how it goes with its use in mushroom under consideration, :) (Apologies for not telling you sooner, J Milburn pointed out that I'd forgotten to ping you about it!)   Mae din\ talk 11:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for your work

 * Thanks :) Closing FPC nominations is strangely addicting. Something about performing that same routine over and over makes me feel pretty good. I'm glad I've been able to contribute to the project. Thanks again! Makeemlighter (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

closeFPC script
As such a prolific FPC closer, I thought you may be interested in this. Regards,  Jujutacular  talk 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the watchlist removals: do you use Safari? I used the script on Safari and it did the same thing, but that hasn't happened on Firefox.  Jujutacular  talk 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I'll reply on WP:Talk for consistency. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle
When are you going to use Huggle again?  WAYNE  OLAJUWON 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Why? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Moon jelly - adult (rev2).jpg
Hiya, I left you on the jellyfish nom, but I think maybe you didn't see it yesterday? Just wondering why it hasn't been closed as a promotion. Apologies if you were just allowing time for responses, but the phrasing seemed to indicate that you thought 6/3 would not be a promote. Thanks, :)  Mae din\ talk 22:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/delist/Deepwater oil spill 5-24-10
Replied there. It really needs to be delisted- that kind of thing makes a mockery of the guidelines. Process for the sake of process. J Milburn (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ping? J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been away for a while. I'm going to propose a change at FPC:Talk tonight. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thank you, and the same to you! Makeemlighter (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pink-tipped giant anemone
Hi, both versions are great, but if I have to pick one, I'll choose the original version. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

new Raphael 'Philosophy' image
Thanks for long overdue improved image of the main fresco, which not only sets verticals parallel but includes the 'predella' below, giving better sense of how image relates to space of the room (& its continuity with other three walls & architecture). When I get my old hard-drive reactivated, will supply gallery of views, showing how the tondo above relates to that space, too. As article gets ca 30k hits/mo.--probably mostly by students--seems worth keeping up gentle pressure, wresting this great work from grip of cliched conceptions. If a tiny fraction of those kids gets set on better track of understanding, this steady monitoring will be worth while.

Alethe (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but I can't really take much credit for it. It used to be the lead image but was replaced a few months back. The replacement was clearly inferior, so I'm not sure what was going on there. File:Sanzio 01.jpg is a Featured Picture - and just plain awesome! - so I had to restore it to the article. Cheers. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Gian Lorenzo Bernini
I doubt it- compare it to the source page. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kim Jones (athlete)
Dravecky (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add - well done on the article! I noticed that you have created relatively few articles in your time here: judging from this effort, hopefully it won't be your last. Congrats on the DYK! SFB 17:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I spent a lot of time searching for references - maybe too much considering how short the article still is! I plan to expand it further when I have some more time and energy. In all my time on Wikipedia, I really haven't done much content creation. I mostly spend my time at FPC, reverting vandalism, and categorizing articles. It was fun writing that article, though, so I plan to do more writing soon. Thanks again! Makeemlighter (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The time spent searching for information and sources is essentially a hidden activity. I know very well how much time it can take up! Still, one of the best things I've discovered is that by creating Wikipedia articles you can combine different sources to create something totally unique. I have come to believe that the great majority of useful material here is not created via the Million monkeys method but rather by a people making a researched and concerted effort on a topic. It's also a good way to learn about new things too! I'm glad you're having fun with it. SFB 23:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Vicki Huber
~ a week to wikipedia's birthday. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks! Makeemlighter (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN for History of wine
--Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Zachary Taylor image
Just wondering but what qualities was the image lacking that would preclude it from being promoted so that I am aware fro the next one? If placement is an issue I would gladly move it to a location of prominance on at least a couple of 20 or so articles on which it appears. --Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. The nomination lacked support votes, 5 of which are required for promotion. As for the image itself, that's always difficult to say. J Milburn's complaint seems to be that the image is redundant at Zachary Taylor. It's buried near the bottom of the article and doesn't seem any more illustrative or enlightening than the other images in the article. Voters typically expect an image to either be the lead image in an article or to illustrate a particular section of that article. This image may very well be the best image in the article, but its current usage makes it look like it was just tacked on. You might consider making it the lead image in that article and seeing if it sticks. I hope that helps. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll probably just stick to working in other areas. I saw this image and I thought wow that one should be a featured image so I submitted it...guess I was wrong. If I stumble onto one that looks like it might be a contender then maybe I'll submit it but otherwise, IMO, the criteria for becoming a featured picture seems less about the quality of the image and more about the timing and willingness of others to stop by and cast a vote. --Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN for Sargent Shriver
--Good effort! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

combining cleaned Tanner pic into file for old one
Can you teach me how to do that? Or do it? Now that voting is over, I want the cleaned pic to be the default one. I thought there was some way to make all the different ones be sort of versions in one file history? And I guess I need to do it within Commons. Do I need to be an admin? TCO (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. When dealing with restored/edited images, it's generally preferable to have a copy of the original, unedited version available as well. The two images are linked to each other on the image pages in the "Other versions" section of the description. As far as I know, to have them appear in the same file history, you would have had to upload the edit over the original. A Commons admin may be able to merge the file histories, but as I said, it's preferable to have a copy of the original and the edited image. I hope that answers your question. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I'm used to seeing like different versions of an image. They are all still available (not overwriting each other), but one is "prime".  and the other ones kind of show below.  Like with maps, will see multiple versions.  With Wilmer W. Tanner, there are two different total pages, sort of.  I'll ask on Commons though.  Sorry to be a blockhead.  P.s.  I have him in for a DYK.  Could be an end around to sneak my image into the front page?  TCO (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. If your hook with image is approved for DYK, the image will appear, although it won't appear as prominently as the POTD. By the way, if you feel that the edited version of the Tanner image is better than the original, you should go ahead and replace the original image in the articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the thumbs in other versions? Like at File:Florida topographic map-en.svg in the blue summary box? You can add those on Commons, if that's what you mean. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mine is not as big as yours, but I can still wave it on the front page
See Template:Did you know/Queue. Just having fun. It's all for building articles...TCO (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil
Hi, it's weird that the "related article" in "F and A" has to be Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil and not the main article on him! Tony  (talk)  12:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Strange things like that happen sometimes. The image apparently has good EV for the Apogee article, so that's good enough for me. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage Europe map
hi the reason that the lgbt europe map I requested and that you fixed was changed back was due to you using the wrong shade. could you please redo this using the same shade as Liechtenstein and jersey etc. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rctycoplay (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Sorry I was wondering could you add Kosovo into the map and make it gray. Also apparently Cyprus and the Faroe Islands should both be gray now as the issue has failed. Rctycoplay (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd probably have to re-make the map using a base map that includes Kosovo. I'll give it a try if I get a chance tonight. It shouldn't be too tough; it'll just take a bunch of coloring. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bug
Saw the issue with the script on your recent closure of Roy Hallady. It was because of the underscore in the transclusion. Probably won't happen much, but I may see if I can fix it.  Jujutacular  talk 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, you're the expert! I'm content with fixing problems, especially since I make so many errors myself. Thanks (for the 3289th time, I think) for working on the script. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've added some code which will hopefully fix this issue, and added an underscore on the next nomination to be closed. I'll keep an eye on it.  Jujutacular  talk 04:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Roaoaoaoaoar!!!


P.s. Thanks man.TCO (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Jockeys are sportspeople too
Ha! Just amusing myself. I often contend/argue that horseridin' and shootin' ain't sports, so my "a jockey is a sportsperson right?" comment was a bit of a late night personal joke. Anyway, even if they don't belong in 'sport', they probably don't belong in 'entertainment' either, cos they sure as heck aren't entertaining! :) --jjron (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Chernobyl radiation map 1996

 * Thanks!! Makeemlighter (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Credit
Hi Makeemlighter, Thanks for the notice. The "God Defend New Zealand manuscript" was originally uploaded by sonia. Can you give her credit as well? Thanks for your help. – SMasters (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. We typically only give credit to the following: (1) nominators; (2) image creators, e.g. photographer or map-maker; and (3) image editors, e.g. restorationist. We only the image's uploader credit if he/she falls into one of those categories. Basically, credit goes to people who had a substantive role in creating the image. Finding an image and uploading it does not qualify. That said, FP credits aren't strictly controlled. If you think Sonia deserves one, you're welcome to give her one yourself. The templates are listed in the FPC closing instructions. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so someone knows...
Thought I'd alert you to this: User_talk:Allen3 (see the for the background).

Just in case anyone asks or comments on the 'low-res' photo just promoted, or if the page here gets deleted and the image loses the FP star/link. It may also affect the tagging on Commons. --jjron (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FPC script archiving
I just noticed that you created the April archive. I believe some code I added a while back will create it automatically now, if you want to see if it works in May.  Jujutacular  talk 03:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, any progress with the Appalachian trail map?  Jujutacular  talk 03:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! I'll make sure to try that at the beginning of May. Yes, lots of progress. I was really busy for about 2 weeks, so it took me a while to get started. There is a ton of stuff in there that needs to be converted. I'm almost done, but it will be another few days. At this point, it might be worth creating a new nom, so maybe I'll ask the original nominator to withdraw. Either way, I'll make sure we get that thing out of the suspended noms by Wednesday. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Appalachian Trail FP Nom
Hi there, sorry for getting back to you so late but withdrawing sounds fine. I appreciate the work you're putting in. Cowtowner (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Vegetable lamb
Ping.  Jujutacular  talk 03:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look later tonight. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Royal Arms of the United Kingdom FPC
Hi im not sure you should have closed this nomination so early given that it had so few votes, surely it should have been placed in the nominations requiring additional input, given that there was no clear consensus on whether to promote or not --Thanks, Hadseys 10:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominations are closed after 9 days (when the little red text pops up), unless clarification of votes is needed. There are typically two outcomes: 5+ supports and >2/3 support leads to promotion; anything else leads to non-promotion. The nomination in question had fewer than 5 support votes. You're welcome to re-nominate it in the future. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh right was unaware of the protocol surrounding promotion non-promotion thanks for letting me know. Didn't mean it to come across as though I were having a go at you or anything --Thanks, Hadseys 22:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was in a rush earlier, so that's why I was curt. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured_picture_candidates/Sea_foam
Hello, Makeemlighter, may I please ask you to close Featured_picture_candidates/Sea_foam on way or another? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like one of them should be promoted, but nobody has stated a preference for either one. I was hoping everyone would stop by and say which one they prefer. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, everybody who supported the image supported both images, but original is opposed by three users, so, if anything should be promoted at all, it is an alternative because it was not opposed by anybody so far. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm off for a few hours, but I'll take a look again when I get back. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind...
...I thought Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled would be a good idea. My reasoning is there. Hope you get the right. Cheers,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - by  User:Ironholds, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I never even thought of that! I've probably created a few hundred local file pages by now, so I guess this will save someone some work. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That someone would be me. Since most New Page Patrollers don't look at files, I went in yesterday and cleaned out a large chunk, most untouched since April. Yours made up about 40% of the pages there. For some reason, the log doesn't really track local uploads, only new pages created from adding local text to images hosted on commons, however looking over it once a month is still useful. Cheers,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Maquereau fumé Luc Viatour.jpg
Thanks very much for the notification and the credit on this image—but my edit was very tiny! I feel a bit funny about it. I don't know the precedent on this sort of thing—I guess I'll leave it up to you, but I'd lean toward giving Luc sole credit if that's an option. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like to shortchange anyone, even if they make only a minor edit. You're welcome to remove your credit. Maedin actually did that for an image she made a minor edit to a few months ago. So, I guess this is my way of putting the ball back in your court! Any change you'd like to make will be fine with me. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And you're right to be so conscientious of course.  But I decided to remove it. Chick Bowen 05:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lothar Späth Ilsfeld 2011.JPG
I think you should count again ;-) --kaʁstn 14:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Tomer, Adam, Felix, and Cowtowner as Support and JJ as Weak Support. That's 4.5, right? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I'm very surprised that a "weak support" is 0.5... I didn't know this rule and haven't seen it anywhere until now. Is a "Weak Oppose" also just counting as a half oppose? --kaʁstn 17:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a "Weak Oppose" is also counted as half of an oppose. It's been that way for as long as I've been at FPC. There's been confusion at times, and I think the topic came up for discussion in a few of our "Let's overhaul FPC" discussions, but I don't recall any suggestions to change it. For what it's worth, 4.5 has been good enough to promote in several cases, especially if there aren't any "oppose" votes. Since the support wasn't unanimous here, though, I couldn't make an exception. Perhaps the picture would benefit from re-nomination in a month or so. Cheers. 20:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sweetgum Seed PPR
Hey Makeemlighter, can you remove my nomination in picture peer review? Looking back at the page history, it'll take nigh eternity for it to get reviewed there. I'm just gonna straightforwardly nominate it in featured pictures. Thanks, --Nanoman657 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know where I can get a copy of the form to make a subpage? The subpage button which I was going to use is blocked--Nanoman657 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean blocked? Nothing happens when you enter the name and then click on the button? Makeemlighter (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It leads me to a page that says this--Nanoman657 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what happened. You need to enter a name for the nomination in the box. There should be a box that says "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/" - just add the name of the nomination after the slash so that it reads something like "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sweetgum seed". Then click the button, and it should bring you to the newly created nomination page with the info for you to fill out. Let me know if that doesn't work. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it worked!--Nanoman657 (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

painted turtle map for FPOTD?
Any chance of putting our tutle map on the FPOTD? I know we are recent, but I do feel that we serve "diversity" in terms of being something different from a naturalistic photograph. Being more of a constructed diagram. It is best displayed large and probably on a day where there is no Featured List (since it is large in all dimensions). Appreciate the consideration, oh great FP leader! ;) TCO (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The man to ask is User:Howcheng. He schedules POTD. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pescadero State Beach
Hi Makeemlighter, thanks for checking the nomination. Not that I care too much, but the closure is wrong IMO. All opposes were made before edit2 was added. As you probably know, it is a common practice to request more votes, if some alternatives are added closer to the end of the nomination, that's why Alves's comment is wrong. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Comma
Would you be opposed to me re-nominating this image? It only failed because there were only 4 votes (no opposes) and I never saw it, but I would have been the fifth support vote. Let me know what you think (as the closing admin). Thanks! - Running On Brains (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long to respond. That image is definitely worth re-nominating. I usually advise that people wait a few weeks before re-nominating, so that you don't get a lot of "didn't this just fail?" comments. You're welcome to re-nominated it at any time, though. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

FP nomination of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
Hi Makeem. I just wanted to inform you that Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is up for Featured picture again. The nomination can be found here. I am informing you as you have previously closed a Featured Picture review of this image, here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man
If there is a way, that you can save it in FP as a gallery, even with captions, think that would be best for the reader. I know we have discussed some times when an arrangement of pics has value (like different parts of life cycle of an animal). Just think helps reader looking for ideas within FPs. Also, I'm only taking credit for one! :-) TCO (reviews needed)  23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FP and WP:PPR
I've decided to leave comments at Picture Peer Review since that area seems to be in need of feedback. I notice you're a pretty regular contributor there, and you seem to know a bit about photography, so I'd just like to let you know I'll be helping out, but I'm pretty much a novice photographer, so if I say anything you think is wrong or stupid feel free to correct me. Thanks! - Running On Brains (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

FP nominations older than 9 days
Hi, I'm not very familiar with the FPC closing process on enwiki, why this FPC is not closed yet? should I do anything about it? or is it only because there are too much comments?  ■ MMXX  talk  21:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When nominations end up in that section, either I'm busy or I'm lazy. I'll go take care of it now. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I thought I'm supposed to do something about it.  ■ MMXX  talk  23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama).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 this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kamal Abbas.jpg

 * Now that the results are confirmed (12 supports (2 Weak supports), 6 opposes), What happens next? The image is still not featured even tho it has more supports than opposes. Could you be kind enough to explain to me why the picture was Not Promoted. Also if there is no consensus, why was not the picture added here Thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We really only use that section for nominations where it is unclear which of several versions of an image should be promoted. Everything else gets closed at the end of the 9-day voting period. I counted 10 supports (Weak = 0.5) and 5 opposes, which is right at the 2/3 threshold for promotion. It seems clear from reading the discussion, however, that there is no consensus on whether B&W is acceptable for this image. Thus, not promoted. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the section cites several versions as a likely reason for nominations being put there, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. What matters is, as I understand, that to reach consensus requires more input from editors, which seems to be the case here, no? --Sherif9282 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I don't recall ever using the section for that, particularly since we instituted the hard 9-day nomination period. Anything other than a consensus for promotion leads to a "Not promoted" result. If you really think the nomination should be re-opened or the result changed, you're welcome to bring it up at FPC talk. And you're always welcome to re-nominate images that don't get promoted; I usually recommend waiting at least a few weeks. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Sherif is talking about this: Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support which this image have according to you: is right at the 2/3 threshold for promotion. I think that what is confusing us. If the picture has 2/3 majority in support, why it hasnt been promoted? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you mean. It's often an issue when a nomination sits exactly at 2/3. In these cases, the closer must determine consensus. Here, I determined that there is no agreement on whether a B&W image satisfies the FP criteria. Thus, the image was not promoted. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I love seeing all the different creatures you get pictures of. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing FPCs
Are non-administrators permitted to close FPCs and place the in the appropriate promoted or not promoted categories? My nomination of the Sotomayor photo has been waiting for a bit, and has 6 support 2 oppose. I'm willing to promote it myself if that's not considered COI to be the nominator and the closer. Pinetalk 19:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can close FPC nominations. We generally discourage nominators from closing their own nominations, however. I've taken care of closing this one. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Pinetalk 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of closing FPCs, it looks like you accidentally closed early. It's not supposed to close until 15:04 Wikipedia time. Pinetalk 06:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 12 hours early out of (9 days)(24 hours per day)=216 hours is less than 6% of the nomination period. Since the nom had 9 supports and 0 opposes, I figured it was safe to promote it. 4.5 opposes in 12 hours when no one had opposed yet didn't seem very likely. Sometimes I just like to get ahead of the game :) Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was highly likely to pass, but I think it's better to stick to the bright line rule for something like this. There's no strong reason to close early, is there? Pinetalk 06:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Closing remarks at Featured picture candidates/Semar Kris
Hi Makeem, I was wondering if your closing remarks at Featured picture candidates/Semar Kris meant it was okay to renominate speedily, or if they meant that it was okay to renominate after a period of time (a week or so, perhaps). Thanks in advance. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's probably fair to re-nominate fairly soon. FPC isn't too busy right now, so you might as well get it in now. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will set about that now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Daption capense in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg
Given alchemist's vote was conditional ("Oppose, but do a CA fix and I'll support"), but I was a bit lethargic in responding to it, do you think it is worth promoting that image now I've fixed it? I leave it up to you. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Apologies for being so hasty in the first place. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tako to ama
Hi, this sexual photo that is now featured: do I warn users in the SP write-up? Tony  (talk)  15:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you probably should. We didn't put a thumbnail of it on the FPC nomination page to keep that page SFW. Personally, I'm not offended by the image, but I wouldn't like having that pop up on my screen while browsing FPC or looking at the Signpost. If you just describe the image, I think that would be fair warning. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FP
Hi, I notices Featured_picture_candidates/October-2011 looks now like it gets over the line on votes. Very short of FPs this week for the Signpost (like, one promotion). If it's a foregone conclusion, perhaps we could stretch our usual time-window at the SP? Tony  (talk)  03:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response. That one has been re-nominated and there's a bit of discussion going on. It still has a few days to go and might not pass anyway. Sorry. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

FPC vote clarification has been completed
Hi Makeem. This has received the required clarification of supporting votes. Cheers,  Nik the  stoned  10:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll close it soon. Thanks for letting me know. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Old FP not properly closed
I was going to nominate this for FP and I realized it had already been nominated and passed, but it looks like it wasn't tagged as a Featured Picture and it doesn't appear to have been shown in the Signpost. Would you like to handle this? Thanks. Pinetalk 01:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it was tagged. It appeared in this Signpost and ran as POTD on 19 December 2010. It looks like someone deleted it after it ran as POTD, though. I'll ask an admin to restore it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I have added it to Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Water. Can only admins add FP tags? I looked at the history of the image page and I don't see that a tag was ever added. Pinetalk 05:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Restore FP file page
I've replied on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Closure concern
PLW has raised concern about a closure you made- please see. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Makeemlighter, please look at this discussion and respond there. Pinetalk 07:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Makeemlighter,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Seaweed farming -Nusa Lembongan, Bali-16Aug2009 edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 7, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-12-07.  howcheng  {chat} 18:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Grapess.jpg
Hi, I'm not convinced that this nomination was closed properly. I count enough supportive votes for promotion. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Best regards, O.J. (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied there. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 1997 in athletics (track and field), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Richardson and Maurice Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks DPL bot! Makeemlighter (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Alexz Johnson RFC
Hi Makeemlighter, I remember that you tried to get some reasonable discussion going on this issue, so I thought it relevant to let you know that there is now a discussion in progress at Talk:Alexz_Johnson, initiated independently by a previously uninvolved editor. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I took a look, but I don't think I'll weigh in for now. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Years in Athletics
I've replied to your question here. Thanks. SFB 11:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit - we should actually be populating these categories with these articles, rather than depopulating them. See Category:Years in association football for example. Cheers! SFB 01:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...WP:CATEGORY says "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Am I misreading that? It makes me think that 2011 in athletics (track and field) belongs in Category:2011 in athletics (track and field) but not in Category:Years in athletics (track and field) because the former is a subcategory of the latter. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you are already involved in a discussion about this with the Project Athletics leader. Why would you find a reason to remove the category that aptly describes the article and style of article that is 1968 in athletics? Trackinfo (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case that there is an eponymous category, the article should be placed in that category, as well as its broader categories (e.g. France is located within Category:France and both pages share the same parent categories). From a logical point of view, it's basically a way of bringing the category's relevant articles to the fore, while linking to their self-named subcats for further information.
 * Now I re-read the guidelines again, this idea isn't made explicit anywhere. On top of that, there seem to be some bizarre things going on such as Category:Categories named after Presidents of the United States, rather than those categories being in the seemingly reasonable choice of Category:Presidents of the United States (?). I typically avoid categorisation discussions because people seem very happy to spend a lot of time arguing over minutiae! There is trend towards burrowing articles into niches when personally I would prefer an open category system (e.g. Barack Obama would be present in the categories "Politicians" and "Politicians from Chicago, Illinois", and all relevant ones in between), but I don't think it's technically feasible at the moment. SFB 02:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the part about eponymous categories again. I guess 2011 in athletics (track and field) could be in Category:Years in athletics (track and field). None of the 30+ others are, though, so I thought it made sense to remove the only two that were. Feel free to revert those changes if you think it's best. I think it makes the most sense for the years in athletics articles to only be in the specific year category, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue. Sorry for any inconvenience. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

dashed line
Would an arc be better? With the one line "jumping" the other? We just want to show non-intersection.

TCO (Reviews needed) 16:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks
Not sure how I deleted that stuff. Don't even recall being on that page. Must have been a stray finger.TCO (Reviews needed) 22:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Figured it out. Had the template transcluded.  Thought I was deleting it on my page, but I was really eding into it and deleted the whole thing.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P.s. Did we slide by on Fluorine?  (and sorry I am argumentative, will cut my long rebuttal to Markedwards and try to relax.  Am a little on edge.)  Even if we don't get the barnie, we get a great peer review!  And maybe some concept for things on other element articles.  TCO (Reviews needed) 02:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Overturned delist decision where quorum/minimum delist votes criterion not satisfied
Since I won't be around for extended discussion of this issue, and you also already know that you have it coming, from past instances, when you make decisions like this, I've taken the decision to overturn your non-compliant closure. It's very clear that the default, i.e. "keep", must apply in this situation. If you had strong personal feelings about it, they should not have entered into the decision made, but rather, have given you cause to renom - after all, there's no hurry with delistings. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very clear that no one is interested in keeping this image and that it does not meet current standards. Do you disagree, or are you just playing rules lawyer because it makes you feel like a big man? J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of undoing your "overturn". If you feel the close was improper, discuss it on the talk page- you were bold, you were reverted, now you can discuss. Alternatively, if you actually believe that this image is worthy of the star and you're not just happily applying rules where they shouldn't be applied, renominate it, and watch it go down in a flurry of opposes. Closes like this have been made in your absence, and have been uncontroversial; the norm is shifting. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will reply at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Query about draft dodger picture
Thanks so much for facilitating the promotion of the draft dodger picture. As the nominator, I am delighted, and the creator will be even more so. I am afraid I am not very good at computer instructions. I have read the section "When promoted, perform the following," but so far as I can tell, all of that has been done on the picture's behalf already. If so, no need to respond. If I do have to enter more info., please let me know and I will get right to it. - Babel41 (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to do anything. I took care of it all. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Michael L. Printz Award winners (book)
Category:Michael L. Printz Award winners (book), which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Voter ID map
Great! Thanks so much for doing this map. Could you put a caption at the top of it saying "Voter ID laws as of February 2012"? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Quickie
Can you make a quick crop of File:Hawaii hotspot.jpg? I've made the appropriate request at the image workshop. Thanks, Res</b> Mar 19:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)