User talk:Jjron

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page (create a new thread by clicking the "new section" link above). If you are a troll, especially one from FPC, please refrain from wasting my time. Your comments will most likely be ignored.

Archives My talkpage discussions are archived in batches of 25.
13 May, 2006 to 23 October, 2006 24 October, 2006 to 7 October, 2007 7 October, 2007 to 13 December, 2007 14 December, 2007 to 1 February, 2008 1 February, 2008 to 23 March, 2008 23 March, 2008 to 5 June, 2008 5 June, 2008 to 7 November, 2008 7 November, 2008 to 1 March, 2009 1 March, 2009 to 16 August, 2009 16 August, 2009 to 21 October, 2009

Update on WP:FPC

Endomembrane system diagram and Animal Mitochondrion have been fixed by the wonderful ZooFari. Please have a look and see if you can spot anything else that needs to be changed.   Nezzadar ☎   03:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam

I'm not certain if I've correctly followed what you're saying. Do you still feel there is an issue? What do you feel needs to be added/clarified? If not, could you possibly strike your comment? J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My main issue is to do with the morality of correctly attributing creators, but I don't think many care about that type of thing. For the record I have added a further comment to try to clarify at the nom, but also hidden the discussion as semi-OT. --jjron (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of ethics conversation re Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam

Rather than clog up the talk page any more than I/we already have, I figured I'd bring it here. Yes I have, in a round-about way, said what you suggested I said regarding attribution, but that's not being up in arms, it's only requiring that they follow the terms of the license because that's what it was licensed as, which is a pretty fair request - hardly millitant. My motivation for requiring them to follow the terms of the license is mainly, as I said, wishing to restrict commercial exploitation of my images and I think that's a pretty fair motivation. As Fir0002 and many other photographers have clearly stated, we have no issues with our photos being used for educational purposes on Wikipedia (and other organisations with similar non-commercial goals), but it seems so far removed from the ideals of Wikipedia to provide our hard work for commercial entities to use in advertisements etc that make them money and provide the person who did the real work with nothing. It's pure exploitation. It's somewhat like bringing a load of volunteers to Africa who wanted to help build the locals a well, and instead asking them to build a mine for a Western company to strip the land of valuable minerals. You'd call that exploitation, but what is fundamentally different about requiring photographers to give away photos to similar exploitive companies with minimally restrictive licensing? ;-) The only difference is that when we license with CC-BY-SA/GFDL, we are knowingly signing away our rights to restrict commercial use and the Wiki community's attitude has always been: "This is what Wikipedia is, take it or leave it" and I've had to accept these terms in order to continue contributing to Wiki. I've 'taken it' grudgingly, but that doesn't mean I can't make it as difficult as possible to be exploited without breaking any rules, does it? ;-)

Also, getting back on track with the main topic. I just don't see it being a particularly strong ethical/moral issue. The photographer (if we are to believe the mother, and I don't see why there is any reason to suspect we shouldn't) has sold the rights to the photo. He no longer owns it or has any rights to it. I don't see how there is any grey area there. Furthermore, the mother doesn't claim to be the author of the image. Our inflexible image template might suggest that she claims authorship since the details are in the 'author' field, but it is stated pretty clearly in the text that an unnamed photographer is the author, and she is the owner. You could just as easily replace the text "Work for hire taken by a family photographer" with "Work for hire taken by an unknown photographer" and the information provided would be basically identical. Less informative actually. In any case, if your own moral compass won't let you support an image with an unknown author, then fine, but I just don't think it's a big deal for everyone else. It would only be a big deal if the author had a legal right to ownership IMO but he gave it away, or more likely, sold it for a hefty price. It's hardly exploitation when it's a business transaction. If you sold your car, you wouldn't then complain that you no longer had any right to drive it. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, but if you made the car by hand and having parted with all ownership rights saw it go on to win a design & build award, I'm fairly sure you'd want your name to be associated with it. The right of association with your work is a moral one, not legally recognised in some jurisdictions but one we should respect here, I feel. Particularly with recent captures (like celeb pics) it's no big deal to uncover the name of the photographer. My feeling is that, without high-profile recognition as a photograph many snappers would be ambivalent as to usage; it's high-profile publicity shot, they got paid, WFH was the deal, end of. But seeing your photo not only gain an accolade but appear on WPs main page attributed to someone else might conceivably upset some less-than-thick-skinned photographers. It's about respect and due consideration, basically, something we should all expect regardless of prima facie commercial arrangements. --mikaul^talk 10:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

True, I can see how you might want to have your name associated with the work and I accept that it's a moral issue, just as you accept that it is not a legal issue. I'm really not against finding the photographer's name at all, but I'd just find it extremely tiring to chase the attribution up on every occasion such as this. The real moral issue to me is the possibility that the mother of the child in the photo has not done the right thing by the photographer by not attributing it to him, not the fact that we haven't gone to great lengths to verify everything. As I said, I'm not against finding and attributing the photographer, but I don't see it as a valid reason for opposing, either, because I just don't see it as our role to correct other people's indisgretions. I just don't think it's our battle to fight. If individuals want to go beyond the call of duty, that's fine though, I applaud them for doing the right thing, but it should be done independently of the FPC nom because as you can see, Jjron's comments scared people into removing their support until 'licensing concerns' were addressed. Besides which, there is the possibility that it was actually one of the conditions of the WFH agreement that the photographer not be named and the mother to hold all rights. Not saying it's likely though, but let's not automatically assume that an evil has been committed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned copyright laws are meaningless - IMO if you are willing to put your images on the internet then effectively you're giving them away. Yes, I slap a licensing note on my images (GFDL 1.2 only IIRC) but IMO it doesn't mean a thing. I know some of my images have been used commercially, if someone wants to 'do the right thing' and pay me for that (and some have) then that's nice, and if the licensing prompts them to do so, then good. If they don't, well that's my bad luck. Nonetheless I would at least like to be attributed for them (also my bad luck if I'm not, but I must say I'd be particularly peeved to see someone else credited as the photographer). For amateur or educational uses, attribution is all I request when asked, and don't make any specific demands as to size, location, etc and don't pursue things. I think you may have chased some up beyond that? In respect of this image, I have a sneaking feeling it's not a 'professional' photo anyway. The 'family photographer' bit, the fact it's taken with a 'Digital Rebel XT' (what pro would do portraits with a 350D in 2009?), and even your comments on composition - I would say it's by some family member or friend who's into amateur photography. Therefore they probably haven't been paid and it's possibly not technically a WFH either. They may be quite happy for their work to be used here, especially if the mother's given it away on their behalf, but we don't know any of this. However that's a bit of a digression, and as you say not really up to us to determine I suppose - though perhaps comes back to my point earlier that that's possibly what should be happening at the point of submission with these OTRS images. Yes it would be tiring to chase up, but thus my comment at FPC that I'm not sure we should be nominating these images with poorly identified authors - if someone wants to chase it up and verify it that should be done and out of the way before nomination. Anyway, as I think we've agreed it's rather a moral decision, and people will hold different standards on that. --jjron (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'd echo much of that, especially as regards the value of attribution. With it, you have an audience for your work; without it, you only have consumers. Copyright's important though. Unless you release your stuff into the public domain, you release it under license of your copyright. All that might mean in practical terms is that you retain your claim on authorship, but without copyright you retain nothing. I'd also expand on your point about FPC, or featured pictures to be specific. The best thing about FPs is the example they set to the rest of our illustrative content; I'm sure I don't need to spell that out from a quality/EV angle. One of the unsung aims is that they be exemplars of the way free content is handled on the web, rather than jeopardise our chances of attracting copyright-aware, professional quality contributions. We need to get things like attribution absolutely right, especially on the front page, regardless of whether it's a professional shot or not, to save us looking like complete amateurs and our audience a bunch of mindless consumers. --mikaul^talk 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also agree that copyright/license terms are virtually unenforcable on the internet en masse, just as piracy is. However, the bigger the fish, the bigger the fry-up. ;-) We just have to pick our fights carefully. I'm making very clear the conditions of the licensing so that if any of my images do get misused by a big company who should know better, then I will reserve the right to chase it up. I let Apple's big misuse of one of my photos slide a few years ago (if you weren't aware, they used my Colosseum photo in one of their advertisements for the then new Leopard OS without any attribution or licensing, along with a couple of other Commons images). My intention would not have been to bleed them for all they're worth (although it does sound tempting), but I was pretty pissed off that they did it and I saw it as a situation where they should have paid for the image for commercial use like that. I actually have no idea how I would have gone about persuing it legally (cheaply, that is) though, and that was the problem. I just put it in the 'too hard' basket. But to accept that any photos on the internet are effectively given away is like accepting that if you walk out your front door today, you might be murdered - c'est la vie! But surely we should do what we can to avoid it, and to encourage a system that minimises the chances of it: Enforcement of law. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, if I didn't accept that I might be murdered when I left my front door I'd never leave home, if I didn't accept that I may be wiped out by a motor vehicle every time I ride my bike I wouldn't go riding, if I didn't accept that my images would get nicked I wouldn't put them on the 'pedia... :-) Yeah, you take precautions to minimise risks, but that's why I've argued before that there's precautions you can take to limit misuse to some degree, like not uploading images at huge resolutions. To enter into a different debate (!), and I've also said this before, IMO in the digital age copyright is a relic of the past, a three hundred year blip of history that we now need to move beyond. The only thing keeping it alive atm is the big moribund corporations whose business model relies on sustaining antiquated copyright laws, and the puppets in government who are in their pockets. Innovative businesses have already moved on. --jjron (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between accepting that there is a possibility of being murdered, and a certainty that you'd be murdered! The only thing separating those two concepts is law and the subsequent enforcement of that law. Even if I did downsample, it would only, as you say, reduce the incidence slightly. It would still happen if there were no way to enforce the license. I'm not sure how any content creator could expect to survive (financially speaking) in this "digital age" if they couldn't protect their work from being exploited in some way. I know that (for example) stock photography sites like iStockphoto has clever ways of letting you zoom in on the images without being able to screen capture them, but ultimately, they too can be ripped off if you purchase the image and then decide to ignore the terms of the purchase, like reselling it. It still comes down to enforcement of laws. Whether they be so-called antiquated Copyright law, or some other form of protection of content, it still needs to be enforceable. If not, then we have digital anarchy. :-) I'm all for free distribution of content that has no inherent value to the author/contributor, but when that content is also a source of income, then it's only fair that they'd want to protect it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that most people have moral rather than legal reasons for not committing murder or similar, which is kind of back to the original debate about moral standards. Similarly I think most people pursuing use of your images are probably doing so for moral rather than legal reasons. If you think copyright laws are there to protect you or other artists then you're fooling yourself. That may have been their original intent, but as you yourself say you don't know how you could even reasonably pursue it. Realistically it's restricted to the big corporations to pursue copyright violations, and they don't do it to protect the artists, but to protect their profits. Yes you could pursue on an individual level if you wanted to go to immense trouble, but probably with less return than what you'd have to put in. At one stage I was putting up images here as copyright free, expressly stating there were no restrictions on their use. I still got a number of requests by people wanting to use them outside Wiki. Why? The images clearly said they could be used by anyone for any purpose, but obviously people still felt making a request was the right thing to do. As you suggest above there's ways around almost any technical restrictions, yet most people who want to use these things are willing to pay if they know that's the expectation. In most cases legal concerns might deter just a small percentage of the population. You may been spending too much time reading the Murdoch press. ;-) --jjron (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a semi-related note- although I was a little exasperated in the Lucy Merriam nom, I did take your comments to heart, and before the upload of my latest FPC, I replied to Shea's email, asking for a clarification of the actual author of the image, which he provided. Hopefully, that nomination will be able to run its course with discussions of the merits of the actual image only. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good work on that. I'm not sure how workable you believe that is as a solution, but as I've said above, and I think Mick has similar thoughts, that's the right thing to do IMO, especially for images that will be put up as FPs. If it turns out you don't get info on the photographer, then you'd have to decide what to do, but at least you could say you'd tried to acquire it. --jjron (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sets

I know the individual images are tagged as FPs, so I assume each one is individually counted as such. But I really don't know. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• All I can say is look at File:Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 1.jpg, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It's what I used as a starting point. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam 2

Thanks for the promotion. I thought it may get a little messy... J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talkpage. --jjron (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree- the licensing issue was more an "administrative" discussion anyway. J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category Invite

Please add the category [[Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors]] to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks,   Nezzadar ☎   17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you would approve...

...of this shirt Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I kind of like how they are happy to name their directory www.jinx.com/men/shirts/geek/... --jjron (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

They are a company that makes clothing exclusively for nerds and geeks. Most of my shirts come from them. If you are interested, I can refer you (which means I get a bonus), or you can just get the shirts without the referral (which has no impact on you). Hurray for marketing... Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Might have a browse of their website at some point to see if they've got anything I like, but delivery costs are usually a killer (I assume they're US based). --jjron (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

California, so about as far for you as for me, assuming you are in Aussie. Its low for me though. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't actually know where you're from, but most companies charge a packet for international postage. --jjron (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Japan photos of people

Hi, by any chance do you know where to find in Wikipeida (or where to ask) what rules apply to photographs of people to be allowed to be published in Wikipedia. Specifically I am interested in the case of Japan. Thanks  Franklin.vp  20:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Franklin. Commons is usually a better place to look for that type of info being the file repository, though Wikipedia sometimes has slightly different rules (usually a little more liberal). Two useful pages to have a look at might be Photographs of identifiable people and Freedom of panorama (that one is really more about buildings and the like, but it can relate to people being visible in your photos). Cheers, --jjron (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for.  Franklin.vp  13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sacred kingfisher

Hi I am a designer for Norfolk Island philatelic. I am enquiring about using the Sacred Kingfisher photo taken by John O'Neill in a page of the island's stamp yearbook. There are only about 250 copies of the yearbook printed. Would it be possible to use the photo? Thank you very much, Please contact me at stampdesign@yahoo.com Mary Pavicich ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stampdesign (talk • contribs) 06:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Will send an email later tonight. --jjron (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently closed Black Panther nom

I was under the impression that I had cast my support for the nom, but when I saw that it did not pass, I also saw that I forgot to support. Would it make a difference now? Is it too late? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't be a good idea to allow people to go back and cast retrospective 'votes', it could set a dangerous precedent, so yes, I'd say it's too late. The image can always be renommed at some point. I'd also be inclined to say this really needs two more supports anyway to be convincing (the oppose votes give quite strong reasons, the same can't be said for some of the supports). --jjron (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Minimum supports on FPC

Yeah, I haven't been able to participate as much as I've been liking; thanks for the message...I've been playing football (soccer, if you wish) for a local club, and life's been busy. I'll go check it out. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My FPC

Thank you for 'deborking' my FPC. It's my first one :) Jujutacular ^T · C 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The main issue was that it was interfering with the next nom down the page. Good luck - it can be a trial by fire. --jjron (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Photography page

Since this picture was recently promoted to featured you increased the size of its thumbnail on the Photography page (from 175px to 250px). However, at least for me, the new size causes the picture to overlap the table to the left of it, so I (without any malicious intent) reverted your edit. Did you notice anything similar? Basically, all the thumbnails above it are 175px across, so increasing the size of that particular one will cause misalignment in any case. Thanks for having a look! Tomatoman (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. --jjron (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

useage of brighton beach boxes photo.

Hello there John, great photos.

One in particular has our interest. We would like to know if we can use your Brighton Beach boxes photo for a shop front window in Hampton Street, Hampton, VIC.

We are unclear of the license in regards to this image, although a section out of 'GNU Free Documentation License' led us to consider it may be possible to use without your permission.

'2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.'

We'd rather know what you feel about us using your work on a window, Cheers

Roger Essig, 0401170196 Black Rock Signs

If need be i'll remove this message from this talk page. Roger Anthony Essig (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Roger Essig

Replied via email. --jjron (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No quorum?

Referring to my FP nomination, I understand that three votes are a bit too few to represent the community, but could you point me to the guideline that says such nominations are to be rejected after one week and not, say, extended? Thanks. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. --jjron (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I take the same issue with this closure. The only votes were support, this is the definition of something moved to the "7 days, time to make a decision" section. This wasn't conflicting votes, just not enough votes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. --jjron (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's the whole point of that "time to make a decision" section. And the whole point of the template up top for candidates needing votes. Closing this 1 day after the minimum simply because of not enough votes (not any kind of unresolved conflict) just forces me to wait and renominate something that doesn't show any sign of not passing. What purpose does closing it serve? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps would be nice if you'd read my reply to Yerpo's question, which you added onto, rather than attacking, as I've already discussed this stuff with him. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

FP delist templates

Hi! You reverted two changes I made to FPdel templates [1] and [2]. Maybe you haven't noticed that there was a clear reason and consensus on these changes here and here. Elekhh (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. --jjron (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I will reinstate the changes to the templates, based on previous reasoning: a key criteria for listing/delisting is often discussed in terms of EV, and in order to be able to properly judge that is good to have handy the links to the articles in which the image appears. In terms of consensus: indeed there was one support by upstateNYer on the FP talk page (while no oppose) but I also provided link to a discussion on a particular delist nomination, where there was general support for the same proposal from another two users: Papa Lima Whiskey and Maedin, while again no oppose. Hence I called it consensus.

Eh, even counting all them, you'd have four supports, which wouldn't be enough to get an FPC promotion ;-). And as I said on your page, we wouldn't usually count comments made during a nomination. Yes, it can be relevant (though the links are easy enough to find), though for delists it's often not relevant at all - nonetheless if the nominator deems it not to matter I guess they can just say so ("irrelevant" or "NA" or something) rather than listing the articles. --jjron (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your comment to the other proposal (c), could you leave a short note of your support on the FP talk page? Elekhh (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jigging off Queenscliff Pier

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Jigging off Queenscliff Pier, Vic, jjron 5.12.2009.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --jjron (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Happy and fruitful New Year, both in real life and here. Brand[t] 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

FP closure rules

Hi John, may I please ask you if English Wilipedia FP follows any rules of the time of the nomination? Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinnacles National Monument should have been closed a week or more ago. It had enoug votes to pass, or I am missing something? Thank you, and a Happy New Year!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. --jjron (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Successful featured picture nomination

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Ants eating cicada, jjron 22.11.2009.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --jjron (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FPC closing

Hey John, I was looking over Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mitchell Map and I personally wouldn't have closed it as successful. Four supports and an oppose wouldn't exactly do it for me. Care to comment? upstateNYer 05:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I thought the minimum was 5 supports anyway. Maybe he didn't differentiate between normal and weak supports. I don't really have a problem with this promotion, though, since the major objection was that it's too big of a file. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Can't really remember my flawed reasoning ;-), but I think having actually read the comments, the two 'weak supports' gave as their reason for being 'weak' that the filesize is too big (Milburn for example stated he only viewed part of the file due to its size, thus felt he could only give a 'weak'). Now I hate big files as much as (in fact probably more than) almost anyone, however being big isn't a reason to oppose per se, they've actually been encouraged on many fronts, thus I essentially took it as five supports (I assume you're saying four supports as 3 full + 2 half, rather than a miscount? As I've said before I personally don't apply that strict mathematical interpretation as a hard and fast rule, I look for reasoning). This is where the closer discretion comes in I suppose; in fact I was probably semi-conscious of my natural bias against it for being so big, so was maybe more cautious to 'avoid' that. Does that make sense? --jjron (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I still don't really see why we don't give a quick sentence or two explaining the closing decision, particularly when it's close like that one was. I know it was opposed when it came up in the Big Discussion, but I wasn't really satisfied with the reasons why. It only takes at most 30 seconds to do, and saves these sort of questions down the line (and satisfies the curiosity of those who do see the decision but can't be bothered to debate it! ;-) ). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, but nothing's quick :-). Explaining that decision may take 10 minutes, not 30 secs. FWIW watching closings for some time I suspect that giving any justification seems to lead to more rather than less further debate - and thus yet more time consumed. For example a few recent closures where I've put 'no quorum' have led to challenged decisions, to the extent where I will no longer be using that in closings. I'm not sure whether it's a psychological thing (where are the wikishrinks when you need them?), but perhaps if people think they see any indication of uncertainty in the closing, they think it's ripe for challenge. However I welcome you to show us the way and take on closing with fully detailed reasonings for each ;-). --jjron (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

K, just checking. I personally wouldn't pass it, but as long as you have a reasoned explanation, I no longer have an issue. upstateNYer 03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The nomination recently closed by you as "Not promoted" (4 Support, 0 Oppose, 0 Neutral). User:Mcshadypl asks on the page: "Am I missing something here? Why was this not promoted?" I do want to ask you the same question. Note: The nomination was placed in "Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!" on 15th and closed on 17th. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• That image lacks the 5 supports necessary for promotion. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If an immediate renomination possible?? Where is the 5 support clause written? Note there were no comments or opposes. It was in "Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!" only for 3 days. Could it have been put in "Older nominations requiring additional input from users"? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

An immediate renom is allowed, but usually not recommended (usually best to wait a month or two). The five supports is at the top of the FPC page (3rd paragraph, "...with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor...". FWIW three days would usually be considered quite a long time in decision time - in general closers try to do it as close as possible to the seven days, or you end up with awkward situations like that now seen on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinnacles National Monument which on votes should have promoted after seven days, but now seems to have tipped into not promote territory after having been left too long. The Older noms section is merely meant to be a section for users to clarify their situation, not to garner new votes per se. --jjron (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Clouds id?

Hey jjron, Could you id the clouds in this pic? --Muhammad(talk) 02:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Nah, can't sorry. Clouds are far from my strongpoint, so I'd basically just be guessing. There must be some good cloud identification site on the internet. It kind of looks like there may be two main types, with potentially a third at top, but maybe all just variations (as I say I just don't know enough). I think the other thing that could be important to know (given this is taken from above) is the approximate altitude. Maybe you could ask at Portal:Weather. --jjron (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought there were three types but was not quite sure. I put it up at the portal. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 14:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Promoted FP: Robbie McEwen

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Robbie McEwen, Cyclist, jjron, 2.01.10.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Elekhh (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --jjron (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Brown Falcon Image in Icelandic Art Show

Alexander Zaklynsky Reykjavik 101 Iceland

I have found your work and the images are impressive. I have gone as far as using them as inspiration for an art work. an image can be seen at the following link http://www.losthorse.is

If you would like to be in contact my Email is alex@losthorse.is

Thank you for the wonderful capture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.4.83 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the the information and the compliments Alex, and nice work. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:TWGTT-Haas-&-Benjamin-Postmatch,-RLA-Melb-10.11.2007.jpg

Hi, this image lacks a license. Regards Hekerui (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's sad that you didn't get notified before. I always try to do it. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Omg your images are really good, I somehow hadn't looked before. Keept it up :) Hekerui (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You could request undeletion of the image from the deleting admin Rocket000 and then add a proper license. This would work for other images of yours that were deleted, too, and is really no problem for admins. Hekerui (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi John,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Brighton Beach, Vic Pano, 10.01.2009.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 22, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-03-22. howcheng {chat} 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good one

• Still following your work. AwesomeSyler.mi4 (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, both. --jjron (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

PPR question

Hi. Quick question. I was going to archive some of the noms over at WP:PPR when I saw "...creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary." at the top of the archive page. Since all of the noms are from before April, do they belong in the Jan-Mar archive? I started the Apr-Jun one already, but I stopped adding them after I saw that. I'm sure it's not a big deal; I just wanted to be consistent. Thanks! Makeemlighter (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Makeem's talkpage (a bit tardily). --jjron (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, Is everything ok? Seen very little of you, the past few weeks --Muhammad(talk) 19:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied (at last) on Muhammad's talk. --jjron (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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) 11:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that, looks like I've missed it though, but that's OK... --jjron (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Shane Kelly

Apparently that's true. Unfortunately, it's also copy/paste, so... HalfShadow 16:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that may be a circular reference. It seems like that page is just directly quoting the Wikipedia article. If you click on 'more' it goes up to about the first 1000 characters in the WP article, then just gives an ellipsis and a link to the WP article. Go back to it in a few days and all that gunk will probably be gone. Either that or someone there has just copy and pasted the WP article in - the first four sentences are word for word from the WP article, and they've been in WP for over a year, and were clearly a rework of far earlier text.

In fact, if you scroll to the bottom of the page and click on "If you know more about Shane Kelly, you can add more facts here »" it then takes you to an edit page. Click on "Edit Description" under the bio and it gives the warning message "This descriptive summary comes from Wikipedia. Would you like to replace it and write one specifically for Freebase?". So definitely just a WP ripoff. --jjron (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Gary Sinise on stage

Since you voiced an opinion at the unsuccessful WP:FPC nomination, I thought you might consider the Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Gary Sinise on stage nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Haven't actually bothered to participate at VPC for a long long time, but good luck with the nom. --jjron (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Demetri McCamey signals a play‎

Do you have any thoughts on my tilt adjustment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Demetri McCamey signals a play‎?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say there's still just a tiny tilt, but it does look better now, especially at the top. However I'm not really sure what you've done - it seems like you're saying you've done a 'perspective correction' rather than a 'tilt adjustment', which may explain why the top looks better? Why? Why not just fix the tilt? --jjron (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted a rotation. Is this what you want?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. --jjron (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Demetri McCamey signals a play

Please see Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Demetri McCamey signals a play.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Single-Use" FPs

I'm starting a discussion here. NauticaShades 16:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. --jjron (talk) 13:40, 4 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)

Cheers. --jjron (talk) 12:01, 19 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)

And cheers again. --jjron (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Ratner Athletic Center

I see you rendered a cursory opinion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Ratner Athletic Center. I am trying to tweak things in response to feedback and need some opinions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just commented at the linked talkpage. Come on Tony, please start listening to the feedback you're getting. This is really starting to waste a lot of people's time. --jjron (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you think I tweaked the usage in counterweight? I was requesting comment on the proposed format on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Image peer review

I hope you are doing well. I see that you are a frequent contributor to to WP:PPR and was wondering if you could peer review some images I've gathered. I have a gallery at Commons of images I've uploaded in the past that I think meet size requirements, but am unsure on the other criteria. Could you please take a look and see if there are any possible FPCs? I recognize that if any had potential, they would likely need to be altered, but I'd like to know which have a shot. If you're interested/have time, feel free to comment here or on the talk page of the gallery. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --jjron (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I only took the image of the pool (which is likely a long shot, but it met size requirements, so I included it just in case). The rest I either got permission for from Flickr (that's how I get the majority of the images I upload to Commons) or from military public domain images. There's no hurry if you're busy, and if you can only review a few, that works for me. Could you take a look at File:StanleyTucciMay09.jpg, File:BarnPennMar08.jpg, File:MileyCyrusApr09.jpg, File:MaryHartAAFeb09.jpg, and File:FA18CHornetOverSanDiegoNov08.jpg? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Replies here about those five. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful comments, I appreciate it. I figured many of the ones in the gallery had some issue(s) that could turn them away from FPC, so it's good to find out in advance instead of wasting editors' time by nominating. I know that the barn image just barely met the size requirements, but figured the preferred larger size designated at WP:WIAFP would be ideal, not necessarily the actual requirement. Concerning the chopped-off head of the Cyrus image, although I would have also preferred a better cropped headshot, I figured that it was allowable due the passing of File:MARTAKIS1.jpg. That's why I'm also unsure if File:AngusMcLarenApr09.jpg would work as well for its tight crop. For the Tucci image, although it's b&w, it is similar to File:Mark Harmon 1 edit1.jpg or File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983 edit.jpg. I figure since its the best picture that we have of him available now on the encyclopedia, that if it became an FP, it could be demoted and replaced if we ever do get a high-quality color image of him. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this...

Not sure if you were monitoring this nomination at all. I asked for comments on the edit vs. the original. When I checked back later, I saw this and did a major face-palm. I was very relieved to see a clear consensus form, and you should be too - I was going to ask you to close it! Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny. Couldn't have been better if the Original and Edits had alternated. :-) Nearly needed some closer discretion there. --jjron (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy closes

I've suggested a speedy close on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Richard Cordray, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BMW M3 and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HomelessParis, if you fancy doing the honours. If you return the favour on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool (you've already commented, closing it wouldn't be mega-legit) I'll close that, and we will have cut down the number a little- keeping the page moving can only be a good thing. J Milburn (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, will take a look later. Am heading out atm. FWIW I may withdraw Apollo Bay just to clear some space, as that's obviously failing, not that I usually withdraw as it tends to look like you're sulking. --jjron (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Makeem's beaten me to it anyway... --jjron (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Snidely as well, though time's almost up on that one anyway. --jjron (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And FWIW, Trafalgar Ships has actually been withdrawn. --jjron (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I've been spending entirely too much time on the FPC page lately. And, apparently, watching your talk page too! Makeemlighter (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)