User talk:Makeemlighter

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Launch pad

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

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

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

Bicycle diagram

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

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

Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.

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

Closure?

Please explain your closures.

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

Neither image received enough support. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? You wrote above about a five point quota, which does not seem to be documented. Where is this policy or guideline? Why not just keep the pictures open until enough comments are given. We could have asked at the mathematics and economics projects for comments if some deadline for reaching a quota were known.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's in the header. "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the old "hiding in plain sight" ruse. ;)
    
    For David's pictures, most votes were positive. The negatives were most concerned about accessibility, which is not a criterion, and which I suppose is discounted.
    
    Can you relist it and give it a few days, and I'll ask for reviews at the wikiprojects mathematics and economics? (If the reviews were evenly split or even negative, then it would be a waste of time to relist.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry for the delayed response. You're free to re-nominate the image at any time. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]