This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jjron. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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. upstateNYer03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
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. --RedtigerxyzTalk02:21, 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"? --RedtigerxyzTalk04:23, 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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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\talk06:36, 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;}
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Not a problem, I wasn't complaining. FWIW I've withdrawn Apollo Bay if someone wants to sweep that up - with a bonus prize for whoever can pick up the stitching error that no-one detected! :-) --jjron (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Sorry, but I'd have to oppose it there too; as I suggested at FPC, I believe it's quite reproducible, so many of the technical issues still matter at VPC. (I wish you hadn't notified me; I don't usually watch VPC.) --jjron (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I put it into both because it was an odd nomination - the images being promoted because of it were new images, not particularly similar to the one they replaced, so I decided the best thing to do was to treat it as a delist and a promotion, doing the full process for both. Adam Cuerden(talk)23:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought that may have been the case. It just looked odd when I stumbled across a delist nom amongst the regular closings, so was just wondering if it was intentional. I think you pointed out on the talkpage something about maybe having to look into making 'official guidelines' for handling these delist noms differently when the replacement is considerably different from the delist original - could have to do so. (BTW I noticed my question ended up on Commons, but only later; I just followed a direct 'talk' link off your sig, however having just checked it, it seems to go to en:wiki now. Odd.) --jjron (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
...on my home address being included with that picture. Not sure how I missed it when I transferred the info to Commons. Must have been hung over that day. Anyway, thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.
There are currently 0 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!
The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.
Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that one of your images was delisted and replaced over at FPC. You should have been contacted earlier, but people tend to skip that step nowadays. The change is pretty non-controversial, so I hope you won't have any complaints. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, they've been skipping those sort of protocols and common courtesies for a long time. Typical of the pig-ignorance of most involved there these days, with the exception of yourself and about half-a-dozen others. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Darn!
Hi there. I noticed on my watchlist that you removed some links from your user page, and upon further inspection, I discovered you've retired from participation at FPC. I figured as much, but I'd hoped you were only taking an extended break. I wanted to let you know that you'll be missed, and we'll always welcome you back if you choose to return. You have been consistently one of the best photographers and reviewers we've had. FPC is rather strange now. Quite a few of the big names from when I first showed up no longer participate: MER-C, Fir, Janke, and Durova come to mind. That's the way Wikipedia works, I suppose, with lots of users coming and coming. Anyway, I'm glad you'll still be contributing to the rest of the encyclopedia. See you around. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, after having some down time earlier this year I have not been heartened at all by the place since I returned; I may just be getting cynical, but it seems that the general level of discourse is worse there than ever. After giving it another break I decided I don't really miss it at all, and that what time I do have to dedicate to Wikipedia could be much better spent on far more productive uses. Am still in the process of revamping my userpage (you've noticed the first steps, but it is still pretty FP heavy, so I'm going to scale that down further), and at that time I will post a bit of a critique of FP/FPC, though not something I want to spend too long on. It's true what you say about many of the 'big names', or what I may characterise as the better contributors, passing by the wayside - even the likes of Diliff and Muhammad are little more than 'part-timers' these days. Perhaps it's just that you inherently hold a bit more respect for those that were there when you first arrive, but maybe it's not just that. I just find FPC a sadly combative place these days, where it used to be far more friendly - sure there were always disagreements, but most people operated in good faith, a trait that seems to be getting rarer. Two users in particular (you probably don't need too many hints) seem to strive to make it particularly miserable, and there appears little will from most users in combating them. Anyway, you are one of the few users left there that I have any time for, so happy to deal with you. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Happy Jjron's Day!
Jjron has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Jjron's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Jjron!
You are quite welcome. :) A little history on the program, they come from two users, User:Rlevse and myself. We have seperate programs, but the same general award. There were two other users who did the same thing (one was the starter of the program) but have since left Wikipedia. Rlevse and I try not to cross paths in award, so people don't get the award multiple times. Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, the Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.
Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
Discussions are underway to elect our inaugural group of GOCE Coordinators. Guild members and Drive participants are invited to have a look at the Coordinators page and join the discussion on its associated talk page.
Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join!
Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive.
Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated.
Stats
GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive graphs
58 people signed up for this drive. Of these, 48 people participated in the drive.
Although we did not eliminate the months we planned to (January, February, and March 2009; and August, September, and October 2010), we did reduce the backlog by 627 articles (11.2%), which was over our goal of 10%.
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks.
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Highlights
Membership grows to 503 editors
2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jjron. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
