This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
If the wizard still functions with the Image/File changeover, would you mind sharing it? I've been trying, but failing, to keep up ending noms. Without the wizard a successful close takes me 10–15 minutes, and I don't have that kind of time to devote to FPC every day. Welcome back! Wronkiew (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know how annoying it is to do it manually (what I did to minimize the time taken was to promote two or three in parallel to take advantage of copy/paste synergies). The wizard still works, in fact I am doing a large closing run at the moment. I was going to say "email me" but my email account is most easily accessed from the computer with the broken graphics card. MER-C07:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MER-C, May I please ask you how many support votes are required to promote an image to FP status? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that the correct tag for images which have only a description page here but the image itself is on Commons is {{db-f2}} rather than {{db-f8}}. The latter tag is used when the image is uploaded both here and on Commons. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this closed as no consensus. There were five supports and only three opposes (all of which were weak). Could you please elaborate? GARDEN11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three opposes were for the same reason and as such I wasn't satisfied that the images satisfied criterion 3. Generally speaking, pictures rarely get promoted with less than two thirds in support. MER-C12:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having now spent a number of enjoyable months over at FPC, I've come to realize that the place only runs so smoothly due to your expertise and tireless upkeep within the project. In appreciation, here is a well-deserved barnstar and a hearty thank you. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»04:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is going on there? LOL. I left them a note on there saying to read about what shouldn't go on someone's user page and then they keep on adding more blatant adverts. I did look it up on Google though, and they do exist. In fact they have quite the repertoire or specialities. Am I wrong in being appalled at the balls some of these people have? xD --AmaraielSend Message07:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that you have twice reverted an external link on the Amble page to Northumberland Coast - Amble and am somewhat puzzled. (It was not me that inserted the link, by the way). I have checked Wikipedia:External links and cannot see any obvious reason why this link infringes Wikipedia policy. There is another link on the page to Northumberland Yoga that seems to infringe a whole host of policies, but that has been left untouched. Can you have another look and see whether you still feel the link should have been removed (I suspect you may have seen the advert for Property For Sale and Rent on The Northumberland Coast and considered that this was the sole purpose for the page. However, I think such a view is questionable as the page includes quite a well written tourist summary for the town with useful external links, and gives equal prominence to an advert for the North East Regional Development Organisation ONE North East). Skinsmoke (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as MER-C's day!
For your great work with images,
enjoy being the Star of the day, MER-C!
Can you close the old noms at FPC? I've been trying to do it, but it takes me ~25 minutes a nom to close, and I don't have the time to do it. Thanks, SpencerT♦C22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've promoted a few in the last couple days. Tell me if I'm doing anything wrong, though I don't think I am - I've been carefully following the instructions and double-checking. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just happened to stumble across this. While I'm certainly not asking either of you to change your minds (I agree it could have gone either way), I'd like to say that the building in the foreground isn't a major element of the subject IMO. It isn't actually part of the Port at all, and as I mentioned in the FPC, is it pretty difficult to avoid given publically available viewpoints. In ignoring consensus (and the detailed discussion), aren't you using a bit too much discretion? ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely a fail if Wronkiew hadn't changed. And you'd better get used to me using a bit more discretion - there are some current nominations that need it. MER-C09:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Wronkiew did change his opinion, so you can't use "what ifs" to justify your position. If, when closing, you're going to use discretion based on your own opinion of the image itself, then you are no longer an independent third party.. I thought that closer discretion was supposed to be aimed at interpreting the arguments of the voters as being legitimate or illegitimate, rather than judging the image itself? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did my first FPC closing today (QE2 Bridge) and want to take part in it more. That said, I wanted to know about the time limit. If an image is close to the 7 days, and has very clear consensus, can it be closed early or should it still wait until the 7 day min (such as this)? I just wanted to know what you think about the judgement call. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣21:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that's a fair point; I won't do that again. But does that mean you prefer to no longer vote in FPCs since you close most of them? Or do you just not toss in the final vote? ~ ωαdεstεr16♣kiss mei'm Irish♣07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I do is use the consensus in the debate and if necessary my own appraisal to determine whether an image meets WP:FP?. And yes, that is the reason why I rarely vote. MER-C09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sooooooooooo sorry
Please forgive me for removing the *Whole* article about the IRA thing.
I am sooooooooo sorry. I am triumph, really, I am. Believe me. I swear to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.47.130 (talk • contribs)
This user is really getting on wick now, he's abused both of us and is the most persistant vandal I've seen since joing in 2007. Could you please help me and keep an eye on him? Reported to WP:AIV but he's still active. Cheers! cf38talk12:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yo MER-C, Sup?
It has been 4 days sience we last talked. back then, I removed the whole IRA page, and later on appologized for that. You told me not to do it again, and boy - I won't! No, really. Just wanted to check if everything is still OK with you? Have there been much vandalizem around sience then?
Cheerz, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.47.130 (talk • contribs)
Hey MER-C, shouldn't edit 3 have been promoted here? It had two definite supports and had only a minor change made to it compared to edit 2 which was also supported by 2 users earlier on in the nomination. --Muhammad(talk)12:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make a convincing case for promotion, and if there was consensus it was very weak. Closing these things is very hard when you have as many supports as candidate images, especially when you can't trust your reviewers as much as you used to. MER-C09:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Virtual Collection of Masterpieces
Hi Merc,
I just discovered the Possible copyright infringement on the The Virtual Collection of Masterpieces article.
My professor of anthropology Laurence Caillet wrote the first version of this article that I found really relevant for Wikipedia.
I would like to know if I can restore her version even if the press release of the VCM uses her words with her agreement?
You (and Prof Caillet) should know that an encyclopedia should not contain press releases pretending to be articles. MER-C09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more background
One of the things I have been working to do, along with a group of other volunteers, is to gain access to more image archives. The Library of Congress has a dearth of material about my own local area, even though it's the oldest city in California. And although the local historical society has 2.5 million images they are--to say the least--not cooperative.[2] It is doubtful whether their claim of blanket copyright over the entire collection is valid, but the attempt to assert control via contract law might hold up in court. So what to do about this?
The first step is to scour for material elsewhere, and restore it, and to interface locally so that other people come to understand how important open access is, and what its benefits are. After a year of searching I have so far located one--and only one--FP-worthy restoration from my own county: a panorama of the Hotel del Coronado. It's so difficult to find this type of thing that even the hotel's own staff was unaware that the image existed (and as a national historic landmark they are keenly aware of their institution's history). The hotel management are grateful and impressed, and they would be glad to get more restored material if they could. With more examples from other local landmarks we could gain allies from the business community and civic leaders in persuading the historical society to open access to its public domain content. The challenge is to reach any kind of critical mass while so little high quality source material is available through other means.
Thus far unable to find anything more from my own county, I located a rare historic photochrom over a century old for a very famous location one county away. It is unlikely that any other comparable photograph from the period exists in open archives--and if it does exist in closed archives, then erecting additional barriers to promotion on a featured content nomination that already had clear support is just the way to keep those archives closed. Featured content candidacy closers are supposed to be impartial, and I'm a little concerned by your comments to the FPC talk page in reference to this nomination. Perhaps three-quarters of a year of frustrating behavior from one reviewer colors that impression. Just wanted to set things out for you, though. Best, DurovaCharge!16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the debate and weighed the arguments in an attempt (on the 15th) to close it, I found the opposers made a very good point. Given the recent drop in standards, clear support does not necessarily mean the image meets WP:FP? (hence my plea on the talk page), I was uncertain whether the image met enc standards so I left it. PLW can be disruptive - he was a major contributor to the December drama - but he is thorough in reviewing images.
That said I appreciate your efforts to secure for Wikipedia and hope to feature many fruits of your labour. And standards are rising again. MER-C10:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Java bot
Hello MER-C,
I see you programmed a bot in java. I am programming myself a bot with JWBF framework. Could you tell me how I could get more information to list the subcategories from a category with this java framework? Thanks. --Pixeltoo (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple minor edits to this after being told it was about to go up on POTD (It's an old nom, and I'd never leave it that... yellow now). Do I need to have this reconfirmed, or are minor levels and saturation adjustments sufficiently uncontroversial? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not while it's on the main page. After that, it's your call - I can't really review two 6 MB images because internet connectivity in my country is a (inter)national disgrace (and so is the attempts by the government to do something about it). I do note the delist section is effectively dead at the moment.
I'm trying to do a swap with Durova over the John Paul Jones pic, but neither of us have gotten around to our respective tasks yet. Howcheng has already delayed the Commodore Perry Ukiyo-e on my behalf, so I thought I'd best get that done first. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know all these things. But yesterday, when I feel, late to hear from you I browsed across many ways and finally nominated it here that falls on the date March 4th 2010, some 17 days earlier to your days count. I chose the date because it was the 172thAyya Vaikunda Avataram, the most important festival of Ayyavazhi. Will there arise any problem with this 17 days? - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you'll find the POTD guy is very accommodating. However it's best to ask at the appropriate time (in 10 months), as POTDs are scheduled rarely a week in advance. Tthis would be an exception, but even then it's only up to two months. MER-C11:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because they provided extra information not included in the original article and also had references to events that are in the article and that have no citation. i.e Lewis Guy which has NO citation at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.160.158 (talk • contribs)
Recently I have added a link to the free service USspecbook.com to each city providing Wikipedia users a link to necessary municipal information that is often difficult to find. There is no profit from a visit, USspecbook does not charge to use this information, it is an online reference site for contractors, engineers, and thousands of individuals in the construction industry.
I notice that MER-C has taken down the links I have provided. Is there a problem? Was this not done correctly?
I'm not sure you understand the purpose of the link.
Standards and specifications are used by all cities, needed by all members of the construction industry, and very difficult to find. USspecbook does not charge, it is completely unrestrictive, and it provides links and necessary public information. It is no different that DIG HERE, or any other link to a city site for the information. While providing the links I did not list the company name on the Wiki page, in an effort to avoid any commercialism.
I would like to continue putting this information on the wiki site. What needs to happen to get you to stop deleting them?
I have no objection to the content of the site. What I do object to are your systemmatic addition of links and your (perhaps unintentional) use of multiple accounts to evade scrutiny. All of these behaviours are strong indications of spamming. I won't remove the links if they aren't added in a spammy way. MER-C07:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. So then you decide by yourself, and the people who stated their support for the original are ignored? Lycaon (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discretionary decision. For an example, I failed this image despite a 7/0 result because the quality wasn't up to scratch. (And nobody explicitly stated support for the original, the assumption is that they don't mind).
Then please do. I removed the 'noise' in the original ánd the stains in the upper right part (which were actually there and still in the edit). Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you reverted all the edits added by this anon user that linked to an external Duran Duran fan site. I was watching to see if someone would come along and do that. There were two pages, Burning the Ground (diff)and Violence of Summer (diff), that already contained slightly different links to that site. In those cases, the edits just updated those links, so when you reverted them, the old links (both direct links to PDF documents) were restored. I'm wondering whether you think the PDF links be removed as well. I know linking directly to rich media is discouraged, but no one seemed to care when they were added several months ago. Just curious... UncleverOnion (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Often you will have one spammer who adds the link, then another who comes along later and changes it. What I do is revert all the (subsequent) spammer's edits, which allows me to see the links that warrant further investigation as to who added them. I have no opinion on whether the PDF links should remain unless they were spammed (which they weren't). MER-C12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continually reverting the proper links I am inserting in the various Duran Duran wiki pages? If you would bother visiting the link(s) you will see it is not a commercial website. The rich media (pdf in this case) is not the proper link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.27.249 (talk • contribs)
I added a new photo to the whitehouse page, replacing the old one on commons. Do you know how I can edit the page so that I'm accredited as the photographer and the author?
Also - for some reason images on image pages now appear in full size when I view them, rather than more convienient viewing sizes. Do you know how I can fix this? HiraV (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a number of closings over at FPC and would like to request approval to use your FPC Closing Wizard. This request is only valid if it runs on Mac OS X though (but since it's a JAR file, I presume it does). I've closed 18 legitimate FPCs and just closed 3 april fools noms. I don't see the april fool's ones counting, but I have closed 19 additional VPC noms, so I'm getting even more experience in deciding consensus in other places. Here is a full list of all the nominations I've closed. A lot more than 5 passed. Let me know what you think. Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»02:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder you're really enthusiastic in getting to those noms before me. Let's see:
Yes, I agree. Though WRT VPC, it's sometimes necessary due to lack of input, unfortunately (no quorum is still a big reason for not promoting images). You are exactly right about the QE2 bridge; I shouldn't have done that. The FPC portrait, on the other hand, was a clear failure and I didn't think it made much of a difference. Same goes for the church; when I see a glaring issue (in this case, the focus), I feel the need to get that out there immediately. In all those FPC cases, my !vote could have easily been replaced by a Comment. That said, I'll make sure to never close an FPC that I vote in in the future. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, each one has a pretty thorough explanation from me (mainly for CYA). I was looking at 3/4 for passage but looking at that as a large grey range, not a solid black line, depending on the comments made by users (especially opposes). The McCain image clearly had quality issues and had been ongoing for a good amount of time, the Tree of Life diagram left one wanting WRT information in the diagram itself (with little explanation), and the katydid easily met our insect requirements, the only issue was the size of the animal in the image, but I felt it made it. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, all the outcomes are correct (I haven't looked at the pics yet, and probably won't). Not bad. My intuition says not yet. (As an aside, how are you going to cope when volume at VP approaches FP levels?) MER-C14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depend on others for help over there as well. I'm not the only one that closes. And we'll see if it ever gets to FPC levels any time soon. I have my doubts. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say my performance is "not bad" and that all the outcomes have been correct (and "not bad" coming from you is pretty complimentary). You also have seen that in a contentious nom, I will explain my reasons for why I made the decision I did. I'm also open to a second opinion if someone is unhappy enough about the outcome. I know when to request more input and I've been here a good length of time (in Wikipedia terms) and have a good grasp on consensus and making the judgement call. I don't think it would hurt the project by giving me this tool. Plus, you have to realize that closing enough noms is pretty difficult when one must compete with you and your wizard. Don't know how many times on my watchlist I'll see an edit summary of (-10 using FPC Wizard) and I think "Damn!" he beat me again! Anyway, thanks for the consideration. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That brings me around to the point: if I get queried and am unable to resolve it here then I need to be confident in deferring to you. I don't think you're at this stage yet.
That reminds me - we haven't done enough to spam VP to the masses. (I don't think canvassing is an issue at VPC like it is at FPC. Any serious article writer can assess a picture's enc. And once they learn how to review properly they can branch out to FP.) Would you like to collaborate on a Dispatch about VP? I've put together a quick sketch at User talk:MER-C/Sandbox#valued pictures. MER-C08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all part of the FP service. I will add this to my wizard one day, just need to come up with a decent user interface. MER-C11:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
external links
I'm not sure but I think you have removed some external links I have been putting up on wikipedia. All of the external links I put up, although from the same website, would have been incredibly useful for any person interested in the subject. Every single one of the external links were extremely relevant and not off-subject.
I'm sure if an established editor agrees with you then he/she will readd the links. If I were you, I wouldn't readd them myself because it would look like I was spamming. MER-C13:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I've uploaded a new version but Still don't think that its right. (Had to add the new Luas stops and various other things.) Can't seem to get fonts right at all!!
Anything taken within the theme park is fair use. Unfortunately, these copyvios fall under the radar and I know of no attempt to get rid of them. (The images you provide are all uploaded by non-serious photographers - they are all blissfully unaware...) No, Disney haven't complained but as I said, we don't want to mess with the mafiaa on Wikipedia.
Also concerning is a recent proliferation of shonky reviews at FPC. I'd be very wary of promoting anything in the near future. MER-C11:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd drop you a note. I haven't done any extensive poking around, but just stumbled across a few FPC closing errors a week or so back: see [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Nothing major, but perhaps just keep an extra eye out for aberrations in things you haven't closed when you're doing new ones for the time being.
I hope this isn't tempting fate, given there's a day to go, but this looks like it's going to pass, so I suppose we should discuss how you want to handle it. I'm happy to try and make a single image that contains all 8, but I don't think said image should go in any actual article, since the images need some explanation attached to them, and I'm not sure how to make it visually attractive. I suppose we could list the images in FP individually, but that might set a bad precedent. Just let me know what you want to do, and I'll try to do whatever's necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. I'll help make whatever's necessary work. (Be warned that I do plan a couple more sets - the Wyeth Treasure Island illustrations being a big one, if I can pull it off. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C, just a note, FYI: User_talk:Wadester16#Goings-on. Please add pictures to the bottom of the list, not the top, per long-established convention at that page. It makes archiving easier (Gimme and I are the only ones who ever do the archiving -- no other featured process has ever helped maintain that page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ceased editing that page manually last year. The reason why I put things in the wrong order is because it's a lot easier to program. MER-C13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:FPCresult
I have requested for the category you suggested, but apparently an administrator claims it is used by a bot that I'm not aware of. Perhaps you can join the discussion at the template's discussion page. ZooFari19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once I verify that my solution to the above complaint works (may take a week or so). In the meantime, you can find out whether your email client supports UUE (that way, I can send it through Special:Emailuser). One small gripe, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Easter Monday should have been left - four questionable supports and one trusted oppose. MER-C09:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UUE is a way of translating binary files (such as a JAR) into something I can paste here without any breakage whatsoever. (I just found out there is a UUEncoder in the Java runtime - it's just in the category of "don't use these APIs as we may remove them without warning.)
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________
Please don't see this as a complaint. I have no problem with closing this FPC because there was no input in the specified time period, but I am unsure what to do now. For FLCs, candidates without enough input are simply restarted (might be an option worth considering at FPC). As there wasn't actually an oppose on this FPC could it just be listed again (i.e. effectively restarted)?
Thanks, Rambo's Revenge(talk)17:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Featured pictures must stand out from ordinary images (criterion 3). Lack of interest means that it doesn't. MER-C03:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]