Hey Tomer, I've finally reviewed [[Loren Pankratz]], sorry it took so long. Unfortunately I've failed it, you can check out my comments at [[Talk:Loren Pankratz/GA1]]. Let me know if I can be of any help with anything. Peace, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">∇.</font>]]</small> 06:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Tomer, I've finally reviewed [[Loren Pankratz]], sorry it took so long. Unfortunately I've failed it, you can check out my comments at [[Talk:Loren Pankratz/GA1]]. Let me know if I can be of any help with anything. Peace, [[user:delldot|<font color="#990066">delldot</font>]] <small>[[user talk:delldot|<font color="DarkRed">∇.</font>]]</small> 06:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
|<center>'''Your [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates|Featured picture candidate]] has been promoted'''</center> Your nomination for [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|featured picture]] status, '''[[:File:Aschaffenburger Schloss, edit.jpg]]''', gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]]. [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] <sup>[[User talk:Armbrust|<font color="#E3A857">The</font> <font color="#008000">Homunculus</font>]]</sup> 08:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
|}
Revision as of 08:52, 30 January 2013
Welcome!
Hello Tomer T! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that photo wasn't promoted is that pictures need more than a simple majority of supporters to be promoted. They need a consensus, and while there is no single 'magic number' of supporters that allows you to make a decision, I tend to look for at least a two-thirds majority. This image only had a few more supporters than opposers, so I was unable to say that there was consensus to promote it. I hope that answers your question. Raven4x4x22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I closed the nomination as it had been listed at WP:FPC for eight days and there was no consensus to promote it (vote count was 6.5 supports versus 5.5 opposes). Ideally, nominations should be closed after seven days but this is not always possible. If you disagree with the decision, you can ask for a second opinion at WT:FPC or renominate it later. Also, as compression artifacts were among the opposers' complaints, you could ask if Wpopp has an uncompressed version of the image. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to nominate it as a new nomination, otherwise it will be gone in 2 days and no one will see it. --Digon316:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer, before you nominate articles at FAC, you should probably inform the main editors and leave a note about what you're planning to do an the article's talk page. I'm the main author of Johannes Kepler, and I was kinda blind-sided by the nomination, which I didn't even notice for several days. The article was not complete, and had I not been on spring break with a lot of free time to work on it, the nomination would not have ended well. That said, thanks for doing that... it lit a fire under my ass, and it all worked out. Wikilove--ragesoss17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Western Chalukyas
Thank you for the support. I am proposing a name enhancement from "Western Chalukyas" to "Western Chalukya Empire" to give a better picture about the article. I am the user who nominated this article for FAC.Please comment.Dineshkannambadi13:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. A Featured Picture Candidate you commented on, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf, is now in the section for "Older nominations requiring additional input from voters." Contributors have tried to improve it after you commented, and your opinion is welcome as to which, if any, of the available versions deserves promotion. I am sending this message to everyone who participated in the FPC. Thanks! Kla'quot06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you nominated the Raptors article as a FAC. While that is hugely appreciated, as I have contributed substantially to the article, I honestly feel it is not ready for a FAC --- yet! This is mostly because it is quite long at the moment, with the section on the 2006-07 season being disproportionately long. My intention was to create a separate article for the 2006-07 season once the current NBA season is over. I believe the 2006-07 season merits an independent article because it is and is going to be the most eventual Raptors season ever and there will be plenty of pictures for that too.
Hello Chensiyuan, thanks for commenting and updating me about that. I think you can ask for starting the vote later, after you will finish. And I also wanted to tell you that I put your article as a chosen one here. I also wanted to ask you: Why did you put Devil May Cry 2 in the GAs list on your user page? It is already a FA. Goodbye, Tomer T16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tomer T. I've noticed that you frequently nominate articles for FAC that you haven't been involved with. I was hoping, as a courtesy to the involved editors, that you could begin leaving talk page requests for feedback first, to give the editors an opportunity to indicate whether they think the article is ready for FAC ? It would help streamline the process, lessen the chances of failed facs, and make it less likely that editors will be blind-sided, perhaps at a time when they are too busy to see a nom through FAC. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Tomer, I also am hoping you've taken note of the instructions at WP:FAC, specifically "Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections ... Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." I noticed that you currently have three nominations at FAC (Compass and straightedge constructions, Alfred Russel Wallace and Toronto Raptors), but haven't participated in the discussion about any of these candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left notes in some talk pages asking if the article is in FA status in the readers and writer's opinion, but I got no answers. So I decided to stop. Tomer T10:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tomer T,
(I can see you've had this discussion before). While I think it is a great idea to link articles and awards I do not feel this is the most productive way to go about it. Seriously, please nominate for Good Article Candidacy or Peer Review before attempting FAC. The fact that it wasn't clear whether anyone was actively editing the article and you've only edited it once since the FAC began indicates that it had no chance of passing as you hadn't ensured there would be anyone to address objections.
Hi, a bunch of us at Wikiproject NBA have been working on the Tim Duncan article and have nominated it for FAC. I remember you made some useful suggestions during the Toronto Raptors FAC. Feel free to leave comments at the FAC here. Thanks! Chensiyuan13:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer T -- I stumbled across your name as I was looking into the background decision-making which preceded the choice of Isaac Titsingh as a plausible subject for the Metawiki's meta:Translation of the week.
When I tried to edit that recently translated English→Hebrew/Dutch→Hebrew "Isaac Titsingh" in Hebrew, I had some problems adding Afrikaans to the list of inter-Wiki links to corollary articles in languages other than Hebrew. Please, would you just check to see if everything appears to be as it should be? Thanks. --Ooperhoofd18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine. The list of inter-Wiki links was edited since then, and it's now according to our policy in Hebrew Wikipedia. Please notice that in Hebrew Wikipedia we put the link to en in the top of the list, and other wikis come after that, alphabetically. --Tomer T22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:NBA's MVP prize winners, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tomer T. Being the main contributor of this article, I would have appreciated you discussing whether or not this article is ready for GA status on the talk page first. There are still further improvements I wanted to make to it before nominating it for GA, such as adding a Marketing section and cutting down a bit on the quoting in the Critical reception section. But at least you see the article already being good enough for GA status. So I thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun to review the above article here but have placed it on hold. There are several issues which would justify quick-failing the article, but I am prepared to put it on hold for a week. However, I noticed that you were not a contributor to the article and you may struggle to find people to make the required changes in time, particularly as sourcing is one of them. If you don't think it can be done, please let me know and I will have to fail it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the original review was flawed, I have renominated it, with a timestamp one hour later than the original, so hopefully you will get a proper review soon. Sadly, I don't feel qualified to review it myself. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just put this on hold. See the link above for details. Incidentally, I see you were one of the reviewers on the Air Jordan article. Hoped you liked I was the one that nominated it and left you that message up there! (I've changed my name since then obviously) AaronY (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see that you are changing the priorities of "importance" for many biographies on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. I don't think it's very appropriate for you to make these changes yourself - particularly regarding "top" importance since I think that was decided by a consensus. Could you revert your changes and start a discussion on the project talk page instead? --Lobo512 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure all of these were decided by concensus to be regarded as "top importance"? There were some irreasonable classifications, such as classyfing Sid Caesar as "top importance". Where can I read the discussions leading to these classifications? Where exactly should I propose changes in classifications? Tomer T (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it's possible that some people have later changed the priority, since it's so easy (as you've demonstrated). And I agree that Sid Caesar is probably one instance of this since he clearly isn't top importance, and in that case it is fair to change it. But there definitely was a discussion in the first place - see here at Ernst Lubitsch for instance, a note was left saying that he had been selected as top importance. Go to the project talk page and ask there about who is meant to be top importance (I already gave you the link). I'm sure you're edits were in good faith, and I do actually agree with some of your changes, but wikiprojects are supposed to be about consensus so if you think changes need to be made, please propose it first. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed there were no discussions as there were some irreasonable classifications. I made only changes that seemed to me as undisputable. I'll revert my changes, and propose all the changes in the talk page (except Cate Blanchet because it was fixed later by someone else; you're welcome to give your response there afterwards). I'll also be glad to know: you said that you agree with some of my changes. Can you give example(s) for change(s) I did that you didn't agree with, and why? (By the way, I didn't see a discussion about Lubitsch, only a notification) (p.s. 2: if you have administrator rights, I'll be glad if you will revert all my changes, because the undoing method is quite slow) Tomer T (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no I'm not an admin or anyone important, I just watch a lot of actor/director pages. And I don't know where this discussion happened, but the notes left on talk pages suggest that one did indeed happen at some point. Those "irreasonable classifications" were probably ones changed later by random users. Or, it's because the priority definitions ask that top importance people are "extremely well known", not just extremely influential...which I'm not actually sure I agree with, but that's how it stands currently. I do think it's time for a new discussion on all this. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted most of the changes. I think the ones I left are highly indisputable (correct me if I'm wrong). I will open a discussion about all of these articles soon. Thanks for guidnace. Tomer T (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Community input required: lowering delist bar at FPC
You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise.
The nomination has been put on hold to determine which edit is preferred. As you voted but did not indicate a preference, could you leave some feedback at the nomination page? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that my "texturing" do you have put in a bad position. You who have always been kind to me. I hope our friends will be fair play. Best regards. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annkathrin Kammeyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
saw your link on the featured pics part of wikipedia
i have a passion for photography and i took this photo in cuenca spain & i saw you on the wikipedia pages for featured pics, i was wondering what you thought i this, i would like to get it nominated - 15th century house in cuenca spain !
thanks in advance......cheers & have a great day
Thanks for all the FPC nominations you've posted recently - I imagine that they're the tip of the iceberg of the images you're sorting through, and your high success rate with them speaks for itself. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to explain why I reverted your change. Your new image was good, but not, IMHO, for that spot. It has too many extraneous elements which take focus away from the bridge. Also, unless a user clicks the image, the bridge itself is harder to see than the older image. For the infobox, we need a strong image of the bridge per se. You might include your image later in the article, and a bit bigger. That's your call. - Denimadept (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my image. Actually my edit's purpose was to highlight more the previous (and current) lead image, by displaying it in larger resolution. I think the article was more appealing in my version. Please consider it again. Tomer T (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think it's good. There's no reason to display a regular-proportions image in that way, and the current version highlights the less-good image. And proportions-wise, a panorama is not the best choice for an infobox. To sum it up, I don't think that being a "lead image" always means this is the most important image in the article, and in my version the panorama was the most important image. Tomer T (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't understand. In my mind, the best image for an infobox of a bridge shows the bridge prominently. It doesn't include other elements unless they can't be avoided. If you really think the image you put in was better on or not on those terms, feel free to revert me. Honest. - Denimadept (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Herzlinger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Corbett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sheldon Cooper for things which need to be addressed. Sumsum2010·T·C 23:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
