User talk:Daniel78/Archive/2009

Coolpix 600

Dear Daniel,

I've seen your photo of Nikon Coolpix 600 posted in Wikipedia and it looks great. I also have a coolpix 600 camera which is more than 10 years old now. May I know if you also have the docking station for coolpix 600? I've lost my docking station several years ago and I am interested in buying one. I'm willing to pay U.S. $50 or so (negotiable). Could you please contact me at zhangdadidi@hotmail.com?

Thanks a lot!

Best Regards,

Di

• Hi, unfortunately I gave my camera away several years ago so I do not own it anymore. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply, Daniel! If you want, please remove this thread of our coolpix 600 discussion. Thanks!

Hello

I have uploaded a restitched version of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2a.jpg - take a look! --Villy Fink Isaksen --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Renal corpuscle.svg

Watermark removed. Albertus teolog (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion ended - the changes were introduced. I'm waiting for your opinion --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have voted now. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You forgot...

... to sign here, here and here. It is important for the eventual closure of the FPX. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks. I have signed them now. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

delisting of William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - At the Edge of the Brook (1875).jpg

You're right. I confused the delist and the keep votes. I didn't mind that the delist votes need the two-thirds majority, not the keep votes. Otherwise images would become featured pictures if there wouldn't be enough oppose votes (f.e. an image with 2 support and 2 oppose votes would become a featured picture in that case). I corrected all edits. Thanks for correcting me!
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your vote

I have centered the image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Butterfly

How do I know the butterfly is dead? If you look closely you can see torn and peeling wings, also you can't see the legs. And what kind of environment is that? Red flower in the darkness? It's dead. --Ahnode (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Finis Terrae Finistère

Hi Daniel. I write on your discussion-page as you didnt answer on Commons:Featured picture candidates. You wrote, that my picture is unlikely to succeed because of "Unnecessary or inappropriate use of artistic filters and effects". As I wrote on the FPC-page I didnt use any filters and no effects. I uploaded the original fileso you can see, that the only thing that I changed was a stone in the front, that was kind of shining because it was wet (and I know that this is not a forbidden). So if you write, that the quality of the picture is not good enough because I used a cheap camera, or because you think the composition is bad, the picture not sharp enough or whatever... ok. I actually accept if people say, that the picture is not good enough. But it isnt correct, that I used filters or effects... With kind regards --Rectilinium (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an explanation and removed the fpx. /Daniel78 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, thanks for the explaination, now I understand. Of course the border was kind of an effect... When I saw the messages from the other users, I thought it is best to upload the picture without border. But still Im not sure if the picture will find much appreciation :(... we'll see... With kind regards --Rectilinium (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FP closure

Hello, Usually I just do it one by one. But OK with your proposal. Yann (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am always on IRC if needed. Yann (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your vote on FP

Hello Daniel78. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pano-bayer-leverkusen.jpg I prepared a new version with less water. Perhaps you find that one better and consider changing your vote. Thanks, --S^[1] 20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FPC Bot

I have responded here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

FPC Bot Question

I was wondering, does the FPC Bot implement the "Fast Track Promotion" talked about here that is now officially part of the guidelines? -- JovanCormac 11:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently I have not added support for that, but it should be easy to do so. I might have a look this weekend. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

FPC bot bug

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:White shark.jpg was not handled correctly by FPC bot: The last vote (by Dmitry A. Mottl) was added after the deadline and should not have been counted. -- JovanCormac 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw I also think it would be nice if, when the FP bot promotes or declines a candidate by means of the "five day rules", it added a little note about that. -- JovanCormac 13:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, about late votes, the bot will not handle it, that is part of the reason why the manual verification step is there such that it can be corrected. And the risk of late votes would of course be smaller the more often the bot is run, so increasing the frequency could help a bit. The bot will not count striked out votes though. It would of course be very nice if the bot could handle late votes, but it adds a bit of complexity and I have not tried to implement that yet. About the five day rules, it does add a note in the edit comment mentioning if the rule was applied or not, but I guess you mean on the nomination page itself ? I have been thinking about that too, so I might add it soon. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FPCBot

Hi, does the FPCBot search for the "reviewed" template when looking for nominations to remove from FPC, or does it store the one it placed the template on internally?

I'm asking because I wonder if, when manually closing a nomination the FPCBot couldn't handle, can you simply fill in the "reviewed" template with the correct results and the FPCBot will clean up? -- JovanCormac 07:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes the bot looks for the template so yes in theory you could do that. But for example on nominations with multiple images there is no way you can tell it for example to take one of the image but not the other, it expects only one image per candidate page, but as long as there is only one it should work fine. /Daniel78 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There should be some way to tell the bot to do that IMO. A user manually evaluates the results and leaves a template which tells the bot to do the rest. The fully manual procedure is extremely tedious. -- JovanCormac 08:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the manual work is tedious, that's why I implemented the bot in the first place :) However about the multiple images, it's not just a quick fix that can be done in 5 minutes, and this weekend I focused on adding support for handling of delistings instead. I think there is now three points on my todo list that would be nice to fix, handling of FPX, withdrawal and the multiple images. FPX and withdrawal should be quite easy, the multiple image issue is a bit more work (especially if it should be able to to do the counting on them as well). /Daniel78 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I now added handling of withdrawn candidates, I remove them from the list if there has been more than 24 hours since the last comment. I thought it would be a bit quick to do it instantly. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:CatedralBerlin.jpg

Hi Daniel. I´ve have already solved the problem with the nomination. The name was incorrect (File instead of image). Thanks for telling me. Regards. --elemaki (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A thank you

		The Commons Barnstar
		I award you this Commons barnstar for your excellent work in implementing the FPCBot --Lycaon (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much :) /Daniel78 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:FPCBot

Hi Daniel,

I noticed that you're bot is running, good work :D

I only have one idea, in the edit notice he say file:name.jpg is... could you make that clickable?

Best regards, Huib talk 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is a good idea, I will add it soon. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay, thnks! :D Huib talk 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chinese honor guard in column 070322-F-0193C-014.JPEG

Hello Daniel, could you please take a look at that nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chinese honor guard in column 070322-F-0193C-014.JPEG. It looks like vote count was incorrect by 2 votes. Is it because of "in favor" and "strong support", or it is me, who's missing something. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing it out. Those were two support templates that the bot did not know about. I have now added them such that they will be counted in the future. /Daniel78 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why to ignore alternatives?

Hi Daniel. May I please suggest improvement of your bot? Your bot is already recognizes alternatives, but ignores them. IMO it should be relatively easy to count votes for each one and see which one is to be featured, if any. Let's say we have two alternatives with votes count accordingly 7 support and 3 opposes for the first one, and 10 supports and 5 opposes for the second one. If these were separate nominations each one should have passed. but for alternatives the bot could perform a simple math like multiply oppose votes count by two, and then subtract opposes from supports. In my example the first image result's will be 1 and the second image result's will be 0, which means that the first image is to pass. Of course, if the result will be the same for two or more alternatives then the bot could select the first one. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes it would be a nice improvement. However it is not as simple as it might seem. Each thing the bot currently do would need to take account for that there might be several alternatives on the candidate page. It's of course doable but will take some time to implement and test, but I hope that I time for it at some point. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then maybe you could do a partial improvement. Maybe you could make the bot to check first, if a nomination was rewieved already, if it was stamped with "FPC-results-reviewed" template, and then, if it was, make your bot to proceed as usually and treat the nominations as individual ones. IMO that change alone could be very helpful for now.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It would need to know which of the alternatives to use, in it's current state it would always use the original even if an alternative got more votes. An option could perhaps be that in the reviewed template there was an option for saying that a different image than the original actually got featured, then the bot could do all processing on that image. That would not fix the counting, but would make the closure step simple which is really where all the manual work is. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is what I meant. Last night I tried to stmap two alternatives with "FPC-results-reviewed" template. I myself featured the image that got more votes, and did not feature the other. I also removed the template "FPC-closed-ignored|multiple images". I have hoped that I could fool the bot around ,and make the bot do the rest, but almost as soon as I have finished my work, the bot stamped alternatives with "FPC-closed-ignored|multiple images" once again :(.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is your source code?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No you can't fool it that way :) Probably the bot could when the voting period is over add the non reviewed template where counts are just replaced with X's and let a user add the proper counts and specify the "winning" image. That would solve most of the problems and would not be very hard to implement, I will try that when I get time. There is a link to the source at the bots user page. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag?

Is FPCBot officially a bot? It doesn't seem to show a bot flag on edits. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be but the request is still open (and has been for 2 month now), it seems no one want to make the decision. Different people join the discussion and then dissappears again, you can see my last comment at Commons:Bots/Requests/FPCBot. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for improving the bot to process alternatives! I'm not sure you aware of that, but the messages it is generating on my talk page are not quite right just yet. Still a very good work! Best regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I see something is up there. I have just run the first test of this. I will look into any issues. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Lactarius indigo 48568 edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lactarius indigo 48568.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a circular trip, I fixed this template for the nomination that had alternate versions, then went off looking for the bot-talk page and of course ended up back on its masters page! It seems to have promoted the right version (the alternate), but the links in the FPpromotion template and assessments template needed the subpage parameter as the FP subpage name isn't quite the same as the alternates file name. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I will look into it soon. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a fix now, there are no multi-candidates done at the moment though so I have not verified it yet. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lunar Lander Model.jpg

About the nomination mentioned in the title, I am not very familiar with the voting system, but apparently the result got out before the voting period ended. Would you help me understanding how does the system work?--Banzoo (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Might be confusing yes, but this is due to the rules of the 5th day which are stated in the "Featured picture candidate policy" section on the candidate page. It reads:

8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) 
  1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
  2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes.

/Daniel78 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Unconfirmed results" line, as well as the edit history comment, needs to mention the fifth day rule or other variant used when closing. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the issue has been raised before. Currently the reason can be seen in the edit comment, but I will add something in the template also soon as it is indeed confusing if you are not updated on the rules. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

bot down?

Hi Daniel, your FPCbot is a nice invention. However it currently seems to be broken. There are dozens of images that don't get processed. Especially the rule of 5th day does not get applied. But also images passing the full voting period don't get processed after the voting period is over. What's up? --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing it out. It seemed there was a network problem, I could not ping anything. I restarted the machine and it all seemed ok again and processed a lot of images. Tell me if you can still see any problem and I will look into it. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it started working again. Thanks --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing nomination

Hi Daniel. First I clossed that one Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg because the bot clossed it. Then I saw somebody voted on the first image. I was about to strike the vote out, but then I saw that the voting ends on 11/16/09, so the user had all the rights to vote. I am not sure why the bot clossed the nomination, and what to do with it. I deleted my clossing message and returned the bot's message. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the new image is treated like an edit (which it is), and normally you are not getting extended time for edits (the bot uses the time of the first image which has expired). If it is decided that this edit should have its extended time anyway you just have to wait with confirming the count until the new extended time is up. /Daniel78 (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FPC bot: strange

Hi, have a look at this: After two and a half days it's not processed. Did I do something wrong? Why does the bot not remove the nomination from the candidates list? --Ikiwaner (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the bot is quite strict with the template syntax and you confused it by removing the empty category parameter. It would be nice if it was not so strict, but currently there are two restrictions, do not remove parameters and do not change the order of them. /Daniel78 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Horse market in Lorenzkirch

Hello. Thank you for your remark "I think the contrast has been pushed too far" about the File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch.jpg. I made an update with lower contrast, and I hope, the contrast is now ok and you can support the file. May I please ask you to take a look at it, if you have a time? Best regards. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes I forgot about that candidate. The contrast is better now so I went neutral instead. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FPCbot: neutrale

Hi, in this vote Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Polish_victim_of_German_Luftwaffe_action_1939.jpg#File:Polish_victim_of_German_Luftwaffe_action_1939.jpg.2C_not_featured a vote of "neutrale" was counted as support. I guess this is easy to correct. --99of9 (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing it out. Actually it did not incorrectly count the neutral vote, it was actually two issues at once. First the {{Neutrale}} template was not known to the bot so the neutral vote was not counted at all, secondly there was en error that after stripping away the striked out part of the FPX templete it ended up parsing an empty template which was treated as a support. For some reason I had forgotten to fill in the content of one template such that empty templates would count as supports, that is {{}} was treated as support, ugh... anyway both issues are fixed now :). /Daniel78 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, harder to fix than I thought. Thanks for correcting. --99of9 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FPC minor correction

Hi, Daniel!

This nomination several times not moved to archive and still in FPC:

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg, not featured

Please, fix it.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the issue was that there were both withdraw and closing templates. When things are unclear it does nothing. There are a few issues, for example using withdraw on a nomination with multiple edits the only concept that the bot can understand is to withdraw it all, but sometimes it seem people try to withdraw one of the edits (that will not work). But maybe I should withdraw the entire multi nomination if anyone adds the withdraw template on any of the edits ? And maybe a withdraw template should always prioritized higher than a closing template ? Anyway I did let the bot close this one by removing the withdraw templates. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel!

Template:FPC-delist-results-reviewed - please look it now and look this:
Featured_picture_candidates#File:Brombeerlaub.jpg.2C_not_delisted. In my browser (Mozilla FireFox 3.5 Windows) all text below frame.
With best regards --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for fixing the template example. About the issue with text below the frame it seem to a problem with a div after the delist candidates. I removed it, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates&diff=32613978&oldid=32128813 and now it looks correct. But I am not sure why it was there so I hope I did not break anything by removing it. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel!
FPC-delist-results not removed by FPCbot --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again. There was no newline after the final candidate, I changed such that the bot should now handle with or without a newline there. Thanks for reporting :) /Daniel78 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FPCbot down

Hi Daniel, FPCbot is down since two days. Could you have a look please? --Ikiwaner (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I did not notice. The machine had no network, it should be up again now. /Daniel78 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ikiwaner (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FPCbot

Hi, Daniel! This nomination not removed by FPCbot:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#File:Lula_e_oper.C3.A1rios.jpg
And some results reviewed now.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the bot gets confused about FPX templates on candidates with several edits, it can't know if you are trying to FPX one edit or all of them. But a reviewed template should really override the FPX issue anyway, I will try to fix that later, but for now just remove the FPX and it should get back to work on that one. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FPC Bot error?

The bot closed this voting (running until 1. Jan 2010) two times now and to early. [1] --Niabot (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case the bot was right. The image had not a single supportive vote for 5 days. --Ikiwaner (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, didn't noticed that rule. Sorry and bye. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)