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.
When someone thanks us for voting, this creates a dopamine “hook” in voters generating pleasure with social validation and recognition in FPC. Therefore, positive recognition when voting could be reinforcing participation in said behavior through the feeling of gratification from the nominations. Instead of manipulating behaviors through rewards that activate the dopamine system, promote a voting culture based on conscious deliberation and commitment to judgment over photos. Encouraging users to vote based on the merit of the actual quality of the compositions or characteristics of the photo and not in the search for social approval or immediate rewards. Wilfredor (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Valid point. A few minutes ago, I voted keep on some deletion requests by one user, delete on others, and expressed doubts on others. I was thanked for the delete votes, not for the votes in which the nominator is still in disagreement with me. I found that somewhat bemusing, because in no case was I voting for or against the nominator, but just based on my interpretation of COM:TOO for a few countries, with the exception of one case in which a file was clearly freely licensed (I was thanked for that, too). I recognize that some people may be swayed by thanks, as you say. But while your point is valid, I don't see how it could be enforced, so I think there's no real use in making such a guideline change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I know that "thanks" is one of the public logs, but it only seems to show when someone thanked and who they thanked. Is there any way to find out what they thanked them for. It might be interesting to know which nominators are only thankful for praise :-)
We all come from different cultures so I suspect some will think it rude not to thank someone for a review and some will think it is too much. If anyone doesn't like being thanked, or would prefer not to be influenced by thanks, then they can turn off the notifications in their preferences.
I just wanted to thank you for this comment (not the thanks link), I think you are right, although I have never received so many thanks in all my years talking to other users and leaving notes on their discussion pages compared to the thanks I receive on FPC. I feel, and I may be wrong, that section became like some kind of ego masturbation where the most important thing is to compulsively obtain more FP instead of improving the quality as a photographer by providing quality images with varied themes ( Example, excessive church theme) Wilfredor (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Proposal as fanciful as it is impractical. Please don't click on "thanks", lol Don't thank anyone or you'll be banned! -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment IMO this is a solution is search of a problem. I rarely thank people for voting, and I don't expect to be thanked for my votes. I may thank for a useful comment. But if people want to thank others, I don't mind and I don't care. And I don't see how this could be enforced. Yann (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
In search of a problem, yes I agree. Personally I appreciate gratitude and usually see that as a mark of politeness. I also understand when someone does not thank me after I opposed, the simplest explanation is that we have different points of view. I can be right, they can be right too -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think setting ones own feelings towards giving thanks as a standard is helpful here. I for example usually don't thank people for their votes, because I feel it is inappropriate. I sometimes thank people for their helpful comments which are part of the vote, no matter if that vote is positive or negative. Kritzolina (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Yann. For me, it's a sign of gratitude for taking the time to vote. There is also no logistical way of enforcing this without spending endless hours on Special:log/thanks. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Taking the time to vote, but above all to review. Who knows how long you spent on a picture, sometimes inspected in detail, before leaving a brief assessment? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
My perspective on thanking is that, since we already know that people are grateful for support of their work, thanking everyone for supporting doesn't really mean anything. I thank people for good advice, a novel perspective, or otherwise for a constructive comment that I find unusually kind or helpful. Otherwise, again, I feel like it can be taken for granted that I'm thankful for support. This is not something we need rules for, in part for the same reasons: we already know that people are grateful for support, so adding a "thanks" doesn't mean anything to cultivate a special relationship. At least not as far as I'm concerned. I wish people would use thanks judiciously at FPC to separate standard gratitude from a higher level of gratitude, but people are free to use it however they want. — Rhododendritestalk | 16:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The only thing I can add to the discussion above, is that here on Commons 'thanks' also serve as our marker that we have read a comment. Most online interactions these days have 'opened' and 'read'/'viewed' indicators. We don't have anything that sophisticated, so usually a 'thanks' will do instead so that the users writing a comment know that we have read it. I frequently use the 'thanks' button for this purpose. --Cart(talk)16:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
+1, also in agreement. In my opinion, thanking is a gesture of gratitude in any kind of constructive editing. The social aspect of working together is just as important in the Wikiverse as it is in the teamwork of everyday working life. With best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Other people don't thank the oppose votes? I'm not very good at consistency with thanking for votes, but if I do, I don't discriminate by what they vote, and I honestly always appreciate a well-argued oppose. Hell, I can point to a really good one. Draceane's in Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:US_Marshals_with_Young_Ruby_Bridges_on_School_Steps.jpg is a completely and totally valid oppose vote, that highlights a change in how voting on Commons now recognises EV to some extent when, by the rules, it shouldn't. In some ways, it might be the only vote to use rules as writtrn. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
+1 to this. I've received plenty of thanks for oppose votes in the past, and in the rare cases I nominated something myself I've tried to make sure to thank opposers and supporters equally. I've always taken it as a "thanks for taking the time to review my nomination". --El Grafo (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I took care of the not closed FPCs before because the bot didn't. Usually doing that the problem is solved because there was an issue in any of those noms that the bot couldn't cope with. So, if we do the job by hand then hopefully the problem is gone and in a few hours the bot runs smoothly, we'll see Poco a poco (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I archived the completed noms, added the star and let nominators and authors know. Only when you do this work manually you do realize what a great thing is to have a bot... Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Yann and Poco a poco: Well the good news is I've figured out what the issue is (i.e. what has changed). The bad news, I have no idea how to fix it (yet). More Googling to come.... -- KTC (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I find discussions that are just centered on putting blame on other users extremely disruptive and know from professional knowledge that they will not help in resolving the underlying issues. Let us not continue to talk about users and their mistakes, let's talk about possible solutions to problems without naming names. Kritzolina (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Te dare el mismo consejo que le di a Arion, ignora completamente, enfocate en los aspectos positivos e intenta mejorar tecnicamente pero llega un punto en el que vez que un usuario esta simplemente inventando cosas para joder, entonces ignora. Saludos Wilfredor (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not intend to be rude. I wanted to stop a dynamic that apparently I can't stop anyhow. I think I will leave the FI pages for a while. Kritzolina (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm getting a little uncomfortable with some of the aforementioned user's comments; vide here and the canvassing discussion. ★00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Both of you should take a step back from each other. Simply accusing each other of this and that will only go in circles, irregardless of who was in the right and who was in the wrong. My 2c is that neither parties involved are in the wrong from a policy standpoint, but that is beyond the point. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The last resort should be an IBAN between the two of you, which I sincerely hope it doesn't escalate to that point. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
ArionStar's rush
ArionStar should learn to take the time. 🕐 Nominating too quickly, withdrawing too quickly, requesting huge effort and attention to the reviewers, sometimes breaking our rules -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe we are facing a matter of great seriousness, and minimizing its importance through ridicule is not the proper way. I am still waiting for an apology for the baseless accusations of "canvassing," which were seen as an unjustified contempt towards Brazilians. I consider that this conflict is not only between Basile and Arion; after all, Basile's behavior, following his erroneous accusation, has proven to be disturbing. I asked Arion, in a private message, to opt for ignoring this conflict, a path that has proven effective for me previously with other users, given that indifference usually discourages such behaviors. Nonetheless, I believe that comments of this nature in a FPC are out of place and must cease, especially when they refer to years ago past events from another nomination, for which I have already apologized on numerous occasions. Basile's attitude is uncomfortable for me, yes, but even more so is his provocative behavior and the lack of respect he shows. I recognize Basile as a talented photographer, whose work I deeply admire. I trust that his maturity will eventually be reflected in his conduct, and that this disruptive cycle will come to an end. If not, I would like to be considered for a mutual ban along with Arion. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Wilfredor here. Blaming for past mistakes does not help maintaining a cordial atmosphere. Yann (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not a "blame" it's an important reminder. Otherwise, how do you want to explain? See Wilfredor's undeclared manipulations below -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wilfredor: Sometimes you just have to step away from an otherwise serious dull and pensive conversation and make it more lighthearted. That's one way of resolving things. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand your perspective, but I believe that respect is essential in all our interactions. We cannot downplay attitudes or behaviors of this kind by treating them as mere jokes or pranks. Wilfredor (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
That's fair. Basile's lightheartedness was mostly with me, though, and I am not directly involved in this dispute. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Let's consider moving past this incident. I understand you and recognize your good intentions. Similarly, with Basile, my concerns are with his actions, not with him as a person. This isn't about personal grievances; it's about preserving respect among us. As we grow closer, almost like a family, I sincerely hope we can put this situation behind us and focus on maintaining the harmony that binds us together. Wilfredor (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Wilfredor's undeclared manipulations
The problem with Wilfredor's undeclared manipulations is that they are misleading to many of us. Either they concern
For the lambda users, it's misleading, and for the reviewers, it's often a hell to find these "mistakes", especially because Wilfredor seems to fool us with contradictory affirmations like "I have always been against photo retouching". That's why I find important to indicate what modifications have been done on the pictures. Several of us ask the same. It should be obvious, and the normal way of contributing, unfortunately repetitive undeclared manipulations pop up at FPC again and again from the same user. So how to explain?
adding to this, the issues with ChatGPT, vulgarity, Topaz Gigapixels, etc., it's hard to keep smiling all the time. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
That Carcasas Building photo is extremely concerning. How do you expect anyone to trust your contributions when you submit this sort of thing without disclosing how it was produced? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This was 10 years ago, and I have apologized on several occasions. I even thought about withdrawing all my FPs or withdrawing from this section, but some users convinced me not to do it, including Colin. I know it will never be enough to apologize so I do it again. At that time, a dictatorial regime was leaving Venezuela and I wanted to make fun of them in some way for having destroyed my country. It's not a justification, I know it's something that wasn't right and I never thought anyone would think it was a real image. But I think it's not right to bring this up over and over again to justify personal attacks or intimidation. Wilfredor (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Very sad this situation, ever asking for money for a job that was not even funded by him. I would like to think that everything is false Wilfredor (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
It could be, although it doesn't seem to be something just about Basile with me but also with the group of Brazilians, or also the other case above. Here there are not two equal parties attacking each other but one party with toxic behavior. I am willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure respect. Wilfredor (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there was any need for any of this. Suggesting that Basile Morin take a break from FPC was bound to provoke a negative reaction. Please can we not all attempt to feed endless interpersonal drama and focus on reviewing photos. One person already seems to have got fed up with it and decided it isn't worth taking part (see post from Kritzolina above). Cmao20 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to make it clear - it is not Wilfredor's behaviour that is making me feel super uncomfortable here since a few weeks. There are other things going on that are making me almost sick. The post from Wilfredor was just the last straw that broke the camel's back. The FI page is making me want to cry often these days. Kritzolina (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Commons can become more of a drama forum at times (just like my home wiki's "inner club"...). --SHB2000 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that was especially concerning when our reusers had to be victimised – more than any of our internal sagas. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Here this is the COM:FPC talk page. Not personal talk page administration.
Wilfredor, "ignore", "ignore", "ignore", "tired", "tired", tired", but visiting us frequently to request more attention on pity issues.
Personal talk pages are "personal".
IMHO we should not allow ourselves to be dragged into the realm of empty discussions. Being Brazilian, this situation has affected me as well, but I think that reacting in the same childish and immature tone, resorting to the same fallacies (tu quoque) as a form of argumentation, is definitely not the way forward. It's time for us to adopt a more mature stance, without getting lost in superficial disputes fueled by drama that only serve to divide us. Wilfredor (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Dredging up a nomination from 2016 and making completely unfounded racial comments about Jewish people voting is not a good look. To suggest canvassing you need to have some evidence beyond that these people all have heritage from a specific country. Basile Morin, when raising concerns about canvassing, did attempt to provide evidence of this.
As a matter of fact I agree with others that the evidence provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that canvassing certainly did take place, but Basile a) attempted to draw attention to a recurring issue (see here when a completely different user raised questions over possible off-wiki canvassing including some of the same participants), b) attempted to evidence his claims, c) explicitly disavowed racial or ethnic bias and kept the discussion strictly focussed on the facts (‘I am personally open to Brazil like to other countries. Very good friends of mine live there, I have traveled in Brazil for several weeks, supported many Brazilian FPs, and even created and uploaded content related to Brazil’), and d) has explicitly stated that he considers this discussion closed and has no intention of re-opening it (‘ It is not false in my opinion. But I totally respect the doubtful party. As simple as that. Now I'm closing this discussion.’)
Regardless of whether you felt that Basile Morin’s comments were hurtful, it is you who has chosen to continue reopening this discussion - and now to make racial innuendos about Jewish people - while he has been clear that he wishes to leave this behind. As someone who has Jewish family members I find the fact that you seem to be going on a Jew-hunt in nominations from 2016 to be hugely offensive. Not to mention hypocritical seeing that you are keen to disavow responsibility for your own actions that provoked complaint as recently as November 2023 but think it is okay to make racial comments about people for innocent actions that provoked no complaint eight years ago.
Until you apologise to this forum for your racist comments I will not vote on any of your nominations going forward. I have seen too much of the world to be content to allow anti-Semitism to go unchecked.Cmao20 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Last part retracted. It would be unfair of me to punish other people's work that this user nominates just because of my views on their behaviour, and not voting on the pictures they nominate just increases the chances that substandard work will pass. Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Cmao20: I understand, man, but you should grow accustomed to racial innuendos. This is especially prevalent against people of my color. The thing is that many people are racist (not that I'm calling anyone racist) without realizing it, which is sad. It's not easy, and I especially feel sorry for my brothers and sisters with darker complexions. However, I don't think the person who is discriminating is to blame or should apologize. That's my two cents; take it or leave it. All I'm trying to convey is that you are not the only one who finds these statements offensive. WolverineXI15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
As a descendant of the Caribbean and African Brazilian First Nations, I want to express how difficult it is to talk about this topic. My experience has led me to point out on several occasions the notorious bias towards whiteness in FPC, reflected in an overrepresentation of images and content related to Europe and predominant Western culture. However, I would also like to recognize the efforts of those users who, even if they are few (like Poco a poco which coincidentally means little by little in Spanish), strive to make a significant difference. I would like to invite you to read an article I have written about the racial situation in my environment. This article has been translated into several languages, and I am proud to mention that the Spanish version has been recognized as a "good article." Wilfredor (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing antisemitism here. Were there comments that were deleted? In terms of a bias toward subjects in European countries and those dominated by descendants of emigrants from Europe, I think all of us know that exists, even if for no other reason than who uploads photos and nominates them here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
As a side note: This may not be relevant, but the argument in one of the votes that this one doesn't even pretend to be natural color [...] so I don't see that as a problem was not true until the file page was edited two minutes earlier, and I am not sure the image would have been chosen as a featured image in the first place if this had been common knowledge. Renerpho (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Well Renerpho, we've had a few strange things happening here at FPC over the years, but this is the first time I've seen something like this!
Yes, on 23 January 2024, Nrco0e created Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Neptune Full.jpg. BUT, the delist nomination was never added to the FPC page list, Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, like it says you must do on the instructions for making any kind of FP-related nomination. Adding noms to the list doesn't happen automatically when you create a nomination page. Because of this, the nomination never became public knowledge, it never entered the FPC delist system and only the users pinged by Nrco0e on the delist sub-page knew it existed and had a chance to vote. Since the nom wasn't declared in the right way, it could not be closed either and it's not a valid delisting.
If you still think this FP should be nominated for delisting, you need to create a new delist nomination (you have to use the /2 marker like it says on the info page) and be sure you follow the instructions properly this time. Add the new nom to the list and the right process will start.
This is not the first time that a nom has been misplaced like this, but they usually just end after the nomination time is up, since no one knows about them except for the nominator. Here we had a case of 'pinging' a lot of users when the nom was created. That is also outside the rules for noms, since this can be seen as canvassing votes. Letting only those who might be in favor of a delisting know that the nomination exists, is not the right way to do this. --Cart(talk)17:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking further at the voters on the nomination page, I see that some of them do not even have the necessary 50 edits on Commons, that allow them to vote on FPCs or delistings. They only came here since they were pinged. Had this been a normal delisting, their votes would have been struck. --Cart(talk)17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks W.carter! If that doesn't sound like a good mess, I don't know what does.
I won't start a second attempt myself, but I encourage Nrco0e to think about it (following proper procedure this time). Should the other users who tried to vote in January be informed? Renerpho (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
On one hand, yes they should be informed since Commons value transparency and they unknowingly voted on something that wasn't ok. On the other hand, I can't endorse canvassing votes... Do as you please. --Cart(talk)23:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It does make me question whether they should still hold autopatroller rights, though it was given to them on March 15, well past that improper (and canvassed) delist nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we are at the stage were those rights need to be removed yet. This was one small mistake (a lot of people have missed adding noms to the list) that combined with one bad call (that would have been corrected on a normal nom) that this time coincided to create a "perfect mess/storm". Shit happens. Having rights removed should be done when things happen again and again or when the rights are intentionally abused. --Cart(talk)14:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
It does look like a genuine mistake and I hope Nrco0e learned from it, but I would still keep that option open if future canvassing occurs. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I know Nrco0e as a reliable user. I am sure that it was an honest mistake that they're unlikely to repeat (especially now that they've been made aware of the canvassing issue), and that removing their user rights won't be necessary. Renerpho (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Re. my comment "this one doesn't even pretend to be natural color", I was talking about the img as uploaded in 2006. The color is obviously artificial; it's not even close to how Neptune was usually presented prior to the recent correction. So IMO this is like any other false-color image that makes it to featured image status. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: I'm not sure if this is the right place for this discussion, but I'm going to explain why I find this argument problematic: If it was obviously artificial then it wouldn't have been such news in January when it was revealed to be a false color image.[1] It's not like people in general were aware of this fact, not even in the scientific community (see here for an example of an astronomer talking about how the image affected their perception of Neptune's "true color"). There are books by respected authors who believed this photo to represent true color, and who discussed the apparent difference between Uranus and Neptune. Take, for example, this Springer publication from 2008 about how to observe Uranus and Neptune with binoculars and small telescopes, and how to see "the color difference between Uranus and Neptune" (quote) with your own eyes. It even attempts to explain that perceived color difference, which we now know isn't real... The false color image from Voyager is on the cover of that book. There are countless other examples of how this image has shaped the common perception of what Neptune looks like, and I don't think many of those who looked at it before 2024 thought that the color was obviously artificial. What makes it even stranger (worse?) is that there was a true-color image available in 1989, but it was never distributed to the media. The image that later became popular was clearly called "false color" at the initial NASA press conference in 1989,[2] but no later coverage of the event refers to it as anything but a bona-fide color image.
My comment from 14:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC) also touched on another problem with your argument: You had edited the file page, changing the wording in the file description from "picture of Neptune" to "enhanced-color picture of Neptune",[3] and then argued that it "didn't even pretend to be natural color", which it actually had done until a few minutes earlier. The file that was voted to be a featured picture didn't have the "enhanced-color" part in its description, and it's hard to know whether it would ever have been chosen as a FP in the first place if this had been known. Renerpho (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
My comment wasn't about the clarification I added, but about the image itself. The photos I was used to weren't such a deep blue (though still exaggerated, such as this one: →), so when I saw ones this deep blue I knew they were enhanced, just as we know many common photos of Jupiter and Saturn are enhanced. (Like everyone else, I wrongly believed that Neptune was bluer than Uranus, just not this blue.)
You've shown plenty of sources that use either this photo or one just as exaggerated, so maybe it wasn't as obvious to everyone as I assumed. Though if you hunted for cover photos of Jupiter and Saturn, I suspect you'd find many that were just as enhanced, if only because they make for more dramatic dust jackets. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment IMO this is a solution is search of a problem. I rarely thank people for voting, and I don't expect to be thanked for my votes. I may thank for a useful comment. But if people want to thank others, I don't mind and I don't care. And I don't see how this could be enforced. Yann (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Yann. For me, it's a sign of gratitude for taking the time to vote. There is also no logistical way of enforcing this without spending endless hours on Special:log/thanks. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Works again, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Question @SHB2000, you're suggesting an IBAN? How much do you think I should request on my bank account? 
On hold Busy now. Will inspect all and respond quietly soon, in 1 hour or two. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
,_mar_Rojo,_Egipto,_2023-04-15,_DD_45.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANeptune_Full.jpg&diff=844517668&oldid=808274303){kind=link}