User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey/archive

Wrong button, sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted myself, which means I knew I was wrong. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Papa Lima Whiskey! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. 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 username 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∴ ∫ξφ 09:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

My fingers were too quick! Thanks for catching my mistake. I've reverted back the changes. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That was my mistake. The image as still under discussion to be promoted or not. Regardless, why not-promoted? It had a clear consensus. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say it is obvious that you are a sockpuppet. (Mind meal (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Is this the way you try to discredit people who don't agree with you? In another place, I saw you accusing mikaul of expressing bad faith. Should you be taking a hard look in the mirror, perhaps? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no swastika on my user page. That is called the endless knot. (Mind meal (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also, could you explain why you began at Wikipedia with an interest in images and bureaucratic work? (Mind meal (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not interested in spending my time that way, sorry. Maybe if you'd asked more nicely. Bye. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, though it is hard to believe a newly registered user would start frequenting policy-related boards. Those are not the typical hangouts of newbies. Most newbies wouldn't even know what a sockpuppet is, let alone details about image licensing (however misinformed it is). I'm just wondering what other names you have registered here at Wikipedia? (Mind meal (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Even if he is a sockpuppet, he is not harming anything, he is helping out. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 04:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets are not prohibited, abuse of sock puppets is. This user has not abused that, even if he is, as you claim with no support, a sock puppet. Clegs (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are welcome on the FPC page. Perhaps when you've made a tenth as many positive contributions to FPC and Wikipedia images in general as myself and Fir0002 you may be in a better position to be trying to tell us what to do. Until then I'd suggest spending some more time learning about the process, less time trying to throw your weight around (or link to your previous/other user account/s). --jjron (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm "lacking in courtesy" huh? Perhaps you should go and point that out to the many users that have given me The Random Acts of Kindness and other Barnstars, copious thank-you messages on my talkpage for help, encouragement, advice, etc, and thanks elsewhere for things I've done (read the final bullet point here for one of many, many examples). Oh, but you wouldn't know about any of that, because you haven't done anything to deserve any thanks. All you've done is come in and try to impose yourself and stir up trouble. I don't need to claim status for myself; you don't get status and respect by coming in and running your mouth in your style, you get it by your work and actions. Unfortunately we've seen many like you before (and indeed quite possibly you under a different name), and it wears a little thin. As I said above, earn yourself some respect and then people may be more interested in what you have to say. --jjron (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I would bring the discussion here seeing as the nomination is now closed. You say "I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up, because it's utterly ridiculous and somewhat embarrassing imho" but don't say specifically what is ridiculous/embarassing, as I made a number of different points. I see the point you're making about how a particular camera/film has a specific and standard 'response' and is therefore predictable, whereas edits by a human being are by definition variable. I definitely concede that this is true, but I would argue that you rarely get that sort of detailed information about the technical details of the camera/film/processing in a Wikipedia image anyway, and if you did, who could say that it was true? How do you know what is accurate and what isn't? Heres a couple of examples of why I think the issue isn't as black and white as you seem to think:

Are you implying that it is better to have an overexposed white sky than an image with a sky with detail, because that is the way the camera outputted the image? Since when has getting exposure accuracy been more fundamentally important than actual real detail, which would otherwise be lost without processing? I don't think there is a simple answer. Both are important, and in situations where, as in the example, you can't have both absolutely accurate exposure gradients and visible detail in all parts of the frame, I don't see how you can pick one over the other. Ideally you can compromise with something as close to satisfying both as possible.

What about a situation where the way a scene looks in reality is different to the way a scene is captured by a camera? Why is the camera the correct one? In the Hong Kong example, the version I uploaded as 'unprocessed' was clearly underexposed and detail was lost. I was there, and I am convinced that my eye could see more detail than was captured by a single exposure. Others who have been there agree with me. The only ones who vehemently disagreed were ones who held tight to principles regarding photography that I disagree with. Cameras as tools for capturing scenes accurately and completely are inherently flawed by their limited ability to record light (as are humans, of course), but image noise notwithstanding, they don't record anything that isn't already there. Therefore, when I merge three exposures into one, I am not creating a scene that didn't exist. I'm just compressing extra dynamic range at the expense of contrast. Is this really that different to using negative film as opposed to slide film? Again, what makes the predictable limits of a camera more important than true accuracy? Isn't the end product more important than the process?

You might believe that processing of images and HDRI often results in 'clownish' images, and I agree in a lot of cases this is true, but I think there is room for the techniques when they are done tastefully. It seems you take a fundamentalist view of processing, and I still feel that you ignore the fact that cameras do it too, albeit in a more predictable way. But that does not mean accurately. Even then, most digital cameras have controls for sharpening, contrast, saturation so you cannot trust 'unedited' output from cameras as being The Truth. Anyway, regarding in-camera processing, you only mentioned JPEG compression artifacts in response - that was not what I was referring to at all.

I'm also not sure what you were talking about regarding Hong Kong vs NYC. Obviously the skylines look different. Did someone wish it looked like NYC? I'm confused. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I took your advice and made those changes on that FPC. If you get a chance, can you take another look? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that Papa Whiskey! Very thoughtful of you. All the best Mark t young (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Sadou Kathmandu 04 04.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. MER-C 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So did you check the bold fair use rationale at Image:Ninjalicious Book Cover.jpg? Don't template the regulars. seicer | talk | contribs 14:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to inflame you are anything, so please don't take this the wrong way. A lot of what I and Seicer had been saying had been based on what you had written. I can completely understand that you had not been trying to equate Urban Exploration with Trespassing and also a drain on the tax payers. (Both Siecer and I had been trying to say the same thing throughout this discussion.) However, the way you had written it came across to us that you had meant to imply a direct link.

I think that has been the biggest problem/misunderstanding between all of us. If you had mentioned simply that you were not trying to equate UE with trespassing, but wanted some better ref's and such, then there would have been no problems.

I and others can't read minds, and I also can't speak with you in person. So the only things we've got to go on is what you and others have written. I even find some of my posts/writing can be a little obscure too. So even I myself need to continually make sure my posts are clear.

I hope we can come to an understanding and get this cleared up!

Have a good one! Brothejr (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Japanese Car Accident. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

User has 25 edits and no active talk page. I'll let it remain that way for now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Japanese Car Accident. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. See WP Policy on Civility

Again, just for reference, this user has little reason to complain. The link was not in article space, and I have no affiliation with the site in question. User has apparently previously been banned for abusive sockpuppetteering.[1] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I note that you added a static pixel size to Image:Japanese car accident.jpg in the article Car accident after another editor had removed it in accordance with Wikipedia's image use policy and the Manual of style's Images section. Please do not add fixed pixel sizes to images as this is no longer considered appropriate. If you want images to be displayed in a larger size than the default of 180px, you can change your personal setting by going to "my preferences", selecting the "Files" tab, selecting a new "thumbnail size" and saving your updated preferences. I personally have this set to 300px, so your edit of setting a static pixel size of 250 actually forced the image to be smaller than I prefer. --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently opposed this image on the basis of only one side of the leaf being shown, I wanted to point out that "gumtrees" don't really have a recognizable topside and underside. The two side are indistinguishable on this species although and I can't speak with certainty I would say this is borne out in all "gumtrees" since the leaves hang straight down toward the ground - no difference between the sides as you would see with a maple or oak, for example. I will of course keep your suggestion in mind when I do some similar photos of some other species. benjamint 10:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you from Indonesia? Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not from Indonesia. Allahu akbar. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed, improvements were made to the article. Your non-action and non-contributions to any recent discussions led to the tag removal. I suggest you seek consensus if you wish to re-add it. seicer | talk | contribs 11:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you, that you were the one to revert his edits and thus is causing the edit war. If you continue to revert this, then I will be forced to refer this matter to the 3RR board. Brothejr (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. That will help resolve this situation. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned this is a just warning, please refrain from reverting either the Urban Exploration article or removing this warning. Brothejr (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, you're not going to report me now? Yay! :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read my statement I was not saying I was going to file a 3RR report, but that if you had continued on RV then you would have broken the 3RR rule and a report would have to be filed. (Personally I'd rather leave it at a warning and not push it any further.) Maybe it would be a good idea for you to take a break from the computer and wikipedia and cool off a bit. Maybe get a soft drink, juice, beer, or something to relax with? I'm not trying to be petty but just pointing out that if you continued on you would be falling into 3RR problems and I don't think you want to be blocked, nor would I like to see you blocked. The warning was just that a warning. Brothejr (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. You know that if you put that warning back here, you're putting yourself in danger of being blocked. And you can't report me for anything because the necessary number of reverts haven't actually happened. People who barge their way into my userspace with threats aren't welcome. I offered you a symbolic drink, if you won't take it, please leave. Bye. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I questioned why I was templated, because I had not exceeded the number of reverts. The first (for the 18th) was undoing my protection after I got back from the meeting; the second was based on the conversation at my talk page. That's not edit warring or even remotely close to 3RR (given that they were self reverts). seicer | talk | contribs 22:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you come here to have a drink? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I'm having Soju. seicer | talk | contribs 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop all of you. People can do whatever they want with their own talk pages. Reverting them against their wishes has been established to be harassment by arbcom. Do something constructive, like argue at the UE talk page. :P pschemp | talk 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? I haven't reverted. seicer | talk | contribs 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrotherJ did, more than once. This discussion is going nowhere. pschemp | talk 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Meadowpippit2008 edit.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Mark (Mschel) 12:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we did indeed conflict...and I was just trying to say thanks! Really appreciate your help, I'm rubbish at the technical stuff!-- Seahamlass 15:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been such a great help with this pic - which is proving rather more trouble than its worth! Many, many thanks for all your edits etc. It is very kind of you to help out. (I've stuck another couple of pics at peer Review... I'm determined to get ONE featured pic one day...!)-- Seahamlass 12:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask the guy that asked me that question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am discretely obscuring the message I left last week. It seems only proper that I should do so.

In the end, the mere act of trying to explain a problem to an utter stranger was a helpful exercise. No problems were resolved, but a small shift in my own thoughts was constructive. --Tenmei (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on show to view the contents of this section

May I invite myself into your home page? In the imaginative context you suggest at User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey#Vague threats by Brothejr, will you please offer me a glass of water?

You were gracious enough to share a bit of background information about the evolution of in-line citation formatting in a Wikipedia context. That small gesture caused me to wonder I wonder if I might impose on your good will by asking you to help me re-visit a somewhat different, but related topic -- WP:Verifiability? In the context of the image at the right, I wonder if I might impose upon your patience by inviting you to help me figure out how to parse issues of systematic bias or systematic error as may be implicit in WP:V?

The following links would have seemed to be singularly unsuited to "spin" as being somehow disruptive, but these are not simple matters.

• Systematic error
• framing
• Consensus
• Informal fallacy
• Critical thinking

The illustrative vehicle I'd like to use for discussing these topics is an article about the newest class of ships in the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force fleet, which at present consists solely of a soon-to-be commissioned vessel which will be named JS Hyūga. I assume that you have little knowledge or interest in this subject, which may serve to help limit and focus our discussion.

Earlier this month, I posted a single sentence addition to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I believed the edit would be seen as politically controversial in the context of an on-going debate within Japan about whether to amend the legally mandated anti-militarism in Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan. The in-line citation accompanying this short sentence was and continued to be the only source cited in this article until a short while ago.

‎The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War.^[1]

I thought identify a non-NPOV controversy affecting any version of the article without this short sentence or something like it, but a quick review of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever would reveal that I've met a great deal of resistance which effectively barred my arriving at the threshold of the discussion I had intended to elicit.

The a priori dilemma became one of figuring out what to do when "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not verifiability" and therefore, our mutual interest in the effective formatting of in-line citations becomes irrelevant, academic, pointless. I've encountered this kind of problem in the past, but in the face of implacable blank walls, no headway seemed possible. This time, when I persisted -- rather than reaching a substantive issue, my efforts were thwarted by complaints that I was being disruptive.

My thought in contacting you was that perhaps, by starting anew with someone who a priori agrees with me that in-line citations and bibliographic references have value, perhaps I'll be able to grasp what went so terribly wrong in the past month? The following bullets may be too telegraphic, but I'm self-consciously trying not to use to many words.

Verifiable citation vs. no citations?

• 1-a. This article cites no specific sources, and yet it is entirely credible as written. One short sentence has been added -- one fact only; and this plausibly controversial assertion is supported by a citation from a undisputed source. In my view, this makes the edit somewhat resistant to easy deletion. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1-b. "in article without sources, deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable"' .... In my view, neither well-informed POV nor reasonable consensus amongst a limited number of editors is plausibly sufficient to trump a credibly sourced sentence. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1-c. In an article with no citation of sources, I wonder how you justify removing the sole sentence which is actually supported by a credible in-line citation? --Tenmei (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1-d. In a dispute in which one side offers a specific, linked citation to support an edit, and an disconsolate, non-specific complainer merely asserts "bad faith" in lieu of actually citing any contradictory sources, it becomes difficult to divine a more constructive path forward. --Tenmei (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 1-e. We're mired in a conflict which pits someone with a sentence supported by a cited, competent source trying to push beyond what are, as articulated thus far, naught but the result of "original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions -- albeit well-informed, on-topic and understandable opinions. Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NON-ANSWER proof of sole subject repeated ad nauseam: This is not basically a discussion over the relative merits of references. No -- with all due respect: wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Citation and Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

RE-STATEMENT: Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again.

An additional factor, which I sensed but dared not mention, was only discovered by accident some days later:

NON-ANSWER proof of "bad faith" (ordinary, non-WP:AGF meaning): I personally find WP:V's assertion that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" to be frustrating given that its basically an open invitation for people to use any professionally published source they like and it can be difficult to correct material which is demonstratably wrong if it is sourced to a mistake. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)-- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Book Review section?[reply]

What I've highlighted above seems to me to be 180° away from how the talk page thread eventually developed. For the time being, I can't parse that Gordian knot, but perhaps you may be able to help me discover how this small excerpt could have been manipulated into a more workable subject?

Will you extend an invitation to step across your threshold? --Tenmei (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not even read the major history journal, which identified the people in the photograph as members of the battallion, which Durova linked? If you're going to attack someone for not providing reliable sources, at least check they haven't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that link says much the same as the image description, "members of", which implies that it depicts members of the regiment, but may depict other things. Thanks for the expletives. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 09:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now why you asked for more details about this particular image, when the photograph compels the eye to the one male in the image. Now that's the story I want, what unit is this man from, what's he doing there, why's he posed in the image. I just thought of this last night after printing the image out and looking at it for a bit. It's a compelling image, but there's something about it that misses the mark, that makes me not want it as a FP in spite of its overall appeal. --Blechnic (talk)

Papa Lima Whiskey, Durova included a link to this image which says in its caption, "Members of the First Petrograd Women's Battalion relaxing at their training camp at Levashovo." This may explain your questions about this image. The men are the regular army soldiers at a training camp, training this woman's unit. I find the image slightly more interesting as an image of a training camp outside of Petersburg, as it has an ominous quality knowing the dates the women's death battalions were allowed to form, and when this image could have been taken, although still not FP in my opinion. Great catch. --Blechnic (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with that duplicate image. --Meldshal 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. --Meldshal 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a !vote on the image now please? Just trying to get some feedback. --Meldshal 21:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the nom. page. --Meldshal 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied. --Meldshal 14:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By channels, what do you mean? --Meldshal 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think enough info was given to me in order for me to find that stuff out. Man, I didn't expect a reviewer to look this deep into the picture. --Meldshal 12:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Skorpionsfliege Panorpa communis male full.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. jjron (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I think your change is a good balance for the lead.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did you mean by "it seems that you're used to the heat"? -- Philcha (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far I haven't had to deal with Cr*******st tr*lls. I've had to deal with a handful of wiki-bullies, plus 2 debates that were extremely vigourous but wihtin WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - just! -- Philcha (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would like to take another look. There are new arguments and info... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Dolina-Pano-3.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. MER-C 08:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

I wanted to throw you a quick note in that there seems to be a slight edit war between a couple editors over the lead urbex image. So I created a new thread for discussion/voting over which image or something different for the lead image on the Talk:Urban exploration. I thought you might be interested in participating. Brothejr (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Sadou Kathmandu 04 04.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 4, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-12-04. howcheng {chat} 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your suggestion, I'll comment it later. In the meantime, please take a look at Commons:Featured picture candidates. It may be regarded as the other face of the coin. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I sent by comments by mail -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please let it go. I'm tempted to give up and begining to think that probably this project is not relevant enough to deserve the effort. It's not only my attempts to start a general discussion on the present status which are being blocked. Apparently everybody went back to sleep in their comfortable armchairs once silence has been restored. (yes, I know I'm being watched)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, thanks for the note. I wouldn't worry about the watching. Few things exceed people's extraordinary propensity for getting bored! :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except the chit-chat, may be ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments about the heron FPC, the current image (Image:IMG_8332_1000.jpg) is 1000x1000 - what resolution is required to make it a suitable candidate for FPC? Martybugs (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've replaced the 1000x1000 version with a 1108x1108, which is the largest I have (which is a crop from a 1662x1108 image). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martybugs (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with the fantail. 50:50 (dropping the nominator) with some poeple not liking a branch in the way is a pretty clear "no consensus". You can change it to "not promoted" if you like, it doesn't make any practical difference as the nominator can easily renominate an image again regardless as to if it was a "no consensus" or "not promoted" Noodle snacks (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After MER-C went on holiday it has been nessicary to close nominations I had voted on. After waiting around three weeks for several of my own nominations to be closed I ended up having to do the majority of them myself.

Regarding the Egret nomination, four supports nominator inclusive and no opposes has passed in every instance I have ever seen. It is simply more productive for me to close 3-4 nominations simultaneously. I am surprised you complain at all after the fuss regarding the timely closure of nominations. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of us should start a discussion on FPC's talk page. I don't expect to get a chance to do this today. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Update-- it's up now. [2] Spikebrennan (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out at WP:FPC! I noticed there are still some edits you need to make to finish promoting File:Gaillardia fanfare centered.jpg:

• Fix the filename at Template:Announcements/New featured content so it links to the promoted edit
• Add a caption for the link at Wikipedia:Goings-on and fix the filename so it links to the promoted edit
• Add a thumbnail at Wikipedia:Featured pictures#Plants and increment the count at the top of the page
• Add a thumbnail at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants#Flowers
• Add it to the gallery at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers#Images_by_Wikipedians with an appropriate caption
• Replace the image in Gaillardia with the featured version
• Request deletion of File:Gaillardia fanfare.jpg under WP:CSD#I8 (on en-wiki, not commons)
• Add the image to the top of the gallery in Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs
• Post a message to User talk:Noodle snacks congratulating him for his promoted image

That should do it. Thanks again! Wronkiew (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but this is really crying out for a bot. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was MER-C's tool thing, but apparently that broke with a change from Image:, File: and you have to do a bunch of closings to be "eligable". Noodle snacks (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details regarding the tool, but he was only giving access to people that had done a few closings last I recall (so if problems occur they know how to fix it). I am not sure it is open source (yet), but hopefully can get him to fix it and release the source when he gets back from holiday. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I typically do for studio shots, gets more pixels on the subject for more ultimate detail. As far as birds and so on go, again I am usually trying to get as close as possible. Usually I don't get close enough though, often a tight crop with the 400mm is a result of the imprecision of holding 400mm hand-held (difficult to frame concisely with camera shake). Where practical I use a tripod with the 400mm, but I might have to get a monopod sometime. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you consider revisiting Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Les Eclaireurs Lighthouse. Rights to the photo you requested have been granted. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, a couple of inches, I think, but that's hardly a mitigating reason for an oppose though; it's not at all uncommon for an FP to be missing a little bit of animal: just to name a couple Benjamint 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which of the above did I support? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None, I wasn't pointing out inconsistent voting; merely that IMO missing animal parts are not uncommon and not unacceptable, in the case of the kangaroo some of the most destinguishing features are missing... a couple of inches of tail are pretty minor. Benjamint 04:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me point out two things then. (a) whether you think it's minor has very little weight as not only are you the nominator, but you're also the photographer. I'm not surprised you think your own images are wonderful. (b) arguing that because some images have passed with cut off tails, this one has some sort of magical entitlement to also pass, is very weak, as consensus can change. I really feel people should stop "going there" (i.e. complaining that past images with flaws have passed and therefore so must theirs) and just accept that each image gets judged on its merit. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Meninas is a serious discussion about whether to run an internationally famous artwork on Wikipedia's main page. You state yourself, I can be overly sarcastic, and several of the regulars at that process agree. A few weeks ago I offered mediation. You were unresponsive to that suggestion.

You've contributed featured pictures and sometimes offered valuable insights. That is very much appreciated. Other times your input impresses people as disruptive and quarrelsome. The latter is not good for the process; we are all volunteers here. Please take care to keep your input brief, pleasant, and topical. Durova^Charge! 15:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg, 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. MER-C 07:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your commentary about your wiki-friends is touching. I know them by reputation and would surely feel the same way if I had the pleasure of working with them before they retired. The statement is also, however, unrelated to the merits of featured picture candidacy. Please move it to an appropriate location and I will answer your question. Durova^Charge! 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've been back for a couple of days now. Do you intend to comply with the request above? The nomination is now overdue for closure; requesting the courtesy of a reply. Durova^Charge! 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PLW, there is an edited version of the image you supported at the nomination. Could you please comment? --Muhammad(talk) 10:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Skorpionsfliege Panorpa communis male full.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 13, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-13. howcheng {chat} 23:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PLW, just wondering, why have your contributions to FPC decreased so much? I used to appreciate your comments --Muhammad(talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm very sorry I didn't understand your intention. Could you explain to me what you dislike in the 66/67 propositions and how your point-based suggestion differ from that/address your concern ?

Regards, Ksempac (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on my nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hawaii Bathymetry, I have made changes to the image and would appreciate a revisit as the nomination is closing soon. Thanks. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've left a message for you on your Commons talk page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scales added to this and this. Does that change your !vote? upstateNYer 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due in part to your comments I went back and reapplied the denoise filter with a proper mask around her face so no detail is lost in that area of the image anymore. Please reevaluate your comments based on the new modification if you don't mind. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your comments here, which leads me to ask if you think either File:Ewart Brown.JPG or File:Hans-Rudolf Merz, 2009.jpg and the other Swiss Federal Council portraits would pass muster as FPs. I think they would be perfect, quality-wise, but you have more FP experience than I do. What do you think? If you think they'd fly I'll nominate them. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to some conversation eons ago there is support for getting focus distance info for the 5Dii and other new cameras now: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/3931469082/ Noodle snacks (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the tilt to the best of my estimation. Can you have another look? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Dean_Franklin_-_06.04.03_Mount_Rushmore_Monument_(by-sa)-3_new.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. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HoryujiYumedono0363.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the category [[Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors]] to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks,   Nezzadar ☎   17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PLW, Your concern has finally been addressed. Sorry it took long, college exams going on. --Muhammad(talk) 14:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth) wb edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (under special circumstances)[reply]

I think someone forgot to add this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:HoryujiYumedono0363edit4.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Papa Lima Whiskey. You commented at the above FPC. Could I ask you to indicate whether you prefer the original or one of the edits? I could also do another edit, applying a de-skew to the Original, if you prefer the Original to Edit 1. Thanks for your input. Cheers, --JN466 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:MC Siedleragame.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. Maedin\talk 18:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 22, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-02-22. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your vote here? Sounds like you prefer the original, but do you still support edit 2? Makeemlighter (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erlebnispark Tripsdrill, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Leiocephalus carinatus armouri tree cool.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. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMo, you probably should have removed your own comments about the intentions of other voters when you removed the mostly irrelevant comments from Muhammad's nomination, as they added nothing but bad faith to your vote. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re your msg on my page, I agree with you that there are many good images whose authors don't know about FPC and we should nominate their pictures as well. However, that should not stop us from promoting self-nominations. For my part, I have nominated quite a few such pictures and so has Diliff. --Muhammad(talk) 15:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Trachylepis striata edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was tracking Mzb1's editing history and came to the GGB images she had nominated...it is as simple as that. For some odd reason, I had forgotten about a barnstar Mzb1 had awarded me...does that disallow me from commenting on things she may nominate. Since she is a published photographer, I doubt my humble opinion truly matters to anyone but me, but I did decide in this rare instance to voice my opinion...I rarely do regarding images.--MONGO 03:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I agree with your assessment we need more featured pictures by other artists. I've replied there, but if you have any specific works you'd like me to take a shot at I'd be more than willing. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Pine grosbeak17g.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Phelsuma-laticauda-Saint-Denis.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. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you recently made some improvements to the frog article. It is currently under featured article review and will likely lose its FA status if further improvements are not made. Please comment on the FAR page if you intend to help improve the article back to FA standard. I'd be interested in helping if so. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Battle at Lanka, Ramayana, Udaipur, 1649-53.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. Maedin\talk 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PLW, thanks for the nomination. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've made an alt of this image. You've voted on it; could you review the alternative, and see which you prefer? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]