User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey

/archive

Happy Papa Lima Whiskey's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:GO
WP:GO must be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC before new additions are made to the previous week's page. Only the WP:FAC editors have been doing this, while other featured processes have not shared in the maintenance burden. The instructions for archiving the page are included in an HTML comment in the WP:GO page-- it would be helpful if other featured processes would help with the Sat night weekly archiving. Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 11:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

New concept?
Hi PLW,

Please explain your concept. What exactly is the benefit. How is adding blank images useful? AshLin (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have missed out on an edit summary but I did ask you here as to the benefit. As regards the concept, you have not bothered to explain it to me here as yet. I did see your changes to the other two posts and your edit summaries. Maybe what is obvious to you is not obvious to me. I'm not quite sure what you intend. So I asked here. Since my aim is not to get into a revert war, please explain what is your idea and why this is a good idea. If I'm convinced, I'll back you on it. AshLin (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now I understand what you are trying to do. I'm not convinced that this juxtaposition of images is meaningful but I will give you the benefit of my doubt. If you notice I immediately posted my query about your "new concept" on your talk page. Instead of giving my query in the edit summary, I did it on your talk page. As far as doing constructive things is concerned, it would have helped if you had explained in the talk page of the first article about your new concept itself what you did and why. It's not at all obvious. AshLin (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Renderings

 * This discussion has been put into context retrospectively, for archival purposes, hence Papa's conversation starter is here rather than on J Milburn's talk page, where it was posted originally. (starter:, ensuing correspondence:  )

[Addressing J Milburn] I'm a bit worried about your comment here. Do you mean to suggest that a labelled rendering would not be a diagram? Or not featurable? Thanks for clarifying. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously not making myself clear- all I am meaning to say is that a user-made illustration of this sort is not suitable to be used in place of a photo. Would we be featuring a user-made sketch of a building? No, but a floor-plan or something akin drawn by a Wikipedian would potentially be a suitable FP. Equally, a map would be suitable, a landscape painting not. See what I'm saying? J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't think I can agree with you. It seems that your problem (if we were to put it like that) is that you feel a 3D rendering is not as verifiable as a photograph or a diagram. But especially the parallel with a diagram shows the strength of a 3D modelling approach, because 3D models are unambiguously parameterised in their native file format. What that means is that while simple SVG diagrams that use a 3D perspective (or user drawings) can easily be wrong, such errors are much more readily discoverable in a proper 3D model because the original file explicitly has the measurements - perspective in a simple SVG is usually guesswork unless the author has gone the particularly roundabout way of constructing the diagram using perspective lines rather than going for a 3D model for a start. As I said, since simple 3D raytracings can be readily converted to SVG (and SVG back to raster images), I see no rational basis for the rejection of rendered or raytraced images. In fact, we've promoted a limited number in the past although somewhat restricted to articles about 3D modelling. And I still think this is no worse a starting point than a lot of diagrams that we eventually saw being promoted (this one took a bit longer and so did these). So I don't see how any of this is putting us at a disadvantage - if anything, having a spatial model is a plus! Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think we're talking at cross-purposes here. We should strive to illustrate articles with photographs- obviously, however, as you say, in physics and mathematics articles, diagrams and renderings are more useful. Take the recent mosquito image- a diagram like that is highly useful; however, the lead image still should be, and still is, a photograph. We should not aim to replace photographs with drawn pictures. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think anyone is suggesting replacing a photograph because there isn't one. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and my original point was that we should not be promoting user-made "pseudo-photographs"- instead, we should wait for photographs (or better photographs) to arrive. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And no amount of armchair philosophising is going to produce the photograph. I predict it will be years before we get one that is suitably licensed, never mind the quality concerns. To me, this is purely a question of resolving whatever content concerns there may be about the computer rendering, not of barring certain kinds of media because of what to me still seems to amount to "frankly, I don't like it". So my reply to your initial question, "see what I'm saying?" is, yes I can read the words but the meaning doesn't reveal itself. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be happy to accept my painting of a certain landscape then, if I was a good enough painter? My sketch of a certain bird, if I was a good enough sketcher? J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RQ-170 Sentinel
I'll try to see if Truthdowser can fix the error in the diagram (highlighted in red for emphasis) then I will nominate it. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to commons. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see...
How can I reply to this appropriately? I frankly have no idea what you're talking about. You have been raving about how I am opposed to the image appearing in the lead section, which, as I have explained, I am not. At the same time, this is completely consistent with me feeling that the EV is not high enough for the image to be featurable. If I have misunderstood, feel free to re-explain, but your sarcasm and the fact you're ignoring my comments just makes you look like an idiot. J Milburn (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time for that now, J Milburn. I'm busy with other things. Sorry. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg
Thank you for getting the opium poppy set to work so well in the opium poppy infobox. You saved me the trouble of having to figure it out, and closing sets is tedious enough without that, :) Also, I happened to spot that you made this crop, part of the set.  Thanks for that, too.  Regards,  Mae din\ talk 21:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Red-winged Blackbird
This is the second time you've treated me like shit on FPC. Drop it. As a rule, we treat each other with a little respect here. J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/California Trail at Humboldt River
Can you clarify your participation at this nomination? You did not explicitly state your support for the edit or, for that matter, opposition to the original. Since the nomination is a bit confusing, I'm requesting clarification from a few participants. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:FPC behaviour
Grow up... Sniping at me is hardly going to excuse your own idiocy. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
— raeky ( talk 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: FPC review: notifying participants of results
Hallo PLW, I've replied to you and also finished notifying,.  Mae din\ talk 18:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Page load time
I archive once a month at the end of the month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Euplectes sp.jpg
Hey there! Thanks for making an alternate crop of the picture, which has been promoted. Good work!  Jujutacular  T · C 13:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Temple Grandin at Ted
Can we please close this nom now? Not only is it clear that it's going to fail (as it was before) but now enough people have supported the close to warrant a speedy closure even under the rules that you've proclaimed. I'm assuming if I was to do it you would find some reason to overturn it again? J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?
This just comes across as trawling. I have no strong feelings on the question- I don't care, I never really look at the recently closed section- but, especially considering his sarcastic comment, it comes across that you're just trying to be a dick. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no sarcastic comment, and I don't know what you mean by trawling. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * jjron's sarcastic comment in his edit summary. And by trawling, I meant trolling. I have no idea why I wrote that... J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gases
Thanks for going through all the work on that one: If it helps, find that spending a couple minutes preparing the list of everything I want to promote, with the creator and what it is, means I can just copy-paste the list and tweak the formatting at the various pages.

If you ever hit something like that again with one of mine, I'm happy to do the work with my own nominations, provided someone else marks them as promoted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/File:Twin_Linear_Aerospike_XRS-2200_Engine.jpg
I imagine you saw, but your edit has been promoted, and I put it into all the articles and portals and so on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Signpost
Hey, PLW,

There's some boilerplate for this request, and I'll paste it below, but I prefer to be a bit more personal: I've gotten involved with helping out with the Signpost's new Features and admins section, which includes commentary and any interesting little bits that came up in the reviews for each of the content categories.

It also has a choice of the week, and that wanders amongst the regular contributors to FPC. There's about a dozen names that come to mind when I think about Featured pictures - I'll spare you a list, you've been there for years as well, and could come up with it just as easily. So, coming to the point: Would you like to be the person who selects their favourite Featured picture this week, to highlight in the signpost?

Boilerplate info follows The Signpost's "Features and admins" page now includes a "Choice of the week" for featured articles, featured lists and featured pictures. Each week, The Signpost invites a different delegate, reviewer or nominator from each process to select what they think is the best, or their favourite, item, and to give their reasons. These reasons can be technical (e.g., related to the Criteria) or subjective, or both.

I wonder whether you'd be willing to judge the best featured [article/list/picture] in next week’s edition. If you agree, promotions from Monday 19 to Saturday 24 July will be eligible (only six days this week because the publication deadline has come forward). They will be listed here by Saturday UTC, and we would need your text by Sunday UTC. Examples from previous weeks are accessible by clicking on "← PREVIOUS Features and admins" at the bottom.

I realise the timing is a bit specific; obviously, it's because, well, too far in advance and we don't really know what will pass, too late and it's not really news. =)

If you can't do it this week, but want to do it later, just let me know when would be good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no rush: Really, it can't be written until we know (or are fairly certain) what FPs are going to be promoted anyway, after all. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy closes, again
Do you not consider it a little... odd that you've just taken the liberty of speedy closing two nominations, neither of which actually meet any of the proposed guidelines? I completely agree with both closures, but I really, really can't see how this is consistent with the arguments you've expressed on the FPC talk page... J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely consistent, and they weren't speedy closes. One was withdrawn, and the other had its image file deleted. What else do you propose to do with them? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They were closed early. What were they if not speedy closes? I completely agree with them, I don't propose we do anything else with them; as you know, I have plenty of time for common sense. I just got the impression that you didn't... J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy closes are those that invoke the speedy mechanism, i.e. where someone votes "speedy close". This did not happen and was not necessary, these were entirely procedural closes. Again, what do you propose to do instead, or are you just here to be disruptive? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're feeling the need to invent distinctions and define to the last order. You closed these early. What are they then? SNOW closes? It doesn't really make a difference- I seem to remember you were, equally, ardently opposed to them. Like I said, I agree with these closes. I'm just hoping that the fact you just felt the need to close two nominations early will make you rethink your entrenched position... J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been trying to explain to you that these are in a separate category. I don't know why that's so hard to accept. As for your faulty memory, please. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, and what defines that category? I like closes like that, it just seems that things are only in that category if you say they are... J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted files, withdrawn noms. Everything else that I can think of is less clear-cut: noms with licensing problems could be suspended if someone volunteers to attempt to acquire a more appropriate license; I believe everything that you've referred to as "copyvio" falls into this category. If nobody volunteers, these would also be closed "procedurally", if it needs a name. I don't think we've said what the grace period for this would be, but I'm guessing somewhere between 24 and 48 hrs unless the nominator asks for immediate closure. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Signpost
Great to have you onboard! =) The page is at Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-07-26/Features_and_admins, and, although I'm predicting one closure that, properly speaking, we won't know for certain about until tomorrow, it'd need so many opposes to show up out of the blue that it's a very safe bet. The page is ready for commentary when you are. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Theleftorium (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And again. :) Theleftorium (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain
...But we do need your commentary here A.S.A.P: The article's meant to be published pretty soon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PING: I emailed you. Tony   (talk)  02:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Papa, the deadline has well passed. Adam and I have emailed two other users to see if they can stand in at short notice. Please email me if you come online in the meantime (neither has yet replied). Tony   (talk)  04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another user (TTT) has agreed. We'd be delighted to have you as the guest in another week, but it will need to be done between Saturday and early Sunday US east-coast time. Cheers! Tony   (talk)  04:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I really do apologise. Had I known you had a piece ready, I'd have held it up for you, but I hadn't heard anything from you in several days, and you only had said "I think it might work out okay." - which isn't definite. If you want, I have no objection to adding your statement in, if you give it to me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where would it be placed? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have there be two choices this week. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Aggressive behaviour
I've warned you about your aggression before. This is your last warning- continue as you are, I will block you, it's as simple as that. That kind of behaviour just simply isn't acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot block me because you're involved, and you'll look bad if people start considering who started assuming bad faith, because that's you. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Because I'm "involved", you're allowed to shout abuse at me. No thanks. J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You assumed bad faith. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not assume bad faith at all, I just saw the stated situation as inconsistent. You said you wanted to keep a "moderately level of control" over it. That's not how this works. If you want to have a userpage essay, have a userpage essay. If you want a glossary to be used and referenced with some authority at FPC, write one, and everyone can chip in as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if I had assumed bad faith, it's not acceptable for you to behave like that. I don't have any intention of patronising you, but if you think that that is acceptable, then there is an issue. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you here to apologise for this, this and various other "visits" you've made to this page? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

would you consider . ..
. . . letting me restore the glossary? It should stay—it belongs and it's good and it would be nice to see it in project space. I can't be the only one who doesn't want J Milburn's arrogant block threats to have discouraged such a useful, positive, and needed contribution.  Mae din\ talk 01:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since I don't see the point in it remaining deleted, it might as well be undeleted. I don't know if a history merge would work - that would seem to resolve some of the difficulties here. Maybe you can give some advice on the technicals? Sorry for not replying sooner. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, a history merge would work, yes, and I don't think it would be inappropriate. It would preserve yours, Raeky's, and Jujutacular's contributions and make it easier for additions to be made to the current glossary.  I don't wish to comment on other concerns regarding the two glossaries, but I imagine that a history merge is a suitable response.
 * As far as technicals go, it would be a fairly straightforward case, as described here. You could do the history merge yourself as long as you use db-g6 to have the current glossary deleted, but it would be simpler and faster for an admin to perform the history merge.  Let me know how you want to proceed, if at all.   Mae din\ talk 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, because I wasn't sure what you meant! Yes, it would be best, I probably shouldn't have suggested any other way, actually, my apologies.  I'll do it momentarily.   Mae din\ talk 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for that. I'll keep an eye on it for a while, so I should see when you're done. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, :) All done.   Mae din\ talk 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hiya, thanks for the invitation. I've spotted a few things to (hopefully!) improve and have made a start, :)  Do say or revert if you disagree with any of my changes.   Mae din\ talk 11:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Crinipellis zonata
I've uploaded some alts with more "real" colour, and Dan has left some thoughts too. Feel free to chip in with your opinion of the alts. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mike Godwin 2

 * Featured picture candidates/Mike Godwin 2

I'm sorry that I missed your comment at the discussion. To reply: there is no problem with the picture, and I don't know what a "filler flash" is but it sounds like waffle to me. I should have commented on these concerns when I first posted my opinion; sorry about that. Regards, AGK   11:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Humpty Dumpty
FYI, I fixed the smudge. Thank you for spotting that!  Jujutacular  talk 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Calliphora vomitoria edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 17, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-08-17.  howcheng  {chat} 09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:William Notman studios - Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill (1895) edit.jpg
I've taken the liberty of redoing this: The faces were a bit over-sharpened because I had applied selective sharpening there, so I redid the sharpening after making a mask. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/M-15 centerline 1917
Did you have an opinion on the original?  Imzadi  1979   →   18:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Lee Bollinger

 * Okay, what did I do that the image isn't showing up in this template or on the article page? I did the same thing I do every time! Help? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Species ID
Well, it's certainly a Sepioteuthis and of the three commonly recognised species, S. lessoniana is the only one whose range covers Komodo National Park (see ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/ac479e/ac479e18.pdf for example). I'd say it's a pretty solid ID. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Culture and lifestyle
Well, do you think it needs to be strictly chronological? If oit doesn't, that simplifies things a lot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take heart, and make a start (though I fear the prospect shady). Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? Also, what do you think of separating out our history categories a bit? they're a little American-centric... and there have been complaints. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I didn't worry too much about getting the order perfect, but it shouldn't be TOO far off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we could probably spin off at least a couple wars. We have a number of images related to the Crimean War, for instance.
 * An alternative might be to simply rearrange "Other wars" to divide up by war. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill
Please see my comment at Featured picture candidates/Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill, c.1885. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Where...
...are you getting this from? That's not what the instructions say- they say it's a straight up to week nomination. I've undone your edit. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of my own actions (which I stand by...) you cannot just make up your own rules, especially when the nomination, if following the rules, will close the way you don't want it to. I explained why I did not notify Fir- he's not away, he's retired, he's said he's not here any more. There was nothing under-hand about what I did, and I resent the insinuation. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When someone retires from Wikipedia, they really can't expect to be notified. No, I didn't notify Fir immediately- I've come to see that's something people really get fussed about at delisting, so I have started to do it. I'm certainly not the only person (Muhammad, Adam) who has been more than a little surprised at the demand to notify people who no longer edit. You were welcome to step in and fix my mistake by notifying Fir- what you are not welcome to do is change the rules at your whim, especially when the rules don't suit your preferred outcome. J Milburn (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See here. J Milburn (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting deletion
I see that you have decided to ask for a second opinion on the deletion of Senostoma. You are, of course, perfectly welcome to do this. However, tagging it for speedy deletion as "an article that contains no content whatsoever" when that was not the case until you removed its content, is not the way to go about it. If you think the redirect should be deleted then please take it to WP:RfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case CSD A3 never applied, as this is a redirect, not an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RfD no. 10. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Olive baboons featured
Test -- I'ḏ ♥  One  01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

License question
Dear Papa Lima Whiskey, I've recently seen your featured picture File:Twin_Linear_Aerospike_XRS-2200_Engine_PLW_edit.jpg and was curious about its license tag. What was your reason to apply cc sa 3.0 unported here? Performing a restoration does not automatically qualify for a derivative work. --Peter Weis (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill, c.1885

 * For your editing. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Coconut octopus nomination
There's another version of the image available at. I'd appreciate it if you could offer comment or state a preference. Thank you. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture PR
Since you commented at Featured picture candidates/M-15 centerline 1917, you might want to comment at Picture peer review/M-15 centerline 1917.  Imzadi  1979   →  22:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Biology has been nominated for a Featured Portal Review
The biology portal is one of the Featured Portals, but I don't think it matches the standards required of portals these days. I've therefore listed it for review and possible defeaturing at Featured portal review/Biology. If you can help to improve the portal, or you have any comments to make about it, please join in the discussion. I've notified you as you are one of the few people who seems to have done anything to maintain the portal in the last few years. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 11:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Samurai anime
Category:Samurai anime, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

FPC question
Hi Papa Lima Whiskey, I'm 0.25 vote short of support for my Carambola composition, and the voting is closing soon. It has some strong support but not enough people are voting. I'm wondering if you could help put one of those boxes at the top to draw attention to more potential voters? I don't mind if it fails due to many people opposing, but it would be a shame to fail just because there are simple not enough votes. If it fails, can I submit it again at a later stage? What are the rules for that? As you are aware, I'm quite new at FPC. Thanks. – S Masters (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Colpophyllia natans
Hi, I don't know if you've noticed but I've been adding a bit to Colpophyllia natans. I nominated it today for DYK, giving you author credit—hope you don't mind! Feel free to add an alternative hook if you have anything in mind; I had trouble coming up with something decent.  Mae din\ talk 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Colpophyllia natans
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Befreiungshalle
Could you comment there? I counted your vote towards promoting the original, which may have been incorrect.  Jujutacular  talk 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
I'm so sorry but somehow I missed your message until I was archiving today. Thanks for letting me know about User:Papa Lima Whiskey/Fruits. It is very useful indeed! I will search for some of them to do. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

curious ping
Hi Papa, just wondering what's up and if we'll be seeing you back at FPC soon? Guess I'm missing your nominations! :)  Mae din\ talk 22:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, nice to see you back, thanks for the "return". And thanks also for the crop of the anemone.  I haven't noticed WP being any slower than usual recently, and it seems fine for me today.  Not sure what to suggest, you've probably already thought of the obvious things. :)   Mae din\ talk 14:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleted.


 * Yes, I'd be happy to work on the articles, though I'm not sure there is much information available that I can access. I will look and see what I can do, afraid it might not be much, :)


 * Identifying all of Nick's images that are FP-worthy and placed in developed articles would take some effort, and then there is the placing and the article writing to do for the others. I suppose several of us who have an interest in his work have probably been checking and considering the same files and duplicating efforts without realising it.  I noticed your fruits table, btw, it's a good idea; perhaps something similar could be put together for Nick's material—identifying what he's done that is eligible in terms of size, article placement, and quality, and then inviting nominators to pick from the list.  But who would do the table?  :)  Too much work for one, he's been quite prolific.  Better ideas?   Mae din\ talk 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bolinus cornutus—one down. Feel free to nominate.   Mae din\ talk 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Red-headed Finch

 * Oops! I probably would have caught this eventually, but thankfully, Maedin is on the ball. Sorry about that. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde poster edit2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 5, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-01-05.  howcheng  {chat} 21:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

FPC delist nomination
Hi there. I've suggested for delisting an image which you created. Please see. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

FP nomination of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
Hi PLW. I just wanted to inform you that Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is up for Featured picture again. The nomination can be found here. I am informing you as you have previously participated in a Featured Picture review of this image, here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Battle at Lanka, Ramayana, Udaipur, 1649-53.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 30, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-10-30.  howcheng  {chat} 17:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Leiocephalus carinatus armouri tree cool.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 16, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-11-16.  howcheng  {chat} 19:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 26, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-11-26.  howcheng  {chat} 18:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Atelopus certus calling male edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 31, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-03-31. — howcheng  {chat} 06:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion
Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.

If you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Tonna galea 02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 15, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-04-15. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Entacmaea quadricolor (Bubble tip anemone).jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 29, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-04-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Gun-type fission weapon en-labels thin lines.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 30, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-04-30. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Colonial anemone zebra.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 26, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-05-26. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Glaucus atlanticus 1 cropped.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on February 5, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-02-05. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth) wb edit.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on August 13, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-08-13. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxobox multiple images
Template:Taxobox multiple images has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PLW,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine PLW edit.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 6, 2020. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2020-10-06. Thank you for all of your contributions! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FPC urgents/RowByFile
Template:FPC urgents/RowByFile has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Balistapus undulatus (Nausicaä).jpg
An image you nominated File:Balistapus undulatus (Nausicaä).jpg has been nominated for delisting because it has been replaced with a higher resolution image. You can see the nomination at. Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)