User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey

/archive

User:Papa Lima Whiskey has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Papa Lima Whiskey's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Papa Lima Whiskey! Peace, Rlevse 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here .

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see

]

Awesome

Ten years!

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

Please explain your concept. What exactly is the benefit. How is adding blank images useful? AshLin (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [2], ensuing correspondence: [3] [4] [5])

[Addressing J Milburn] I'm a bit worried about your comment here [6]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll try to see if Truthdowser can fix the error in the diagram (highlighted in red for emphasis) then I will nominate it.

Moved to commons.

talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Beachy Head and Lighthouse, East Sussex, England - April 2010 crop horizon corrected.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) 08:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)2.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) 03:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Bufo melanosticus 01.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) 07:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde poster edit2.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) 03:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to talk 06:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

An image created by you has been promoted to talk 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

An image created by you has been promoted to talk 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

An image created by you has been promoted to talk 17:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

An image created by you has been promoted to talk 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For leaving a message inviting me to participate in the second review of the closure process I hereby present you with The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Thank you for the invitation, I appreciated it very much, and I am looking forward to seeing what devlopes as a result of this review. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting the opium poppy set to work so well in the

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Africa (satellite image).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) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Eumecesfasciatus.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. Jujutacular T · C 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Grow up... Sniping at me is hardly going to excuse your own idiocy. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Humboldt River Papa 2.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) 22:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Inachis io top MichaD.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. NauticaShades 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Inachis io top detail MichaD.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. NauticaShades 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Microphoto-butterflywing.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. NauticaShades 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:SEM image of a Peacock wing, slant view 1.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. NauticaShades 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:SEM image of a Peacock wing, slant view 2.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. NauticaShades 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:SEM image of a Peacock wing, slant view 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. NauticaShades 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:SEM image of a Peacock wing, slant view 4.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. NauticaShades 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Papa Lima Whiskey. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page.
Message added 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo PLW, I've replied to you and also finished notifying, [7].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to talk 12:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		The Historical Media Barnstar
		For your restorations of early photographs, which have allowed several to pass which otherwise wouldn't have. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Papa Lima Whiskey. You have new messages at P. S. Burton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Great to have you onboard! =) The page is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-07-26/Features_and_admins#Featured pictures, 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)[reply]

Hello, Papa Lima Whiskey. You have new messages at Theleftorium's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...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)[reply]

PING: I emailed you. Tony (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where would it be placed? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have there be two choices this week. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You assumed bad faith. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

. . . 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.

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)[reply]

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

talk 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

talk 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

No problem, :) All done.

talk 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

talk 11:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

— raekyT 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply