User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey

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

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

Welcome!

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) 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

Rollback on Tuatara

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)

Sockpuppetry

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

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)

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

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))

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)

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))

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)

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)

Re User_talk:Jjron#Toeing_the_line

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)

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)

Hong Kong image

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)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Retired Pacific Hurricane Names

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)

Barnstar

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

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sadou Kathmandu 04 04.jpg

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)

Yeah...

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)

Hey look

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)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Japanese Car Accident

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)

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)

Static pixel sizes in images.

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)

Image:Stringy bark leaf443.jpg

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)

Deo Volente

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

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

Urban exploration

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)

Vague threats by Brothejr

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Meadowpippit2008 edit.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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)

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)

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)

POV

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

In-line citations

Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer is like car collision in which both vehicles are traveling at low speeds. As revealed in the edit history, the full range of nuanced, subtle, non-NPOV fundamentals in this talk page "accident" are set in 2007, not in 2008. In this context, re-framing questions in which the scope of "consensus" is limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy. --Tenmei (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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?

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)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Regiment_from_Petrograd

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)

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)

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)