User talk:Julia W/Archive 5

Protected page

Hi Julie! the article Singapore has as COA this file: "Coat of Arms of Singapore.svg" that not exist. Please, replace it by "Coat of arms of Singapore.svg". Thank you! --Xavigivax (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hola Xavigivax, long time no talk. I've made the change for you. But the page is only semi-protected, you would have been able to edit it yourself, :) ¡Espero que usted y su familia están bien! Maedin\^talk 12:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! and please, don't addres to me using the "usted" form. Use the less formal "tu". We're all fine, enjoying a new home. I'm exhausted repairing walls and painting and mounting furnitures. The problem is the heat, I don't support the heat. --Xavigivax (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, tu it is! Lo siento, :) Congratulations on the new home, and yes, I know how exhausting home improvements are, but it's always worth the effort. I'm sorry to hear that you don't enjoy the heat . . . Spain has a lot more summer still to come. Go to the beach and you will like it more, :) Good luck to España in the World Cup final! Adiós, Maedin\^talk 08:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Since"

Just FYI regarding this edit, you may want to check definition 2 at wikt:since#Conjunction. Anomie⚔ 14:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and there are ways to use it unambiguously, and that is not an example. See the "since or because" section here: [1]. Wherever the meaning can be confused, "because" should be preferred—"since" and "because" are not usually synonymous. Maedin\^talk 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how "since" in the version before your edit could have been ambiguous, but whatever. I don't really care. Anomie⚔ 17:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Put "ever" before "since" and you'll see it, :) It doesn't really matter to me, either, I just happened to spot it and figured it could be improved. Maedin\^talk 21:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Smibbly Bibbly

Maybe you should go to England someday. Smibbly Bibbly is indeed slang for a remote control. 173.3.154.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC).

I *live* in England. I have lived in England for long enough to know that smibbly bibbly, used in whatever corner of the British Isles you might think it is, is not under consideration for a place on List of British words not widely used in the United States. Maedin\^talk 19:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And I happen to live in Northern Ireland, where the word is commonly used. My IP address is merely the product of a vacation to USA. 173.3.154.230 (talk)

A vacation, not a holiday? Stable IP address? lol, I'm not buying it. All the evidence thus far, including the other US IPs joining in the game, suggest that you think this is funny. Forget about reliable sources, even the search engines don't agree with you. Maedin\^talk 05:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Power

How can you use your opinion to justify protecting a page? --173.3.154.230 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not just my opinion. Maedin\^talk 06:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had a Smibbly Bibbly to turn off your editing powers. --173.3.154.230 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll have to settle for a remote control. Maedin\^talk 06:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is unbelievable, simply unbelievable, that you claim your opinion is fact and Smibbly Bibbly is not the British equivalent of remote control, at least in Northern Ireland. Your best friend Google alone is returning results for "Smibbly Bibbly" that all point to it being the British variant of the aforementioned term. Like I said, this is simply unbelievable, and I guarantee you that if Smibbly Bibbly was not already an accepted variant, this unacceptable controversy will inflate its notability and earn it a place on the article. As you think it does not exist now, it will become a Mondegreen in your eyes, but the rest of us will know it was always used. --173.3.154.230 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for closing those two noms at FPC. I had a feeling they were going to linger. I'd asked jjron since it appeared you'd been away (from FPC, at least) lately. Glad to see you're alive! Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I hadn't noticed you had asked jjron, sorry! I still regularly lurk at FPC, I've just been too busy with life, work, and university to edit there much lately. Thank you for the note, I appreciate it! :) Maedin\^talk 06:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More thanks are in order for this. I could have sworn I'd removed that! Oh well. It must be the summer heat... Makeemlighter (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I didn't even pay attention to who closed it, just saw that it had been. I'm sure I've forgotten to remove closed ones from there loads of times. I'm away for a week as of . . . well, now, so you'll have to shape up, ;p (just kidding!) Maedin\^talk 21:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Chienlit (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

PotD notification

POTD

Hi Maedin,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Dendrocygna bicolor wilhelma.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 22, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-07-22. howcheng {chat} 22:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes!

Hi Julie, yesterday morning I sent you an e-card to wish you a very happy and "wonder" full day. With best wishes! Grancafé ^*parley 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WT:FPC - "Not personal"

This very clearly is personal- PLW has already claimed ownership of the page, as I said, and has explicitly said he does not want this to become any more of than his userpage, literally because he is scared of "people like" me editing it. A glossary would be a great idea, I think everyone agrees on that. However, we want a FPC glossary, not PLW's glossary. There's a very big difference- he has already made that explicit. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you might have missed the word "currently" in his original post. I don't think PLW at all intended ownership in the way that you imply. Regardless, considering the tension between the two of you, your removal of the link was a bad move. Commenting, fine, but you should have known better than to make that edit when you know that you are biased. I'm not fooled into thinking that you didn't know exactly what you were doing and what response you would get. Your block threat was equally poor choice. I don't want to quarrel with you, but I can't stand immature playground tiffs and will comment on such. Maedin\^talk 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and he "currently" claimed "editorial control"- if that's not ownership, I don't know what is. The only reason there is any "tension" between us is because I'm the one who has given him the much-needed warnings (which he has clearly failed to heed/respect), and he clearly resents that, seeing himself as above all this. How you can say he wasn't trying to claim ownership when he said he didn't want me "pissing on" his page is beyond me. You'll also note that the general opinion is very much with my move on the talk page. I really have no idea what you're talking about with regards to knowing "exactly what I was doing"- I went to the discussion very positively, expecting to just leave a "nicely done!" type comment and move on, until I saw what he had done and what he was claiming. I think your whole attitude to this is upsetting, serving only to legitimise PLW's behaviour. I know for a fact that I am not the only person who has issue with his attitude and aggression. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The pissing comment came after your initial post and your removal of the link—your poor choice came first. Like I said, I'm convinced that you knew where it was headed and proceeded anyway. I am not defending his behaviour or attitude in the slightest . . . I am criticising yours. Have you not noticed that you keep egging him on, telling him off, interacting, being histrionic, instead of behaving as an adult admin should and backing off? You're encouraging it, and have been for months. If you left well enough alone, there would be no problem. You also chose to grossly exaggerate what "moderate level of editorial control" means. With a less biased eye than yours, it means nothing more than what every user expects in their own userspace, and, as I said, stewardship. You chose to interpret it as ownership and tight control. Please remove the blinkers now. Maedin\^talk 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an admins job to ignore people behaving inappropriately and back off? News to me. As I say, there are plenty of others who have an issue with him. I have been more than tolerant- the point is that, despite warnings, his behaviour has continued. Yes, I know what he means by "editorial control"- the same anyone means within their own userspace, as you say- but that is not appropriate for a pseudo-policy page. "Here's the new page we can show people. I'm in charge of editing it, but I will allow you to edit it if you're good." Not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not really getting it. And you keep coming back to content. The conclusion to be reached from FPC talk and his user talk is that this is, and has been, a personal issue, between the two of you. The pattern of inappropriate behaviour that you claim is largely limited to your interactions with him, which you keep encouraging. Not exclusively, I know, but largely. I don't see any evidence of your warnings having been inspired by anything other than your own insertions and personal offences. Would you like to somehow contradict? You imply that all this time you have simply been defending us magnanimously, but we know better, and you really needn't bother. Not only can we take it, but we're also capable of avoiding the problem entirely, which you appear unable to do. I doubt I'm alone in feeling belittled by your belief(?) that you're somehow "protecting" us. We all have differences of opinion; for some reason you only take it personally whenever it comes from him. Maedin\^talk 22:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what? Where on earth has that come from? Who is "we"? Please do not patronise me. I had a think about this issue in the last couple of hours and I thought I had come up with some ideas, but, upon seeing that response, I'm not sure I have. I'll get straight to the point, I suppose. Do you agree with me (and others, I must stress that) that there is a serious issue with PLW's aggressive conduct? J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We're talking at complete cross-purposes here, I've just read your post again and there were other things I wished to post lengthy replies to. It's almost as if we're speaking different languages here. I will reply briefly to one thing you said- "Would you like to somehow contradict?". Would I be able to demonstrate absolutely anything by putting in the effort to document his long-term aggression, goading and confrontational behaviour, or have you already made your mind up here? J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We'll carry on our disagreement by email, :) Maedin\^talk 15:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify one thing before signing off for awhile, "we" are the contributors to FPC who are capable of working together without feeling the need to respond to pokes when they come our way. Disagreements, hasty comments, and provocations are all part of working collaboratively, but shrugging it off and moving on is part of it, too. Yes—backing off when a conflict directly involves you is part of your job as an admin, and holding grudges is not. This is what I meant—you have not been argumentative for the sake of FPCers as you seem to imply, but for yourself. I am not denying that PLW may have irritated or upset others in the past, but you have not gotten involved in those cases, and also in those cases, they have been willing to let it go (because after all, what does it matter, we're adults and the offences are not injurious). I think your judgement has been clouded by a personal grievance. Maedin\^talk 00:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My wish

Dear Maedin, I would like to ask you to delete the page that has been causing all these problems. I understand that you wanted the glossary to stay, but I'd like to ask you grant me this courtesy of deleting something that I never expected to give me this much grief. Thank you very much if you feel you can comply. To be clear, I'm referring to User:Papa Lima Whiskey/FPC glossary. Thank you very much. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have rather not, but I've deleted it. I'm appalled that we can't have something as simple as a list of definitions, for the benefit of FPC, without a fight and another pretend consensus-forming session. *shrug* Well, I'm sorry, anyway, I hope it can still be salvaged in some way, soon? If you don't have a copy, make sure you poke me for one, I can email it. Maedin\^talk 21:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, so, can you do it? Please? Just the admin part, I can do the rest. Cheers. And also thanks for notifying people about the review thing earlier, forgot to say that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I meant the admin history merge way of doing it, that seems the cleanest in the end? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. If you have any comments on the expanded glossary, let me know, or feel free to chip in, as others have done. Cheers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: More on St Paulin translation?

I won't mind, I'll be glad to give something back to the community and help you out :) Let me know when you're done. Rimush (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear the good news! Rimush (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck

Do you feel you really needed to take that to the delisting nominations? I honestly can't see what you changed visually. I know you didn't intend it to be frivolous, but I honestly can't see what you changed! Maybe it's just my eyes :) -- bydand•talk 01:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've actually uploaded your version over the original now and closed the discussion. I'll probably get into trouble for it but it just seemed so pointless to me! -- bydand•talk 01:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I don't mind. I didn't do the edit, though, I'm not sure why you thought I did! If I had, then I'd have done my own QC and yes, perhaps uploaded over the top. As it is, I'm not sure how the edit was done, but probably involved cloning or other manipulations that might have had a negative effect. Where cloning is involved, that, at least, usually asks for a D&R. By the way, if you didn't see what changes had been made, then you should have waited for an explanation before uploading over the top. Your summary doesn't adequately describe the alterations and is phrased only speculatively, instead of definitely. You also failed to actually name the editor. I presume you'll fix this?  :) Maedin\^talk 05:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Julia W. You have new messages at Deliriousandlost's talk page.
Message added 06:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a note :) Warm regards ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wifione, :) Nice to see you got access back! Maedin\^talk 17:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Good to be back. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 12:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Hi Maedin, I would like to invite you to a discussion on setting up good guidelines for tennis player notability. Please feel free to give comments and suggestions there. Thank you. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Christy Mathewson

Thanks, well spotted. I actually wondered how I hadn't seen it; I knew I was lurking FPC a few months ago... J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sponge!

No problem. I wasn't initially aware of that other list.
Did you have an opinion on my Talk note about commonly used regionalisms?
Varlaam (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For sure, you can drive to a remote farm in Yorkshire and strike up a conversation with the grandfather about milking, and hear a torrent of exotic dialect vocabulary.

But you won't get that on an exported TV show. You'll just hear a very short list which people should probably be aware of.

Varlaam (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Senostoma

Materialscientist (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ACC access

I took a little time off of Wikipedia and I am unable to log back into the ACC tool due to being inactive for >45 days. Do you know who I can talk to in order to re-obtain access? Rmosler | ● 20:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rmosler, talking to me is fine, as I'm the one who suspended you. I've allowed you access to the tool again. However, it's been over a year since you last created an account, and you've only created ten so far, so I encourage you to start back on the tool as if you were new. Several changes have been made to the interface; read the guide and take it slowly: Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide. Also, it's very beneficial to be on IRC, as there is discussion and lots of help to be had on the accounts channel: #wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect. Don't hesitate to ask if you have questions! Maedin\^talk 06:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm checking through the guide now. Thank you. Rmosler | ● 18:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and welcome back, :) Maedin\^talk 06:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Adolphe Clément

Hi Maedin, Can I ask for a favour, please. Can you Move Adolphe Clément to 'Adolphe Clément-Bayard'. I erred by creating the article under his birth name and ignored his legal name change circa 1906. He and his descendents are known throughout France as Clément-Bayard. Many thanks. Chienlit (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All done, :) Maedin\^talk 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Chienlit (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Abantiades latipennis

Are you wanting to add a little more to the Taxonomy section? I think some of the more 'exhuberant' review peeps are going to start fussing at me soon; no hurry, but give me an update ASAP :-) thx Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Julie. Thank you for fixing my typo. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Maedin\^talk 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg

Belated thanks for nominating this very nice photo as a featured picture. It might have helped to drop me a note at the time -- I missed the nomination, and only now came across it.

Ah well. It remains a favorite among my Flickr "finds" -- and the flaws may have kept it out, regardless. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pete, apologies for not notifying you of the nomination at the time. The poppies were very close to making it—actually fared better than I thought it might! Thank you for the find and the upload, :) Maedin\^talk 07:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

FP

You recently closed a nomination of mine and I think it should have been promoted. It had the required four votes like it says in the rules(counting the nominator). Spongie555 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My response at Spongie555's talk

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Backlit mushroom.jpg

Seeing as you have reopened this discussion on the grounds that "some of the votes" were "void[ed]", I really think it is your responsibility to contact those editors whose votes you have taken it upon yourself to ignore, so that they can clarify their position. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and notified them myself. The people involved in the previous discussion who I did not notify have either been notified by you, or have taken part in this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I would have done as you asked but I've been away most of the day. Maedin\^talk 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that you restored the FP tag. I'm curious if you also adjusted the count. From the WP:FP, it looks like you didn't. I just wanted to double-check with you to make sure. I'm going to go ahead and delist it now, leaving the count where it is. I think that will be accurate. Let me know if I'm crazy. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it looks like I forgot to do that. Sorry! Thank you for checking. I also meant to thank you earlier for your equanimous response to my having re-listed it. I appreciate you not having taken it personally, as I never could have meant it that way. Maedin\^talk 09:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Right to sight articles in de:wp

Hello Maedin,

as I have seen, that you're a sysop here in the en:WP and sometimes working in the de:WP, I just gave you the rights to sight articles in the de:WP. Should be easier to work for you now. Best wishes, --Capaci34 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you here und dort! It's nice that others won't have to approve my edits on de now, :) Maedin\^talk 13:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Andean fox

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Culpeo MC.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) 02:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback2

Hello, Julia W. You have new messages at Schwede66's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Ebbe Nielsen

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pollanisus nielseni

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin reichstag west panorama 2.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Berlin reichstag west panorama 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. Jujutacular talk 18:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Common frog

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:European Common Frog Rana temporaria.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. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Incahuasi Island

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Salar de Uyuni Décembre 2007 - Panorama 1 edit.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. Public Juju Talk 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

closeFPC script

Hey there! I thought you may be interested in User:Jujutacular/closeFPC. I used the script on the above FP. For discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Closure_script. Jujutacular ^talk 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks! Added it, :) Maedin\^talk 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Colpophyllia natans

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

Well done. Featured pictures always look better in decent articles than one-line perma-stubs. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, :) If I had more time I would write much more for FPC, there are a lot that need content. This article is pretty much unfinished because I don't have time at the moment to continue working on it. (And I hope the boulder brain pic becomes an FP, but it isn't there yet!) Maedin\^talk 07:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wisent

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Bison bonasus (Linnaeus 1758).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 talk 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BCSR

Jugtacular - wow, nice tints. :) ... but Base Cation Saturation Ratio needs you. Chienlit (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for the great advice on Microphones, I am tremendously grateful. George2001hi 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Awww, thank you, that's very nice! I'm glad I could help . . . at least my mistakes have been worth something! Maedin\^talk 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Galeries Lafayette

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Galerie Lafayette Haussmann Dome.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) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pink-tipped giant anemone

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Condylactis gigantea (Giant Anemone - yellow & pink tip variation).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) 06:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

references vs reflist

Since you went to the trouble of changing "references" to "reflist" in the "Roll bender" article, could you explain the difference? They look the same to me Roesser (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparing the two side by side, you can just about see that the {{reflist}} template decreases the typeface size and spacing. Admittedly the difference isn't much, but the fact that there is only one reference in the roll bender article will make the change seem even more slight. The difference is more pronounced in articles with dozens and dozens of references, where using <references> makes the reference section look overly large, unprofessional, and unwieldy. From a maintenance point of view, it's also useful to have templates, especially those as oft-used as the references ones, kept consistent.

By the way, if you still definitely can't see the difference between the two, I'd guess you're using Internet Explorer. As well as not being able to differentiate the finer points of the template, it also doesn't render other things well, like rounded corners. If you'll allow me to be cheeky, I suggest using a better browser, such as Firefox. If you want to know what you're missing out on, view my userpage in IE and then in Firefox—the formatting difference should be more obvious than it is with the reference templates.

Hope the explanations helped, Maedin\^talk 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. BTW usually I like to use IE because it loads faster (with Win2k), but I agree that Firefox is better and I do use it for critical viewing. Roesser (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

FP Subpages

Hey there, I see you've done some work on repairing our FP categories (Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 31#FP categories reorganisation). I was thinking of adding the process of adding new FPs to these pages for my FPC closure script, but the pages would need to be all formatted the same. Are you still working on this? Jujutacular ^talk 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I am still doing it. Sorry to have left it for so long, I got sidetracked and haven't been booting into Linux as much. I'll finish it off this week—I don't think there are that many pages left to do. Will that be quick enough? (P.S. Thanks for taking care of the jellyfish!) Maedin\^talk 19:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's no rush. In fact I'm pretty busy over the next few weeks, so I won't get to the script soon. Thanks! Jujutacular ^talk 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Somerset Portal pictures

Hi, I've been doing some work on Portal:Somerset and it is now nominated for featured portal status. As you have volunteered yourself at the Somerset Wikiproject & do lots of stuff on featured pictures etc I was wondering if you would take a look at Portal:Somerset/Selected picture and suggest or add others you think might be included.— Rod ^talk 14:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)