A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fuel Injection, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Wasp morphology.png, 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! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Wasp morphology.png is scheduled to be Picture of the day on November 13, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically....wow! I am very pleased. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prolific!

I have a rather ugly request for you -- could you provide a scientific diagram for the Hemorrhoid page? There is some great source material at NIH, but unfortunately these are part of the copyrighted ADAM series, so we can't use them here.

• http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/17069.htm
• Surgery series:
  • http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/presentations/100026_1.htm
  • http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/presentations/100026_2.htm
  • http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/presentations/100026_3.htm
  • http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/presentations/100026_4.htm

Could you create a single good diagram for us, illustrating internal and external hemorrhoids? There's no rush, but we'd really appreciate your help. Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, left a more detailed message on your user talk page. thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you so much for quick and excellent work -- I am thoroughly impressed with the professional quality of this diagram. I know it is not a pleasant topic to work with, but this is SO much better than the photos we had to work with before... thank you!

There's nothing I can suggest to improve the diagram -- it's perfect. However, if you are willing, it would be very useful for you to create a version for Wikipedia Commons with number labels, instead of English words -- that way it could be used in other language Wikipedias, as they can use the image caption to notate the numbers in their own language. Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prolifict, hi there. I wonder if you might translate the text of this image (Image:Hemorrhoid.png) into spanish. We have a grafics crew in the spanish wiki, but since you asked to come to you first, I thought I would. Here's the translation: Esfínter anal interno, Esfínter anal externo, Vasos sanguíneos perianales (Perianal blood vessels), Línea pectínea, Prolapso de hemorroide interna, Hemorroide externa y piel anal (Anoderm). Come visit if you need more information or for whatever other reason. Bobjgalindo (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you. I've heard wonders of your artistic skills, and remember seeing them first hand with the wasp morphology image. We're working on the FAC of coeliac disease and one illustration that would be very useful is the "Marsh Classification". Unfortunately, there are no free versions that we could find. If you have some time, would you be able to replicate something similar? The best on-line illustration is found here: [1]. If you're too busy, that's cool. Please let me know. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 10:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The hemorrhoid image is fabulous also! Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, note left on your user page. let me know if corrections are needed. usually I don't do corrections but to be honest it was quite hard to do without fully understanding the histopathology of Coeliac Disease so changes may well be needed. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so quick! The diagram is very well illustrated and I think it'll make a superb addition to the article. There are a couple of little things that needed to be added and I've put labels on the slide at the right to try to illustrate things. There are 3 components in determining the staging (I should probably have mentioned this before): (1) the villi, which you've illustrated very well; (2) the crypts, being the circle like-structures between the villi (they're lined with the same enterocyte cells as found on the surface); and (3) lymphocytes, which are the little dark purple cells that are all over the place in the microscope slide (they ones that just look like a dot). Pre-infiltrative is perfect as illustrated with just crypts that need to be added (no lymphocytes). For the infiltrative stage, there are lymphocytes that enter into just the crypts (like where it says "lymphocytes in crypt" on the slide). Infiltrative-hyperplastic means that there are lymphocytes in the crypts, and the crypts get bigger. The flattening stage is like you've shown except there are tonnes of lymphocytes all over just like in the slide. In the hypoplastic state there are a tonne of lymphocytes and the crypts disappear (maybe one tiny one at most).

Hope I was able to explain things? Many thanks again for helping out with this; it's really appreciated! -- Samir धर्म 16:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on an episode focused on Celiac Disease--it is for a television series that educates parents on children's health issues. Your diagram is more directly accessible than microscopic images of healthy vs. atrophied villi--meaning it would be much more accessible for our viewers. Would you be willing to grant permission to a non-profit tv series to use your drawing as apart of this episode covering Celiac? Please email me (nlkarczewski@yahoo.com)with questions, and I can provide you with more details. thank you.Notnlk 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)notnlk[reply]

The cell nucleus article, the current MCB article improvement drive selection, badly needs a visual aid, and yours are awesome. The nuclear transport section is unavoidably an alphabet soup of very similar-sounding acronyms and it's difficult to keep straight which proteins are in the nucleus vs which are in the cytoplasm without a diagram. The illustration doesn't have to be complex, it just has to clearly show the Ran-GTP nuclear transport cycle. There's more discussion/clarifications about it on my talk page if what's already in the article isn't clear, though since you're a biologist it's probably material you have at least general familiarity with. If you're too busy, that's okay, though it may lead one of us to commit atrocities with MSPaint :) Opabinia regalis 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opabinia, this won't be a problem. I'll get on it as soon as possible. I have about 3 diagrams in my backlog at the moment which I won't be able to start on until the weekend so it may be about a week before its finished, I will also need to consult with my textbooks as I'm as yet unfamiliar with the Ran-GTP Nuclear transport cycle as I'm only a 2nd year Undergraduate. One quick question what does 'Ran' stand for/mean, what else may it be called?. I'll keep you updated, thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Ran is usually written lower-case, as if it weren't an acronym, but stands for Ras-related nuclear protein. The name Ras is entirely historical and I believe originally stood for rat sarcoma protein. This is the best online image I found, though it's rather small. This paper also has a reasonable exposition, though they for some reason they didn't compile it all into one diagram. Opabinia regalis 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram finished. See across. Thanks WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Nice work, thanks! This article is coming along very well - hard to believe it was only a stub before the AID started. Opabinia regalis 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is perfect! Honestly, it's the best schematic of Marsh's classification that I've seen in print or otherwise (better than pathology textbooks). Thanks for such a great job! -- Samir धर्म 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Dragonfly morphology edit 3.svg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on January 11, 2007, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote malate-aspartate shuttle as a supporting article for adenosine triphosphate, but it's another one of those cycles in cell bio that's very confusing without a diagram. There's a reasonable one in BioCarta and probably in any cell bio book, but it's beyond my ability to reproduce. If you get some time, would you mind taking a look at this? Thanks!

(I should say, I may also be contacting you sometime soon about a similar pathway diagram for RNA interference and microRNA (they use much the same pathway) but I don't think the articles describe the proteins involved very well yet.) Opabinia regalis 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm a fan of your drawings, and I'd really like to suggest a diagram comparing different species of rhino. I saw one on a sign at a zoo once: here, but would rather see a diagram on wikipedia. It seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to recreate. 4 out of 5 species of rhino are threatened with extinction. Cheers. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 10:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's brilliant! Thanks muchly! —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 12:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I realize you no longer draw for Wikipedia. Just one comment: your picture comparing the relative sizes of the different rhino species seems to have a mistake: it shows the Greater Horned Rhino as the largest rhino, while the article clearly states the White Rhino is the largest. Is it possible to correct the picture? Otherwise it would have to go, which is a shame. 190.17.178.56 (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'll be only too happy to help you out! I would prefer to work thru e-mail - will this be convenient for you? A few particulars on me - I became an admin last November (my first failed nom (May 2006), second successful nom). Rama's arrow 22:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. Rama's arrow 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Horseanatomy.png, 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! KFP (talk | contribs) 19:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Horseanatomy.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 19, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-07-19. howcheng {chat} 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man do I hate to rain on the parade of an attractive image, but Have you looked CLOSELY at that skeleton diagramImage:Horseanatomy.png? I noticed that it has some SERIOUS inaccuracies (like mislabeling the sacrum as part of the lumbar and coccygeal vertebrae and saying that the horse has a collar bone when it doesn't!) It needs some relabeling and fixing. It's almost so bad we should consider removing it if we can't fix it, which is a real bummer because it's so clear... YIKES!!!! A couple examples that are more correct: http://www.horseracinghistory.co.uk/hrho/images/education/horse_skeleton.gif and http://www.classicbloodstock.com.au/skillsEDIT/clientuploads/39/horseskeleton.jpg Some of the terms aren't identical (cannon bone is either the metacarpal or metatarsal, etc.) but they are all correct. You may want to consult User:Dlh-stablelights on this, he is a vet. Montanabw^(talk) 04:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of about 2-3 labelling inaccuracies, most other problems actually seem to be editor misinterpretation. This is however a large diagram and I have other projects in the pipline, and sadly its not simply a case of just opening it up and changing a few text lines here and there. I will get around to it but probably not for a couple of weeks. I wouldn't say its grossly bad and needs removal pending correction though, it is as far as I can see the best image of its sort on the internet at the moment save for its labelling errors, and the image itself is fine, the problem was I drew it based on about 3 sources and one of them was riddled with errors which have carried over. Like I've stressed on the image talk page though, it isn't anatomically perfect, but for wikipedia it doesnt need to be. There will always be more accurate diagrams in text books but then thats because they arent trying to squeeze a 2 meter tall horse into a 1000 pixel rectangle. They'd have several hundred smaller pictures to cover it, and we just dont go into that level detail, at least not yet. But thanks for your comments, it will be fixed eventually. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 09:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to just remove the labels form the skeleton and send myself or User:Eventer the base skeleton for us to re-label? We'd be glad to fix it. The inaccuracies on the spinal column are actually VERY significant, and the reference to the collarbone really does need to be removed. I'll not tag it for deletion, but Eventer is doing a ton of work on the horse anatomy articles and really does need a better image. There's an antiquated image in commons we can substitute for now, but it is not really labeled at all. Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state it would not be possible to do this with the diagram as the .psd master file is around 250mb in size. As I said before though, as a featured picture your looking at about 3 labelling errors, for what is I expect the best diagram of its sort in terms of size and clarity on the internet. I certainly don't think removing it from the article is nessessary at the moment as to be honest I think we could probably go through the Horse Anatomy articles and find more errors in the text than there are in that diagram. I shall see if I can look into it later today, but it may stil take a few weeks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be too defensive. There are at least six errors that I could spot, and though it is a very nice quality image, it does need help. Someone else has already downloaded it and erased the labels. We will fix it and re-upload. Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI, I do feel I must nominate it for delisting as a featured image until the inaccuracies are corrected. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been updated with several changes as I politely told you I would do in my earlier comment this morning. I'm not being defensive but you gave me about 36 hours to do it in. Its not very much time, and regretably it was not just a case of opening it up and changing a few lines of text. I have changed quite a few things, the base drawing has some admendments to more clearly seperate the tibia and fibula, raidus and ulna respectively. The text size is smaller to allow for more labels. The labelling is also of a more consistant level now. The title has been changed to skeletal system to be more speciifc. I would not use the unlabelled version you have created, it is not the same size and so would not qualify for FP status. You've erased the lines of a 717 x 600 pixel version. My master file is 7350 x 6150 pixels, so what you have is about a tenth the full size. The main labelled version uploaded on wikipedia is around 2450 x 2050 pixels. This is because in graphic design there is a general rule of thumb that everything is drawn 3 times larger than it needs to be and is then resized down to give it greater quality. Its also why the file size here is so massive. I hope the changes I've made are satisfactory, however, if they are not i can ammend it again, this time quicker as I now have the image to hand and up to date with the wikipedia version. If you leave me specific notes for what to change or add, e.g. "change humerus to .... X" that will also help me do it quicker. Hope you like it, thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acting promptly, you originally suggested it would take weeks, we were worried! Things look much better, though a couple more tweaks, as noted below, are graciously requested.

FYI, one of the most detailed charts on the net is here: http://www.kersur.net/~santa/skeletalsystem.html --it actually has far more than anyone needs to know! It appears to be correct, as far as I can tell. (Being a horse person but not a vet) While I see no need for you to add everything there you your diagram (the more simplified version is best for Wikipedia), There are a couple small corrections needed on your diagram: the identification of the Tibia and Fibula on your drawing does need further fixing and the chart I noted above shows more clearly how, like the radius and ulna on the front leg, the Tibia and Fibula are fused on the hind leg, with the Fibula being basically fused to the upper back part of the tibia. Also, the rear cannon bone is the metaTARSAL bone, not the metacarpal (FYI, the horse's hock is equivilant to the human ankle and heel, if you are wondering why the terminology is that way...just as the horse's "Knee" is equivalent to the human wrist.). On that note, see also the hock in the skeletal diagram, it is actually (to oversimplify a bit) the Calcaneus (fibular tarsal) and Tarsus. You may want to check your diagram against the one in Equine forelimb anatomy which is correct, though whether you want to call the pastern bones "pastern bone" or "phalanx" is totally up to you, both forms are used. You can also check your diagram against the text of Skeletal system of the horse, where your image is the star of the show, the primary editor's text is pretty good, at least I didn't spot any glaring inaccuracies. I'll let User:Eventer know what's been done and she can eyebell it too. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've made a couple more changes based on that website (great site by the way, nice find!). It would be nice if User:Eventer can take a peak especially at the hind legs as its getting fairly technical back there. For eventers attention, my labelling system has followed a couple of rules, these are mainly that only clearly identified seperate bones are shown, e.g. the skull is labelled as the mandible and cranium as they are clearly seperate in the diagram, but the orbit/zygomatic aren't shown because they arent clearly seperate from the cranium. There are a few exceptions to this like the nasal bone but thats just because the horse nasal bone is very predominant. This mostly goes for the bones which fuse together like the skull and possibly pelvis in the horse. Like you said, its wikipedia - short and sweet, hard to beat ;) thanks for your help montanabw, let me know what you think. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the changes, nice work! Eventer doesn't weigh in every day (I think she has a real life) but maybe drop her a line on her talk page to do a double-check. If I were to be super fussy, I'd make it clearer that the tibia is the whole long big bone on the hind leg, and the fibula the higher fused bone, but your labeling is correct as is, so more a style than substance issue, not worth bothering with unless it seems we need to fix something else as well. Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me know how to tag an image for deletion vis a vis the Sid Cambel article and future reference?Peter Rehse 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Peter Rehse 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your appearance with the POTD! Wonderful job illustrating anatomy. Well done! Amphy 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Take a look at lateral coital position. If there ever was a sex article in need of a (much better) illustration, that is it. ←Ben^B4 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure it out either. But now I'm determined to try it! Printing detailed instructions.... ←Ben^B4 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after empirical experimentation, the question becomes how to put the woman's right arm in the position indicated without excruciating pain. Web search found no imagery other than what's already there. Library research is apparently called for. ←Ben^B4 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Firstly, in which direction was her right arm (the one closest to the bed) and more importantly, will you please illustrate it? ←Ben^B4 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikipedianProlific. I'm Ryan, I see you've agreed to me mediating the above dispute. At present, Cuddlyable3 isn't happy with me mediating the copyright implications part of the dispute, so I've asked him for clarification. As I've said to him, it's best that one mediator takes the whole dispute rather than splitting it up - it simply makes it easier that way. If Cuddlyable isn't happy with me taking on the case, it's no big deal at all - and we'll find someone that you are both happy with. Hope that clarifies things for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection so we can decide on a venue for the mediation to take place, it would be much appreciated. Thank you, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when you've got a minute, we need to discuss the issues to be mediated on the mediation talk page. Take as long as you need though - there's no time frame to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance, look here. J Are you green? 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs or media files and appropriately licensed media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons." - Images should be uploaded at wikimedia commons so that all languages of WP can make use of them. Consider this in the future, thank you :) notwist 11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question is a perfect candidate for placement on the en.wiki and not commons. You are welcome of course to transfer it to commons if you so desire but the text labels are in english so it will only ever be suitable for the english language wikipedia (why waste commons space for something that isn't common to all wikis). I have therefore removed the commons transfer tag as if this qualifies for commons we may as well go and tag every single image on en.wiki for commons. I think you may want to brush up on what qualifies for placement here and what qualifies for commons as there seems to be some confussion. I carefully consider where each of my uploaded images are placed, some can be found on commons and some can be found here. Generally, diagrams with specific language labels are only suitable for upload to that languages wiki. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your excellent image has been commented upon by someone Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Dragonfly_morphology on technical grounds and I just thought I should reiterate that this is indeed a major technical inaccuracy. Dragonfly wing venation is never like as shown and instead has a fine network. The sting is also incorrect. Hope you can find some time to make these corrections. Cheers. Shyamal 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note the page while I make changes warning users that the wings are only for rough scale purposes. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abtract is continuing to push Welsh as an Official Language of the UK. GoodDay 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question added. Giggy\^Talk 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered :) WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More questions added. Cuddlyable3 13:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a question 6 1/2. Sorry, your response kind of threw me off. I second Boricuaeddie's opinion below, by the way. I'd clarify any potentially misleading questions, and not even respond to any accusations. Good luck with the rest of the RfA. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, I have replied. I took your first question less directly I think than you meant it so I hope this second part answer clears up any confussion. Thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a troll; don't feed him. I wouldn't answer the questions, although you can do so, if you wish. You should have nothing to hide. Just make sure to expose all of the dispute, not just the parts where you look bad. Good luck! --Boricuaeddie 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with that. "You should have nothing to hide."Cuddlyable3 18:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest that I strike through Cuddlyable3's questions as bad faith violations, but it appears that you have the handle on it and the answers indicate a level of WP:CIVIL entirely at odds with the questions/er. LessHeard vanU 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-considering based on your comment on my talk page. After all if you use the tools but once a month / two months it's no big deal. Pedro |  Chat  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 19:26, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

• I have moved to Neutral. I guess the problem here is that the work you have contributed (which is stunning) evidences no need for admin tools. Now I don't believe in need being a requirement to have them, but your Q1 statement indicated where you would wish to work, without a great deal of evidence from contributions so far, from an non admin basis, of how your would deal with it. I don't know, it's tricky, but please don't take this as personal in any way - I spend a lot of time before considering where to place my opinion at an RFA, and try to be honest to my feelings. I just can see enough evidence at the moment that you would not be hasty at times - I'm really sorry. Let me re-iterate that your image / diag. work is very very valuable and I hope others see that. My talk page is always open. Pedro |  Chat  19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Injector3.gif, 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! MER-C 11:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikipedianProlific,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Injector3.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 17, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-12-17. howcheng {chat} 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry 'bout that. I didn't change my mind, it was really more of a mistake. I meant to oppose the guy above you (not Anonimous Dissident- I'm surprised he's not an admin already). You know, the one who had no support and got removed. I mistakenly voted oppose on yours when I was already Neutral, and then I saw my mistake, and immediately corrected it. I'm actually starting to second guess myself, I think you'd make a good admin. AR Argon 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the RfA! Really hope it works out well. Your images deserve an awful lot of credit, and it's too bad that some people are interpreting "contributions" to Wikipedia in such a narrow way. -- Samir 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean me specifically, then allow me to explain why I am neutral. This user is an incredible user who has contributed a great amount of things, but one whom I feel has misrepresented himself initially through my eyes. I apologize if you think that my comments point at a narrow understanding, and if it's any consolation, I couldn't say I oppose. I just didn't know enough to say that I support. But I'm leaning support, I tell you that. This user is phenomenal in every way that counts. AR Argon 07:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ar Argon, I don't think samir was aiming that at you personally at all, but rather more broadly at the RfA process in general, which has had a history at times of some (but certainly not all) users taking edit counts to mean more than they maybe do, but there are no set admin criteria really other than 'do you trust this nominee with the tools' so everyone is entitled to their own view of what is/isn't good admin material. I genuinely respect your comments there which seems to be an honest appriasal of your opinion, as I'm sure does samir who is as fair an editor as ever there was. I have always expected my RfA(s) to be something of an uphill struggle as ultimately I will have to prove the worth of my contributions more to some editors than someone with 9000 edits would. But thats just the way it is, I think so far I've represented myself well. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Samir's the ideal admin. And you're a great editor, too. AR Argon 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no AR Argon, I didn't mean you or anyone in particular at all. WP is right in that I was talking about the RfA process in general. Take care -- Samir 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm far from the ideal admin, but it's kind of you to say so.... someone like User:Blnguyen or User:Jfdwolff is the prototype admin in my eyes. -- Samir 05:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're an excellent administrator and while you may not always use the tools, you use them wisely. At least I think you do. AR Argon 07:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, people don't see contributions broadly enough. It just seems to be such a linear idea with the contributions thing, to the point where sysop access isn't always given to those who most certainly are trustworthy enough for it. The reason I suspected you spoke of me in particular was because I assumed you read the above message and checked my vote and thought I didn't even look at it with enough depth. Actually, I switched to support just a little while ago, because I think that you would be trustworthy enough for the mop. AR Argon 08:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From admin board, Yes, see Boy Scouts of America. Make sure you check out the talk page re User:Heqwm. Thanks.Rlevse 13:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RfA. I do not believe the community has conclusively decided to promote you. You may wish to read my additional notes, here. Please address the concerns raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talky) 00:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I leave a note on Deskana's page about your RfA case. I was truly surprised at the result and that his rationale was weak. You had 74.75% supporting. I know that one day you'll be a fine admin. The main point of contention was main space edits. All I can suggest is to work on articles more and participate in things like AfD, CfD, etc. Your continued help on Boy Scouts of America would be a good thing for you to continue. I keep an eye on RfA and sure hope I see your renom later. You have 856 main space edits now. I'd suggest reapplying at around 2000 edits or so. I'd be glad to nominate you. I edit so much I often get 1000 edits in a month.Rlevse 10:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Rlevse, I shall indeed continue to help there. I also felt the rationale was weak but oh well. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 11:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was unfortunate that you weren't promoted, but I do agree with Deskana's close (and I supported, so I'm not really biased either way). One thing is for sure though, you'll pass swimmingly in a couple of months if you listen to the concerns raised. Cheers. Majorly (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I both supported you, and Deskana's decision. I noted in my support that you may consider placing "work in progress" models of your images in your sandbox - both to reflect the work you are doing by edit counts, and to check on the results. Anyway, I look forward to supporting you again. LessHeard vanU 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support everyone. I will be back in a month or two, having taken on board considerations. The only real genuine concern anyone could raise was a low amount of admin related edits mainly on wikispace, this can be resolved easily and realtively quickly. I will also consider how I put my work to people in the next RfA as I am quite strongly convinced some users don't/didn't actually read the questions or my opening statement fully prefering instead to just check the edit count. Thumbnailing the featured images for example may be a better way of showing them. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the chips fall as I suspect they will, I imagine that my comments next time will fall under the "s" instead of the "o." Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it didn't turn out. Certainly re-apply in a couple of months; I'm sure it'll be no problem then. Kind regards -- Samir 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikipedianProlific. I had a quick question for you - my (somewhat ambitious) adoptee is trying to design a flowchart to help new users figure out the deletion processes easier. We both think that this should be in SVG format, but I can't seem to find the policy on what sorts of images should be in what formats. I know from your RfA that you're familiar with (if not overly in favor of) that policy, so maybe you could point me the right direction? Thanks. Good luck if you decide to run for adminship again, by the way. You should. Thanks for your help. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Thanks very much! I'll let Audi know so he can finish it up. I'll tell him to do in in PNG for starters, but to have a SVG standing by just in case. Don't worry, your eyes may stay in one piece. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to ask your permission to use your excellent bee anatomy and wasp anatomy graphics on a new Pollinators/Pollination web site that is being developed by the National Biological Information Infrastructure(NBII) in cooperation with the Ecological Society of America(ESA). The site address is http://pollinators.nbii.gov

We would of course provide appropriate credits to you as the creator and links back to the Wikipedia page where the graphic is featured. Are the graphics featured on the Wikipedia pages the highest resolution available? Would you like to be credited as WikipedianProlific, or do you prefer another name?

Thank you so much for your help. Please contact me at devon@esa.org.

Take care, Devon Rothschild

NBII Project Manager The Ecological Society of America 1707 H. Street, N.W. - Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 USA devon@esa.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.119.191 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just wanted to say I'm a big fan of your diagrams. You are very skilled and disciplined, as your diagrams inform me. V i s n a v a 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it would be nice if you could do those diagrams in svg-format, so someone could translate them to another language.213.186.250.251 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on having the image Injector3.gif on the Main Page. However, when I looked at it I couldn't understand how the injector worked. It didn't become clear untill I saw your earlier FuelInjector2.gif, which clearly showed the moving needle valve in a different color. In Injector3.gif the needle valve vanishes in the "flow view" and is indistinquishable from the other parts in the "non-flow view". Perhaps you could clarify things in an Injector4? Despite the nitpick, nicely done. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikipedianProlific, my name is Nemissimo and I'm a member of the German language project sexuality. As an :de admin I'm currently trying to cool down a conflict on de:Fellatio.

The article uses your very appropriate image Fellatio.png. As you might imagine, the article has been the subject of intense discussions for years.
The consensus on de is to show the topic in a female-male and a second male-male depiction in order to have no gender bias.

Would it be possible for you to recreate Fellatio.jpg (male-male) and Autofellation drawing 2.jpg to the same excellent standard you archived with the first image? This would be a great help in improving the articles' quality and ending an seemingly endless conflict. Even creating one image would be a great help.

Kind Regards. --Nemissimo (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikipedianProlific, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikipedianProlific! I've seen some of the beautiful images you've created and I was wondering if you could possibly create a diagram for Harappan architecture. The current image is this, and it was made by me (I have very little graphic design skills, or the necessary programs.). The new image would be zoomed out a little more, and with clearly defined walled sections. Maybe it could have streets going through it. If you are able to, could it be in SVG? The Harappan Architecture has some information on city layout. Thanks. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scientologycrosssymbol.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I have used your Image:Hemorrhoid.png on the Perianal hematoma article, as Perianal hematoma can also be refered to as "External Hemorrhoids". I hope this is ok? Let me know if there are any issues with this. Fosnez (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prolific,

I want to use your Hemorrhoids pic for an article I am preparing for wikipedia and an online journal, I would be glad if you let me know if I can use, Thanks!

You need more horse piturse in here!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samloveshorses95 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I write from mexico, your picture of hemorrhoid is very didactic for patients. I have a request for you, some times is not easy understand diverticular disease and polyps in colon. If you can make a picture it were more easy. Its better with number rather names, by language. there are some page with illustrations about this:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ispub.com/xml/journals/ijs/vol7n1/diverticulitis-fig3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php%3FxmlPrinter%3Dtrue%26xmlFilePath%3Djournals/ijs/vol7n1/diverticulitis.xml&h=342&w=588&sz=71&hl=es&start=6&um=1&tbnid=3EfO1K085KNaDM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddiverticular%2Bdisease%2B%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN http://www.webmd.com/NR/rdonlyres/e4r6pnqy5igpub25uc6brtsunn2l7lvc5u2y65eo34llvd5bg766urhinuniocgpxiaasyhk23ldsy4eyo75ezxdvdg/Diverticula.jpg http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kappamedical.com/images/335Rectum.gif&imgrefurl=http://kappamedical.com/internal_organs.htm&h=379&w=324&sz=56&hl=es&start=1&um=1&tbnid=5Snexgv1dP1F5M:&tbnh=123&tbnw=105&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolyp%2Bor%2Bdiverticula%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D

thank you and congratulation for your art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.178.243 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existing illustration

Request: Can we please have a labeled image of Schrodinger's Cat. I'm sure you're aware of the thought experiment: the cat is both alive and dead, the bottle is both whole and broken, the poison is both in the bottle and spilled and the lever and hammer are both up and down. If you'd prefer, I'll be happy to label it.

This has been posted at the Graphics Lab for a few days with no takers. Help me, Obi Wan Kinobi...

I thought you may be interested, I have created a page here to showcase and coordinate our illustrative efforts - if you have any comments, eg. someone important I left out, please tell me. I am also working on Portal:Computer Generated Imagery to do this in the longer term, but I'm not ready to go public with that, still needs far too much work. Dhatfield (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, original request on Graphics Lab here. Dhatfield (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please ignore, resolved. Dhatfield (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...exists. Please help to improve this Portal - the scope is anything that is generated on computer without a sensor. The Topics section is the only part at first draft. If you can help with anything - collecting images for the "More pictures" gallery, good articles, heck, even the intro needs a rewrite or three, please tuck in. See you there. Dhatfield (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, WikipedianProlific. Another user recently placed Image:Piston engine breathing.svg in a great many vehicle-related articles. As you can see, this image does not depict anything, least of all an internal-combustion engine. It is a poor-quality attempt at a schematic, wholly dependent on extensive labelling to convey its nominal image. There's nothing wrong with the concept of an image such as this, showing the various parts through which air flows on its way into, through, and out of an IC engine, but a poor-quality, random image such as this what I've linked just won't do, as it seems to me. An animated image would be most preferable, I think, since we are dealing with airflow induced by the operation of the engine. I am thinking of your previous images along this general line and wondering if you might want to tackle the present need. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikipedianProlific, like many others I'd like to compliment you with your exelent computer generated images! I've adapted one of your pictures for the Dutch wikipedia. I think it is polite to inform you about adaptations made of your work, although it's licensed under the GNU. I translated a quite big piece of text from the English article about the dolphin, to be specific the dolphin's anatomy. When I saw your image on the English wikipedia I knew it would be great on the Dutch wikipedia too. All I had to do was translating the actual terms and that is what I did. I would like to show you the result and I hope you like it. click here. Thank you for creating these great images, you truly make Wikipedia a richer encyclopedia. Wobuzowatsj (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that this image was based on a line drawing from a US Department of Agriculture publication? --Tony Wills

The reason I asked is that I came across [2] on [3] which appears to be a scan of a printed image, and it is attributed to USDA. I think it is clear that your image shape is basically identical but your labeling is slightly more imprecise (the vertex is the crown of the head, and the ocelli are sensors on top of the head), which suggests yours was derived from it. I couldn't spot it on the USDA website and as it is a scan, I assume it was probably in some print publication. If you don't know where it came from, I might ask that website if they can clarify its source. I agree that the HowStuffWorks version is probably an unattributed edit of yours (although I suppose they might have started with the same original too :-). Thanks, --Tony Wills.

Hi.

There's an ongoing dispute at masturbation over the use of some images, and I was hoping you might be able to help out with something to solve the problem. We currently have some images that users uploaded of themselves masturbating, which is ruffling quite a few feathers. The camps seem to have split into a group that thinks there shouldn't be any pictures, and a group that thinks anything less graphic than what they have is censorship.

In an attempt to strike some middle ground, I came across your cunnilingus art, which seemed to be detailed enough to convey the image without being quite as over the top. If you have the time, I think something similar might help cool things down over there.

If you're able to help or know someone else who can, we'd love to hear from you.

Thanks,

—Bdb484 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm writing to ask whether you would allow me to use a copy of your Marsh Classification (of celiac/coeliac disease damage to the small intestine) on my celiac disease website. Here is the URL: http://celiacdisease.about.com

I have a mix of articles about the medical and dietary aspects of living with celiac disease. I'm preparing an article on the Marsh classification and your illustration is wonderful. I would of course give you credit and I could add a link to your page if you wish.

Please let me know whether you'll grant permission. My address is celiacdisease.guide @ about.com.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Nancy Lapid ````

Hi Nancy, sorry I havent got back to you sooner. Although I drew the artwork, it belongs to wikipedia under a free use license. This means you can use it provided its not being re-sold on. So as long as your users dont have to pay to see the image, its fine to re-use it. I hope this helps and I appreciate your positive feedback about the drawing :)

WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am the first time writing on Wikipedia, so please excuse if I should not follow the format

I have neither seen any better picture of the MARSH classification than yours. Someone has already translated it into German and posted it on the commons: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Coeliac_Disease_de.jpg

May I use the (translated) image in an educational article for the Falk Foundation? It will be distributed in print free of charge with the target audience being medical personnel and also accessible online under http://www.falkfoundation.de/

Unfamiliar with common licenses I am not exactly sure how to cite the author and if I should add a link to the source page or your page

Thanks a lot for your time

Dietmar

Crowwizard (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dietmar, thanks for your kind comments. You can cite the picture as being from Wikipedia I believe, since they essentially 'own' the image now (although its a fair use image so it should be useable under the terms of the GNU fair use thingy). WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was wondering if I could use your MARSH classification in printed media? I understand that you say it 'belongs' to Wikipedia now, but nevertheless it's still your creation! The printed media is a subscription magazine with medical content for doctors. Technically, it is paid content (= subscription) so that's why I'm rather unsure regarding the terms of use. Maybe you could help me out on this one? Thanks a lot in advance!

Regards

Angelle

P.S. The original image would have to be modified, i.e. translated into German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.206.75 (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angelle. If it's for publication I can draw you another one which is essentially the same (but different enough to not be covered by wikipedias 'ownership' of this image). German language would not be a problem provided you let me know what labels you would like added as I do not speak German. All I would ask is a small credit/citation to me for career purposes. If you would like this please let me know and I will get it done for you asap. You can contact me at nick-daines@hotmail.com WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've never used this before so hope I'm doing it right........

I need some scale diagrams of horse anatomy (skeleton, muscles, organs and maybe other soft tissues)to print life-size onto cloth for a project I am working on. Is this something you could help me with? Of course I would be willing to pay for your work.

Many thanks 124.184.95.232 (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Dee[reply]

Hi Dee, sorry I haven't replied sooner. Do you still need help with this? WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we are trying to tune up horse for an FA run and there has been a question raised about your source for the skeleton of the horse image, File:Horseanatomy.png. Can you add your source material, or if you can't find one, holler at me and let me know? I can probably find one somewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw, sorry about the late reply. My response is below (on the comment to Dana). Cheers WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikipedianProlific! A few editors, including myself, are working to get the Horse article to featured status on the English WP. We have had a question from an image expert on the File:Horseanatomy.png about what sources were used to create the image. Would it be possible for you to add the sources you used to the image page? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana, as I recall (it was a good few years ago now) it was primarily based on this: http://media.photobucket.com/image/horse%20anatomy/pullnshoot25/biology/horse_502.gif or something essentially the same. But a drawing like this wasn't just a derivative work of one image, it was drawn from scratch using lots of images as references. I no longer draw/edit wikipedia so rarely check this page, but you should be able to get me by email. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikipedianProlific has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as WikipedianProlific's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear WikipedianProlific! Peace, Rlevse 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

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 • 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your fine work.

SpeakDolphin (www.speakdolphin.com) is publishing scientific and popular papers on communicating with dolphins.

We are seeking permission to use your dolphin anatomy picture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dolphin_anatomy.png) but added a "Rostrum" label and red line pointing to it in two of our publications, and changed the label in 2 below:

1. USE of AIR-BASED ECHOLOCATION by a BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (OPEN SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS Book 1) Published on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/AIR-BASED-ECHOLOCATION-BOTTLENOSE-DOLPHIN-PUBLICATIONS-ebook/dp/B00XPSRJZS/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 You can see our edited version here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19725188/Dolphin%20Anatomy%20edit%20SD%20Deciphering%20the%20Code%20Book.jpg

2. SPEAK DOLPHIN - DECIPHERING THE DOLPHIN CODE Kindle Edition To be published on August 14, 2015 on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/SPEAK-DOLPHIN-DECIPHERING-CODE-ebook/dp/B00XQIDNR0/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 We also changed the label for this publication. You can see our edited version here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19725188/Dolphin%20Anatomy%20edit%20SD%20Air-Based%20Echo%20Paper.jpg

Speakdolphin (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Jim McDonough, Editor, SpeakDolphin[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, as an ordinary reader and passive contributor, would like to thank you for you contribution to wikipedia, for the detailed and beautiful images you've created! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strich3d (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And many thanks from me, too - your drawings are fabulous! Julian Gilbey (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just jumping onto this thread to say a big thanks from me too; I'm teaching lots of children about wasps this week and yours is the only diagram that works for me! Many thanks.

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you uploaded an image "for exclusive use on Wikipedia". Should we delete it from Commons? Please join the discussion here. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]