This is an archive of past discussions about User:J Milburn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
GA Review
I dropped by GAN to look for any article on hold that I can help out with. I improved the article where the comments deemed necessary. I also left a comment on the GAR concerning the image which you deemed as the final issue.
Hi JM, please withdraw me from the cup. There's too much weirdness going on, and I've recently been accused of having a "reviewing cabal". I appreciate the efforts of my reviewers, and don't need to have their names (or mine) dragged through the dirt; it's all distracting from what I'm here for (writing articles). Speaking of articles, would you like to co-nom Lactarius volemus for FAC? I think it's looking pretty good; probably needs another copyedit and the lead expanded to two paragraphs. I'd do another lit check, but I was pretty thorough before the GA, so there shouldn't be much left there. While that's up, I could work on Auricularia auricula-judae as our next co-nom, if you're interested. (ps. I haven't forgotten about the taxonomy section for Fomes fomentarius, will push that higher on my to-do list.) Sasata (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
killer7 FAC
Hey, I finally reopened an FAC for killer7 (here). Were you planning on re-nominating Dustbin Baby anytime soon? If not, just let me know and I'd be glad to comb through it whenever you get around to doing that. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and looked through Andrew Johnston (which is the FAC I'm assuming you were referring to) and made some comments. Look forward to working with you in the future. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't mean that a file is in public domain?
"This file is in the public domain, because it was taken 110+ years ago
In case this is not legally possible:
The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."
Hi there. This is a friendly note that I have left a new comment on Talk:Mega Drive regarding the inclusion of separate logos for the JP and EU "Mega Drive" and US "Genesis" models. In short, my position is that the JP Mega Drive and US Genesis logos are important to the understanding of the article's subject (since the Genesis has its own significant notability and is itself discussed at length in the article, even though its logo is not). I'm a few months late to the discussion since I took an extended hiatus from Wikipedia to focus on personal matters, but it looks like consensus was never fully reached on the matter.
I'll be happy to work with you on this issue, and I'm also leaving this notice on the talk pages of the other people who were active in the discussion. Thanks. :) 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) (— KieferSkunk (talk) —)
On 22 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inocybe praetervisa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi JM, the file File:Alloclavaria.purpurea.debbie.jpg is an unfree file (non-Wiki compatible license) on Commons. I've removed it from the two articles it was being used in here, and thought about adding a PUF template, but it appears that's for Wikipedia-hosted files only? Anyway, it's on Commons and I have no idea what to do with PUF files there, so thought I'd let you know about it. I took some pics of this fungus on my last vacation, so will replace them here when I get organized. Sasata (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've reported User:SexyKick for edit warring over the Mega Drive article which is now going on for at least half a year (as far as I am aware that is). I would like to ask you for assistance in correcting his claims and lies towards your intentions with tagging the article for non-free content. DCEvoCE (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Auricularia auricula-judae
On 31 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Auricularia auricula-judae, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1703:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
User had a history? Maybe I'm being overly optomistic, but as you know I've been told I'm a bit Bitey at times, hence the PUI vs a CSD for no-permission...
Just wanted to say thank you for putting so much time and effort into the wikicup this year! Regardless of any problems, I and a lot of other people had a lot of fun with it, and you were a big part of making that possible. --PresN00:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Just an update on this GAR. I've strengthened the PD -because justifcation on the file page of the lead image. Can you have a look and see if this is satisfactory. If not, I think I could provide a strong Fair Use rationale, having read up on the guidelines recently. Either way I think we need to finish this up, and there's enough willing and competent editors there to get it over the line. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for your work on the review and imporving the article. I can see you're busy, but any comments on the usefulness or otherwise of the school production photo would be interesting. Best wishes, --Ktlynch (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't understand why they are annoyed, given that the tag used should have explained what the problem was. I also fail to see why I have to justify placing it, when the template itself links to the WP:NFCC from which it should be possible to see where the rationale was lacking. I could have DFU'ed the image as not meeting certain NFCC criteria, but the use of the tag concerned was precisely to avodi the sort of 'disruptive editing' the uploader has complained about elsewhere... :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey J Milburn. You've already gotten your round of applause, but I just wanted to again extend my appreciation and congratulations for your excellent work with the WikiCup! Now, previously, I used to not ask people to sign my guestbook, but I've recently decided to adapt a policy of only asking people to sign it when I have a positive Wiki-experience with them in some way, which the WikiCup certainly was. So, if you're so inclined, I hope you'll sign! Thanks again! — HunterKahn00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi JM, I was very happy to find in my mailbox this morning an image of the stinkhorn mushroom Phallus calongei, kindly sent by Prof. Gabriel Moreno, one of the authors of the species. My first successful image request! Anyway, I was wondering if you could check the OTRS permission... I fear I may have to bug Dr. Moreno for another email, as he didn't explicitly say what license he wanted to release the picture with. I assume English is not his first language, and he may not have completely understood my initial email (or I didn't explain clearly enough). Sasata (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Johan Bos at Commons has just checked out the OTRS and confirmed it. I guess that makes 101 selected species :) Sasata (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) There's a question on my talk page about who to talk to about suspected copyright violations on Commons. I'm not entirely sure what to advise. Could you perhaps drop by the thread here and offer some guidance? It would be most appreciated! --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm still want to take this to FA, especially after seeing a new suite of excellent pictures posted at MO. If you're interested in being a co-nom, I propose the following: I'll do a final check for any sources I may have missed and integrate them into the article. Then, you give the article an in-depth FA-style review (like your usual at FAC) and post it on the talk page. We'll iron out the fine details, and co-nom at FAC. If you're not interested or have no free time, that's fine too, I'll take it to FAC anyways :) Sasata (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok I think I'm good now with the lit check. If we're desperate for more info, there's at least three papers in Chinese that could be used to add volume to the "Bioactive compounds" section (which should probably be renamed to "Chemistry" or something); judging from the titles, I think these papers are saying that extracts from the mushroom enhance immune function, and also give protective effects against radiation; however, these are results based on laboratory tests with mice. We could probably find someone from WP:China to translate the abstracts for us, but I'll let you decide if you think it's necessary to include them. Lead probably needs to be expanded by a few sentences and split into two paragraphs. I'm gonna get rid of some of the redlinks (not strictly necessary of course, but a few more Lactarius species stubs can't hurt). Have at it! Sasata (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Have made the image changes you suggested. I think we're just about ready to go ... before we do I'm gonna try to expand or combine the two stubby sentences currently present in "Bioactive compounds" and "Ecology, distribution and habitat". Will also do one more check against my sources to check for inadvertent close paraphrasing (have you been watching the atmosphere at FAC lately?). Should be ready by tomorrow. Do you have anything else in the FAC pipeline? If not, would you mind being the lead nominator? That would leave me free to submit another FAC in a week or so... been thinking Phallus indusiatus would be a good choice. I'll be doing some more reviews as well to compensat for the potential double mushroom submissions. Sasata (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok it's ready to go! I've checked against the sources and am confident it will stand up to scrutiny based on WP:Copyvio, WP:Close paraphrasing and WP:Plagiarism. I expanded the bioactive compounds section with a few more refs about the rubber it makes, and removed the sentence about tumor-inhibiting activity (can't rely on the unseen source-in-a-source that mentioned it, and can't read the other Chinese papers that confirm it.) Expanded the sentence about flies living in the mushroom, there's actually an interesting bit of ecology going on there. Also found a bit more to add from Bessette 2009. So please check to make sure my additions look ok, and then nominate at your convenience. Sasata (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Like I said in the summary, there was no rationale for that use. Please familiarise yourself with the non-free content criteria. I appreciate that this is a controversial subject, but that does not mean we can ignore our policies. We have a free image illustrating the nature of waterboarding- consider using that or, if it is not appropriate, consider whether the page could work without the use of an image. J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It wasn't my image to start with, but it has been there a long time and an image illustrating waterboarding is relevant and necessary, even if this one might not be the best one. Could you tell me where to find the free image illustrating the nature of waterboarding--or for that matter, save time by replacing the image yourself? ElijahBosley(talk ☞)15:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Granted. Regardless, we certainly could conceive of a photo of a more realistic re-enactment or of an accurate diagram which would serve the same encyclopedic (though perhaps not emotional) purpose of the painting. That's the heart of non-free content criterion 1- we should not be using a non-free image when a free one could be used. (I have no opinion on the other two usages of the image, by the way- I will look into them at some point.) J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Lemonshark(2).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
I recently got a message saying that you believe that Purpy Pupple and I are the same person.
We are not.
We do share the same interests, which would explain why our photographic techniques are similar. I support images I believe should be featured, not images posted by a certain person. After I was almost indefinitely banned, I'm not going to do anything to risk my account.
And my final point, his profile says he is from Canadia.
Hi there J Milburn. That's a much stronger image indeed. You know that already; I'm just pointing this out so that you know that I support it. I removed the Kyle Cassidy attribution from the caption, though, because the licensing doesn't appear to require it, and because we should avoid using photo credits whenever possible. Cassidy does have a strong reputation independent of Wikipedia, so I'm not claiming that mentioning him is undue promotion; I just don't think we should ever use photo credits in articles, unless the licensing requires it, because the alternative encourages spammy photo credits everywhere. — Gavia immer (talk)23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being so helpful in Chat
You have been recognized by Shearonink (talk) with the Patience & Fortitude LP as an award for your Long-Playing Patience in the Wikipedia IRC-Helpchat channel. Thanks for staying so calm and civil!
Feel free to pass some Patience on to other patient experienced Wikipedians by adding {{subst:WikiPatience}} to their talk page with whatever patient message you like.
Awarded to experienced Wikipedians who demonstrate continued patience when dealing with new editors and their endless questions (especially when in the WIkipedia IRC-Helpchat channel). Created by Shearonink and first awarded to Chzz.
Please, check out those uploaded images R. KocharyanS. Sargsian, the user who had uploaded the photos is claiming that he is the copyright holder of those works. I wonder, how did he get an access to the presidential palace and took the photos of the presidents of Armenia? Those photos have been uploaded from official and copyrighted websites ([1]), which is against the rules of Wikipedia. --Kevorkmail (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed all logos, two screenshots and two photos from the article and subsequently removed the NFC tag. Please have a look at the current version of the article here and comment on the article's talk page if you agree with the changes (cause I fear they'll be reverted within the next few hours). Thanks. DCEvoCE (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain and help me to get an OTRS approval for the photos I would like to upload to Wikimedia Commons-- and is it the same thing as the Wikipedia:OTRS mentioned? I can't seem to understand how to fill out forms and things.. like, what IS my password for OTRS there? The one I use to log in to en.Wikipedia?? I know this may sound like such a basic thing to know, and of all people- I've uploaded and placed over 650 photos to Commons! However, I am limited to Flickr as my source for photos to request. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch><>°°20:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi JM, sorry to hassle you about another move (it's times like this I wish I had the bit)... would you move yellow mite back to its scientific name Lorryia formosa over the redirect? Another newish editor decided that the common name was more appropriate (citing wp:common, not apparently having read that page?), but I can't undo his transfer. Thanks Sasata (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks but... reverted. I've added another common name to the article (refuting the argument in his last edit summary "the species has only one common name"), and explained on the talk page how according to policy the article should actually be at the scientific name. Questions: how is a non-admin able to move over redirects? Sasata (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please explain to me how add rationale and in which cases? You mentioned some non-free images but most of images are almost free. (I am now talking about non copyrighted images, I really don't know how to solve that) Petrb (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for answer I was just unsure if images published with the GNU license where is only comment about attribution need rationale too Petrb (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You may want to check out this file to make sure I understand copyright law. I was under the impression that a photograph of an out-of-copyright coin was "in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection." I read, further, that "[t]he official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain," but I wonder if "two-dimensional works" is implied? Even so, I would have thought a coin to be pretty close to two-dimensional, considering no work of art is truly two-dimensional and we have to draw the line somewhere. I guess coins are not two-dimesional according to the Commons' legal counsel, but I'm not personally convinced, at least not if the photograph shows no "originality of expression". In this case, however, I feel I'm on more firm ground: it's a parchment after all. —Srnec (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Alternate Photos
Haha sorry for placing the alternate photos on the 'wrong' side. Thanks for moving all of mine!
I noticed that there are three uploads of the same photo in Wikimedia Commons. As an Admin. there, would you help with this? (One time I did ie!) Anyway, would you please take a look here and delete all but one copy of the photo of Mark Knopfler? Of course the duplicates you delete will need any Wiki using it to have the original upload placed in exchange for losing the duplicate image for use, too. They are here: [2]. Thanks, --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello J Milburn, « CA » has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Sorry once again. As you probably know, I upload photos for the musicians' biography articles, but only when I know we have a need for it. I first find the photo(s) that would complement our articles, and I email the photographers to ask permission, and then usually have to respond to them to explain Creative Commons, and which licenses we accept here. It's often long and tedious but I've done it and uploaded about 700 photos mostly manually to Commons. But a new complication: I negotiated with a German photographer (Heinrich Klaffs) to upload some photos from his Flickr photostream. He changed the licensing for the entire bulk of them to Commons, (CC-BY-SA) which was nice of him.. perhaps initially a mistake he made, instead of changing the Creative Commons license for the few photos I requested, he may have accidentally changed the license to all his pics. I do know he is enjoying it anyhow. I never upload ALL of someone's photos especially if there's a string of them that are nearly identical (why be greedy?). I normally take my time, and copyedit the articles where they will appear, creating infoboxes, wikification and wording, etc. However, (perhaps because of that Flickr "photo finder bot" intended to help editors find and upload "free" images, there's a problem!
PROBLEM. There now appear to be at least two other editors ALSO uploading ALL of his stuff --although I'd been slowly uploading some of the photos. When I first discovered this, I tried to communicate with the first; a German editor who has a user and talk page here on en.Wikipedia, but after writing and beginning the subject, his response was negative. He just said, so?. I had a bad feeling about this, and sure enough, he has created a Category in Commons: Category:Photographs by Heinrich Klaffs [3] Now. if he was merely using the de.Wikipedia to place the photos, it would solve 1/2 of the problem, but still, it creates duplicates in Commons! And, on de.Wikipedia there's apparently been a decision not to add infoboxes there. So I'm finding photos that Freimut Bahlo (talk) just left on the en.Wikipedia pages, (if he got that far). At first, I felt like, "grin and bear it", but now I feel like I'm a janitor having to follow behind him and having to check every single photo of his when I do want to upload a needed photo from that source. I almost feel like he considers this a race of some kind. ??!
Now I find yet another editor, doing the same thing, calling it Category:Hamburg in the 1970s! [4]
The problem now, is that in many cases, there are not only duplicates but even triplicates of the same photo!
WHAT TO DO? I'd like to communicate with everybody but am unsure if it's a problem of WP:OWN with someone (me?) but this is insane! BTW- I've now uploaded and placed close to 700 photos so the list required an extra page- you can find a link there from my Userpage. Please, what to do? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I just found your posts on my talk page (Janneman27 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)). I'm having problems uploading photo's with the right copyrights. I don't have a clue what all of the options mean or where to find the relevant details. Uploading photo's has by far been the most difficult thing to do because I don't know where to start!?! I've tried several times to upload photo's, even reading through all of the pages related to uploading photo's and I still have NO F*#@ING clue how to CORRECTLY upload photo's using the right copuyright settingsw and under the right terms.
Can someone at WEikip[edia please create a page where you explain how to upload a photo. And please do it in SIMPLE ENGLISH!!!! I don't understand half of the terms and paragrap[hs and clauses and clutter you try to use to explain these things (and I'm not stupid: I speak three languages fluently, have a degree in theoretical physics and have been using tyhe internet in an advanced fashion for nearly ten years)!!!!
Please, just help me with this, I've been struggling with the same page's photo's forever now even though I have full consent from all the people in the photo's as well as the copyright holders of all the photo's to use them on your @$&#$& website...
Well you're the only one supporting logo. Another is, it not only has the cast, but illustrates the cover of the first game. Also, consensus is highly against it. So until you win consensus. then you can have it in there. Plus this is visual media.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I only agree with free media. But the rest is up to opinion. the dot-hack logo is used for the entire franchise, not just that set of video game series. that means, novels, manga, anime. The logo is meant for all media-related franchise. And as for consistency, i've seen plenty of game series that followed the pattern here. the point is it won't be that problematic.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
i'm not talking about consensus within the criteria, but consensus in the FAC and although it's preferable to have fee-media, there are occasions tha can't be helped. Also age of empire is completely different. Age of Empire isn't a multimedia franchise such as .hack. .hack logo represents every media out there that relates to the .hack including he sequel series .hack//G.U.. All media relating to .hack has ".hack" on it. and is part of the ".hack" franchise. the cover helps distinguish the difference between the video game series and the franchise.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
i read the policy, but it doesn't state what you said. or i didn't lok hard enough. but you're being uncivil, and that isn't my fault.s o i suggest ou cool off before discussing.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
you're suggesting that I am trying to patronize you. which i'm not, you're assuming bad faith, which is being uncivil. If you felt patronized, thats not in my part.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Another way of being uncivil, is the words you say that don't relate to the discussion, sch "dear god" and such, only to express your irritation.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
true, but it regards to wiki's policy, so in a way it is relevant. but please try to hold your words back before posting. Again, i wasn't trying to patronize you, so please assume good faith onward.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, you say if NFC is disputed, it stays out, but where exactly is that stated? there could be a difference between the interpretation. But overall, i dont think non-free content is the main issue on here.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thats not what i mean, i'm trying to say that i dont see it as a big issue in regards to the cover being there. if it violates NFC, then ok we can't use it. but if we bring it back and then meets NFC?Bread Ninja (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly it expanded more than just that. If it is just a NFCC issue, then we can replace it with same image but one that does meet the NFCC.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it does, but not much against it from what you said other than non-NFCC issues. plus rule number 4 can aply to both logo and the cover.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
True, but like it was stated before, sometimes it can't be helped. But i also don't believe one over the other is good especially when one is suited just fine. What i'm trying to say, replacing one image with another isn't always the same as replacing a dime with 5 pennies. to be blunt about it, replacing non-free-content has it's disadvantages too.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
free content replacing non-free content has it's disadvantages. though i do favor free content, there are times when i don't depending on the articleBread Ninja (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-Free Use Rationale for File:Intel_Modular_Server_System_-_MFSYS25_Chassis.jpg
Hi J Milburn,
I have added a Fair Use Rationale to the image which I uploaded and was marked for deletion - Intel Modular Server System - MFSYS25 Chassis.jpg Please take a look at it and let me know if it fulfils requirements for a non-free use rationale.
I have a fairly SERIOUS problem with a user that has been a continued problem. He's skirted around being actually banned twice now, first time resulting in nearly a topic ban but he got by that buy promising to behave and only resulted in a series of blocks (edit waring to keep his cell phone pictures in articles), hes done MANY pointy DR's on commons when pictures he uploaded was listed as a DR... he has failed to grasp many policies and willfully ignored them. Hes now on an admin imposed restriction on how he can use his talk page.
The problem I noticed now is that on the very page that nearly got him banned for waring over, Finasteride, one of the images I sourced from Flickr as a suggested improvement over his cell phone images File:Finpecia from India is Cheap Propecia.jpg and was discussed here hes re-uploaded it from Commons to here and claimed he took the picture violating it's copyrights then replaced it in the article. File:Propecia and Finpecia.jpg. At this point I don't know what to do, this is a very serious problem I think. I just never noticed it because it was the image I sourced for the article, so I didn't notice he re-uploaded it claiming it was his picture until now.
Last time I tried to do anything with his account he went running to ANI about me "monitoring" his account, and got himself nearly banned and ended up with restrictions on how he can use his talk pages. I'd like your opinion/help in this matter, if thats ok. — raekyt20:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Other images hes uploaded that are possibly copyright violations (no meta data indicating he took it with his cell phone, which in the past he said is the only camera he has).
I noticed that Boycool42 (talk·contribs) has been uploading quite a few non-free images and adding them to articles [8]. As a result, some articles such as Chuck Versus the Leftovers have multiple unfree images. As the images aren't important to the understanding of the articles, I'm pretty sure this violates policy and Boycool42 needs to be made aware of this, but thought I'd run it by someone more experienced with image policy than I am. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Where is the threshold, we do allow screenshots to illustrate articles about the tv show/episode... do we have a written policy of a threshold of how many is to many? (sorry to just jump in.. heh) — raekyt01:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of anywhere that states something along the lines of "no more than xyz unfree images", but point 3 of WP:Non-free content#Policy is "minimal usage", and point 8 "contextual significance" also seems relevant here. FAs on TV episodes seem to sometimes have a lead image from the episode (eg: Pilot (Supernatural) and Road to the Multiverse), but it varies (eg: North by North Quahog uses only free images). In Chuck Versus the Leftovers, mentioned above, images are given without even captions, which makes it seem like they're for decoration rather than help the reader understand the article. That doesn't seem to be the case in every article, Chuck Versus Phase Three at least has captions, but my thinking was that some of these just aren't necessary. Nev1 (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no number of how many is too many- basically, we use as few as we can get away with. What Boycool is doing is really not ok- I'll look into it. J Milburn (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a large number of images from the various articles, left him a note and tagged a couple of articles. The bots will hopefully pick up the orphaned images, saving me a job. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Why did you only do this to articles created by me when there are dozens more articles about Chuck episodes that have the same problem? --Boycool (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It's nothing personal, I just happened to notice while browsing that Chuck Versus the Leftovers and Chuck Versus Phase Three contained a a few non-free images uploaded by the same author. I haven't gone through all of the Chuck articles; if there are more it would be helpful to highlight them. Nev1 (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Although you orphaned dozens of images I uploaded (no doubt earning me annoying bot messages), you failed to notice that almost every article listed here has the same problem. For example, the "Chuck Versus the Marlin" article has five non-free, non-captioned images, and most of the other articles for the first three seasons have just as many. I don't ask that you revert your recent edits, just that you stay consistent with the 52 articles existing on the topic. --Boycool (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through the articles linked through the navigation template and aside from two articles, each now has just one non-free image (some didn't have any). I don't think the second image is needed in Chuck Versus the Intersect but the second one in Chuck Versus the Helicopter is used to illustrate a new actor who regularly appears in the series. I'm not quite sure how to proceed with those two. Nev1 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
On the said image of Mr. Isaiah Berlin, I believe the fair use rationale as stated on the description page is valid. Many images of historical figures use the same rationale, that the figure was an important person in history but since he/she had passed away no free image can be taken at this time. Mr. Berlin was undoubtedly one of the most important political theorists of his time, and it is for educational and encyclopedic purposes that his appearance is to be shown. If this is still not satisfactory, however, let me know how can I improve upon the current rationale as written on the page. Happy editing!
Hi, I'm very interested in the writings of Soren Kierkegaard and have been updating his webpage. I've finished a new artice, Fear and Trembling to replace the one there because it was just copied from a different website. See my note in discussion. I've rewritten it and would like some feedback. Thanks. User:11614soup--11614soup 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are doing well. I received the following through contacting the managers/publicists through IMDBPro and was wondering if you think any have a shot at WP:FPC. The images are for Fred Willard, Wendell Pierce, and Stephen Merchant. So far the success rate is a lot smaller compared to Flickr permissions, but I am getting higher quality images, usually from the actor/actress themselves. Anyway, I'm interested in what you think. If they don't stand a shot then I'll keep on going for more. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I had the same thoughts as you on the images, and definitely would have preferred the not-so-tight crops. For the Merchant image, could the lighting be adjusted to satisfy reviewers? I don't want reviewers going blind looking at the brighter-than-snow skin. The image was provided by the publicist from permission from Merchant, and they provided the author credit. It's covered in the OTRS. Do you think the source should be changed from "Image e-mailed to uploader from publicist of subject" to "image e-mailed to Nehrams2020 from Ruth Larkin, publicist of Stephen Merchant"? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll probably give the graphics lab a try, and see if anyone will take a stab at it. I just found the website for the photographer, and I want to contact her first to ensure that Merchant does own the rights to it. Otherwise, I don't want to take it to FPC first when it may just get deleted. I'll keep my fingers crossed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I nominated an alternate version of the image after I took a shot at it in Photoshop and adjusted the brightness. I was able to get a hold of the author through e-mail today. She was hired by the publicist and stated that the image was indeed available for the free license if Merchant wanted it that way. Thank you again for your help, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program
Hi! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. We're gearing up for the next term right now, and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program will be supporting considerably more courses, with considerably more student activity... possibly upwards of 500 students who will need mentors.
If you're still interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
Hi, thanks for your corrections to the above-mentioned article. I wonder if there is a new policy on Cd covers? I have uploaded and used the images of three CD covers on the page, as I was, at the time, under the impression that it was fair use to use them as illustration of the CDs. But now it seems as if it is no longer allowed. Could you enlighten me on this, please?
Thanks
SkaraB 21:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear J, I know you are a busy editor, but can you take a look at the above article and point out any prose problems? I am planning to nominate it for FAC later. Thanks in advance, — Legolas(talk2me)08:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-free logos?
Hi, J. :) Hope you won't mind my knocking on your door (again and again), but I'm trying to help out an Italian Wikipedian and OTRS volunteer who is attempting to upload some logos for which we received unusable permission. See here. Since I've explained that we need FUR for them, the permission not being usable in itself, s/he has added them and asked me if they're okay. I don't know if they are, since they are being used as logos for projects of the subject. Would you mind helping out here? You are way more in touch with non-free images practices on Wikipedia than I am! If they're okay, it would be great to reassure him or her of that. If they are not, can they be fixed? --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Stellenbosch University Choir picture licensing issue
Well, all of the pictures I used were uploaded (as far as I can remember) as either free use or as album covers. As I mentioned before, I have personally and specifically asked for permission from the respective copyright owners to use these specific pictures on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of furthering the brand of the Choir, the people connected with the Choir as well as the University it is connected with through enhancing and broadening publicly available knowledge (specifically through digital channels like Wikipedia) of the Choir and all things related. I have the various copyright holders' personal blessings in this regard.
As I also mentioned earlier, I have tried figuring out under which specific licensing terms I should upload these specific photo's but have failed to understand any of the options available as of yet.
On a semi-related note: I'll quote your edit summary of the last edit you made to the page as "What the album cover looks like is unimportant". I tend to disagree with you on this comment. What damage does it do to display publicly available knowledge such as the album cover? In fact, in a Wikipedia special page I read (about creating quality pages) it mentions the value of adding related pictures to pages to enhance the quality of the page for readers who are unfamiliar with the topic being discussed.
I end by asking you if you could please help me figure out under exactly which licensing terms I am allowed to upload the removed photo's in a way that I don't have to deal with them being removed AGAIN.
Well, before I rewrote the IAPSS article, there were an article for the organization, one for the magazine and one for the review. Then, I merged the last two in the first one, leaving a redirect. However, I may restore the articles about Politikon and ADV as separate from the article about IAPSS. May it work? -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Totally not getting this. You're defending the use of non-free sound files in articles for which there's not even an attempt at a rationale? I hate to patronise, but you do realise that non-free sound files fall under the non-free content crtieria, don't you? J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries about offending me, all of us are capable of misunderstanding what we read. I make mistakes myself, so I understand when others make mistakes, or don't quite get something. Sometimes, anyway, it comes down to interpretation. I totally understand your concerns about the use of non-free material, be they images or sound. However, I again refer you to the GA criteria which specifically mentions images, but does not mention sound files. While non-free content is referenced in the criteria, it is referenced in relation to image files, not sound files. Any concerns you have about the sound files should be taken up in one or other of the venues I indicated to you in the assessment. I'm not sure I can help you further. If you do wish to discuss this again with me, please do refer to Wikipedia:Good article criteria and any statements on that page which may relate to sound files. I may have missed something. SilkTork *YES!17:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I wish you hadn't threatened me for a good faith edit on that album page and had instead explained more clearly what the problem was. I think a lot of people looked at the file page, saw the Pink Floyd FUR, and didn't realize it was for the main band page rather than for the album page. I know that's what happened to me, and I tried to couch my edit in terms of policy. Sorry for the confusion. —Torchiesttalk/edits19:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Recent squabble
I'd like to apologise for calling you a liar, it's clear now that you are no such thing. I understand now what the problems were and I'm happy with your most recent replies on my talk page (excepting the point about blocks, but that's a discussion for another day I think). Parrotof Doom19:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Wishing you a very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! Wishing you all the very best for the season. Thanks for all your help and support this year. Merry Christmas and may Santa be good to you! – SMasters (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Click to play!
Christmas Card
Merry Christmas
At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
Nope
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
Nope
And unless there is someother fail criteria, I think it was wrongly failed. I'm not up to putting it up for another nomination, since it has been over 2 months since I last nominated it… Just lettin' you know.. CrowzRSA16:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input with my new article on 19ninetynine, including notability aspects. I also have a new article at Deviant UK
Thanks,
Labrat256 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I kept the article strictly to what I could verify, how do you suggest I expand it? Labrat256 00:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labrat256 (talk • contribs)
Sister Wives photo
Hey J Milburn. I saw you tagged the Sister Wives fair use photo. I thought the info under "permission" was sufficient as a fair use rationale. Do you feel more is needed? — HunterKahn22:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
How am I doing? Still need to expand the stuff about the grounds a bit, but have found some excellent photos that are useable - will upload them once I'm back home later today. You say you have no doubt that this could be a FA. How far short would you say it is, as it would be my first if FA status could be achieved. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I've gone about as far as I can now in response to the GAR. Are there any further issues outstanding that you can think of, or are you now happy enough to pass the article? Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I would be willing to, but I know how useless I was last year. I was considering stepping down and competing this year but I can't see myself being able to commit time to either. Basically, I'll step down and compete unless you can't find someone who would do a better job (or is just plain able to help) and if you can't, I'll happily help you to judge. ƒox00:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Right you are. Let me know if and when you find someone! Best of luck! (On a side note, I assume mainspace edit points are a no? A few editors on the Signups page have an iff riding on them and I could remove them if you wish.) ƒox00:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Has this been edited/restored at all? The image pays says it's been retouched, but I'm having trouble finding any other evidence that it's been edited. I'm curious if Scewing deserves a credit for this one. He's only listed as uploader and nominator on Commons, although I'm not sure if they ever list editors. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've borrowed X!'s code from last year, and distilled a pure list of participants. Now just to make any changes necessary and file a BRFA. - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]13:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Well it's certainly doable. I suppose really 4+ edits a day isn't going to put that much of a strain on the servers. Incidentally, in case it's not obvious, I'm going to make the bot work first, and *then* build in some nice checks and balances :) - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]14:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, everything looks good. I just need you to create the templated submissions pages for everyone :) Essentially, the bot looks for lines that begin with a hash symbol [EDIT: and contain nothing else], so as long as you avoid those, we're fine. - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]14:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you couldn't have just "#" on a line. Copying and pasting last year's and changing the VP heading name to GAR would be perfectly fine. - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
And indeed, after a note to other BAG members, it was approved. All that's left for me to do is to remind you to update /History/2011 with the contestant changes on the submissions page, and create the submissions subpages, if you haven't already. I would offer to help, but I'm out all day :( Still, gives me an opportunity to pick up some books from the library before the competition starts this year! :) - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]10:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have two questions concerning the next WikiCup, as I am considering participating:
Regarding ITN submissions, which user is chosen to qualify? Is it the editor who created the subject page, one who did the most to improve said article, whoever made the nomination to ITN or suggested the blurb, or all of the aforementioned?
How much time (per week) do you think on average should be available to the participant in order to participate in the competition fully?
Hi. Is the year defined by the past 365 days or Year 2011 CE and can the nominator of an ITN entry qualify without having edited the article in question? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, why are good article reviews listed for points but nothing is said about the FA nomination/review process, and would the nominator or the reviewer qualify? ~AH1(TCU)22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I was going to sign up last night but lacked the time. Why does the main WikiCup page still say you are still welcome to sign up for this year's competition when signups are closed? ~AH1(TCU)15:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Because signups aren't closed. They're still open, though the longer you leave it into round one to get going, the lower your chances of getting enough content written in the time available. I think the official end to nominations is 31 January, but I could be wrong on that. - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]17:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for entering me into the competition. By the way, the scoring page says for GA reviews: "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews." That suggests to me that the reviews themselves count for points, rather than the article itself that was improved and submitted for review. So why are the nominators qualified and the reviewers are not? Or, does the nominator's work on the article qualify for the WikiCup, but only while dependant on the reviewer's reviewing quality? Please clear up this point. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)19:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I intentionally didn't give myself a flagicon just so I would get a random country that wasn't represented. However, I would rather not have a flag of a country in the Balkans / Slovak region because I do a bit of dispute resolution for WP:3O in that area, and this would make me appear biased. (It's a hornet's nest in there!) Could you give me the flag of a different country? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Nergaal has a flag that is potentially controversial. Is the flag of Germany (Nazi era) permitted? If not, the Japanese war criminal's flag should not be. I think that any national flag should be allowed, no matter how hideous the government. However, I wanted to let you know early on that there is the potential for controversy. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed somebody's 2 points for a GA review. I was thinking of doing one (I've never tried before) just to get some practice. Does the article being reviewed have to have been nominated for GA in 2011 or something to be eligible for the points? Abductive (reasoning)23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Multi-questions
Hey Happy New Year, JM! First, I didn't check- if your email is here, would it be OK to email you? Also, I noticed that you created some of the music samples... would it be hard to teach a computer ignoramous like me to do it, and would you be willing? Next, a FANTASTIC photographer, User:KirkStauffer has just registered in the en.Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I couldn't remember if you are an Admin. at both places, but he has some questions perhaps you can answer as to linking his photos here somehow. Just have a glance at the photo for Emily Robison or Katie Melua in their infoboxes. Anyway, just wanted to introduce someone to him as well if you'll drop him a line on his talk page, and reply to me on mine. Thanks! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Signpost and WikiCup 2011
You should write up a feature on the WikiCup (past history, what you're aiming for in 2011, participation, how to get involved, etc.). If not, calls should be placed in the weekly sidebar. Maybe both. Apologies for the late response, I've been busy and no one else seems to have taken up your request. Cheers, ResMar05:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Two quick things more
Thanks. I suggested email just to keep my run-on sentences from clogging up your talk page! But for now, aside from perhaps teaching me to make the ogg file clips. (I have no clue how, but would like to see some music clips in about 5 pages- maybe you want to do it?) One is for a very recent one, the 2010 album, The Union - a song, "Gone to Shiloh" has a vocal collaboration of Elton John, Neil Young, and Leon Russell. This, the highest rated album by Elton or Russell since the early 1970s. I've got only on itunes, but is outstanding, a Elton John /Bernie Taupin song featuring all three vocalists. A great collaboration. It's the first that came to mind, but there are a couple more for other pages, all of the others are different genres!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sesame Street images update
J, I wanted to update you about this. No word back from Danny Horn at Muppet Wiki yet; I suspect he's on holiday. I'll let you know what he says. I went ahead and ordered the Old School DVDs and have viewed the promotional reels. There is no copyright information on the DVD's packaging, or on the DVD itself. I'm still hopeful, although to be honest, it won't provide us with that many useful images, but definitely more than we have now. Thanks, and happy New Year. Christine (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Gymnopilus maritimus
On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gymnopilus maritimus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the mushroom Gymnopilus maritimus is known only from collections in a very localised area of Sardinia, Italy? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi J Milburn. I just noticed your post on White Shadows' talk page, coincidentally, just after completing a GA review. I wasn't aware they were worth points. Anyway, I was just wondering, what constitutes a review being worth points? Does a user have to cite specific examples for the nominator to fix? Make lots of suggestions? What happens when a person reviews a particularly good article that doesn't have problems at the good article level? I understand that the reviews are only worth 2 points; I'm just curious. Thanks, ceranthor18:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews." I guess that would mean that even for easy passes, detailed feedback on how to take the article to the next level is required to get the 2 points.
And now for what I actually came here to mention :) J.M., if GA reviews are going to be particularly contentious, would you like the bot to report the reviews people have claimed for to a list somewhere to make it easier for you to check? Or is the present quantity manageable enough? Anyway, things botwise seem to be ticking over nicely, and I'm having fun (!) on my article about Grigory Potyomkin, I must say... :) Regards, - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]18:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Should be managable at the current speed- there's controversy at the moment because, one, they're new, and two, they're the only thing people are claiming for at the moment. Jarry, I agree that insta-passes can be made better with pointers- I do a bit of GA reviewing myself. Look at, for instance, Talk:Flower (video game)/GA1, where I passed the article but gave pointers towards FAC (it's now a featured article). However, Ceranthor, to answer your question, originally I wasn't expecting that people would be claiming for insta-passes or speedy fails; not to say that they aren't good reviews, but just to say that they're not something for which people should be claiming points. I appreciate I'm being fairly vague here, but that's partially deliberate- any line in the sand is gamable. Experienced GA reviewers shouldn't have a hard time claiming for the majority of their reviews (the exceptions being "rubber stamping" or speedy fails). J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, if it's not too much to ask, I'd like a list of the GA reviews being claimed -- is it possible for the bot to deposit new ones in an 'unchecked' section, leaving us (judges and Wizardman) to move them to a 'checked' section? Ed[talk][majestic titan]20:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh..just to clarify, I have no issue with JM's decision. My GAR was actually not done for the points but to help OMT out. (To be honest, I did not really know that GARs were worth points until after I decided to review the Battleship) It's only 2 points anyway!--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
JM, TheEd: I've worked up a logging procedure. Though that list contains all items not-yet-removed by a judge, in future it will do as the description suggests and note an article the first (but not any successive) time it is claimed, and if you remove one from the list the bot won't add it again. It's not filtered to specifically GARs, since I am trying to make the script as general as possible; I'm sure you can cope. TheEd: I'm not sure if that's entirely desirable - in any case, I shan't do it without consensus for only pre-approved reviews being counted, since it would require a significant amount of time to implement. I'm sure you understand :) Regards, - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Milburn, I have one querry for the GT submissions for Wikicup. Is it mandatory that all of the articles for a particular GT be developed in 2011? Or they might have been developed prior, but the GT/FT promotion was done in 2011? — Legolas(talk2me)06:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ed, another small clarification. Suppose in a GT, which was promoted in 2011, some articles were promoted in 2010, and some in 2011. So can one include only those 2011 articles in the list? — Legolas(talk2me)06:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently finished the Timeline of the 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season (on January 2) and I am planning on nominating it for FLC soon. I was wondering if I would get any points as a large portion (~50%) was worked on in November to December 2010.
Congrats on your featured-sound choice of the year
J Milburn, I thought at the time this was very well done. Any advice to WPians on how to approach the owners of copyrighted albums and other sound files? Tony(talk)12:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
FPC
I just remembered a fairly ancient featured picture nomination that I made back in May 2009 but for some reason didn't get properly transcluded. If you think it might be worthy of being an FP, do you think you could work out how to list it at FPC? Cheers SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok then, I think I thought it could be an FP back then because it looked pretty but since you're experienced at FPC there is probably no point transcluding it though. Cheers anyway. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. I'd like to have Oslo Municipality's coat of arms, which can be found here. And btw: Approximately how many points do you think is nescescary for preceding the first round? I think I need to know how to coordinate my work related to that ;-) --Eisfbnoretalk14:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
How's things? I have just received permission from the Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office (TAHO) to upload some original works by early Tasmanian artist William Buelow Gould. Technically I think they'd be PD anyway as they date from 1830-1850, but thought I'd do the right thing and seek their permission as their website says to do. I wasn't sure whether I should submit these through OTRS, or just upload them, so Maedin suggested to ask your opinion. Also wondering what license I should put on them?
Thanks. Technically I asked to use them in the Gould article on Wikipedia (not wanting to have to try to explain what Commons was) and that's what the email approves, but I was going to upload to Commons with a note about re-use requiring permission of the TAHO, and directing them to their website. Of course anyone could snag them off there without doing so, but then anyone can snag them now off the TAHO site without permission as well. But uploading to Commons should be OK, eh? --jjron (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey J, I noticed that you close the occasional FP candidate, so I thought you may like to use my script. It does 'no promotes' completely automatically, and does the majority of work automatically when promoting. If you prefer doing it manually, that's cool too. Regards, Jujutaculartalk18:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
DYKs receive points as well. Just click the page I linked you... it's all laid out right there. Also, as a side note, at 318 characters, your signature is too long. See WP:SIG. Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added the talkback message to my sig because everybody seems to reply on their talk page and not leave a talkback! --Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply here. Thanks, Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time!07:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Removal of image from KRO and tagging of Krologo.jpg
I am politely leaving you this message to inform you that per your recent edit to KRO, removing images from the article, that I have replaced one of the images, believing it to be useful as a method of identifying the channel and its brand. The image, located at [[File:Krologo.jpg]] is fully marked as being used under a fair use rationale, and is correctly identified with license and FUR. Could I also please ask you, per WP:DTTR in future to leave normal written warnings for me on my talkpage, rather than templates. It is a little more personal, and a lot more friendly than getting a whopping great box dumped on it. Thank you :) BarkingFish00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the scoring system for the wiki cup. Can you quickly explain it to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoronto1125 (talk • contribs)
Fair use rationale for File:Invariant Society Logo.gif
Hi; I put a logo box on the page, and pointed out that it was low-res, not a trademark, availible on the web, and premission had been granted by the society for it's use. Is that insufficient? Larklight (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that submission. Milburn, can I add the GA nomination of Glee: The Music, The Power of Madonna to my page, but hide it? Then can you check that I did the correct thing? I just want to learn it since the submission is not like previous years as a GA bot updates the nominations and I'm not sure which difference to show in the difference url. — Legolas(talk2me)16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, teach me to find noise. I can't see what they're pointing out in this nom, and I'd like to be more sensitive to these technical matters. Even looking at the "beak", I can't see distortion. And do you know what "cloning something out" means? Tony(talk)09:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ezra Pound
In the interests of keeping the peace, look, sorry I got angry over the H.D. and army Ezra pics, but the incident affected 2 FAs I am not indirectly resp for, and another two that TK is nursing, and she's a good wiki friend of mine. I see you around a fair bit, not just in relation to images, but our music taste intersect, so I dont want any hard feelings. So I appologise, fully; I know ye image guys are well intentioned and catch a lot of flack. If you are willing to put this behind then I have a image problem on another article I would be very grateful if you could advise me on. That might sound like a lot of cheek, but is intended as a gesture of friendship, and would at least mean we're working together, rather than bickering. Ceoil19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, it is appreciated. Anyway, there are two things I need help with if you get a chance. First is [11]. Its used on Witches' Sabbath (Goya, 1823) which I want to take to FAC in february, but I cant determine a publication date. Its fairly integral to the article, so if you could advise...though i'm half afraid of the answear ;). The second one is The Magdalen Reading, a fragment of a lost 15th century alterpiece. I'm thinking of expanding the page to cover the whole work, not just the fragment, but what it actually looked like is speculative. A few have tried to recreate, based on a near contemporary drawing and educated guesses, but only since the early 1970s. Is there anyway I could use one of their sketches. I'm guessing no, but I'm hoping anyway. Ceoil12:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Great. The Goya photo I can take care of, knowing what info is missing is very helpful thanks. Re van der Weyden, luckly the guys who have written most about it are the guys who attempted to recreate, and if expanded, the article will heavily incorporate them. If I was to take the Magdalen to FAC (will be april/may), I would appreciate if you took a look before hand, rather than the review getting bogged down. Its fairly substantial, including the -guesswork- images, but I'll trust and defer to you if thats ok. Again thanks. Ceoil12:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at WT:WikiCup. Message added 03:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Check out the fungus pics by Steve Axford... almost every one is FP quality! And they're cc-by-sa 3.0! And he's got dozens more here, not sure what the licensing is on these latter ones, but he seems like the kind of guy who wouldn't mind releasing them for a good cause... Time to whip up some articles! Sasata (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I am a major editor to that article (the largest with over 60 edits) and wrote much of it's content and gathered sources for it to be on the main page but did not nominate it or create it. The article appeared on INT today so I was wondering if I cold claim points for it in this round?--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world05:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Care to explain? I'm not doing a drive-by nomination if that's what your thinking and I'm not trying to capitalize on the tragic deaths of 6 people and critical injury of a Congresswoman just to get some points in a stupid online competition. If JM says no dice, I'll not complain, but I will still work on the article and still pray for the victims.--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world07:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I see the article wasn't even created when it was nominated. I can see that you have played your part in this article, but, at the same time, it mostly seems to be fairly minor edits. An article of this sort, by its nature, is one that an awful lot of people can claim some small credit for. I think it'd probably best to give this one a miss. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason I have withdrawn is, because most (or all) of the articles I work on a future sporting events, with that being said it will be hard for me to get points. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
GA after DYK
I am participating in WikiCup and have few questions.
Is it allowed to get both DYK points and GA (after expansion of DYK nominated article) points on the same article?
Is it allowed to merge text of the several different articles to create new article in order to get points for GA or DYK for merged article?
Same as question above, provided that nominator is author of majority of text of the merged article?
Sorry if I am bothering you with this question, but they are probably too simple for project's page and I would like to know the answer before I start expanding or merging some articles that are already nominated. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry for withdrawing so soon in the competition, but the WikiCup isn't really encouraging me to write well, but, rather, is encouraging me to quickly throw something together to pass inspection. Thanks for allowing me initially in, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Stargazy pie
Wow! What a fantastic review, I'm gutted I'm going away for a few days so I can't sort it out right away. Just wanted to say thanks for your hard work, and I will be taking the information on board. Worm08:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we've covered almost everything on your list. When you get a moment, any feedback would be appreciated. Oh, and it looks like it'll be on did you know this time tomorrow! Worm13:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the promotion. It was only through reading your talk page that I spotted the wikicup, I had a look and I'm currently about the top of the leaderboards (once my DYKs go through anyway), so I thought I might sign up. Doubt I'll win, but thanks for having me! Oh yeah, and I've never actually written a featured article... so any thoughts on how to get Stargazy pie to the level would be greatly appreciated. Worm15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
GA review started on Dec 26
Hi J Milburn,
Without meaning to dob someone in, I was under the impression that points are awarded for work starting in 2011 not carried over from 2010. Thus a friend of mine, User:Candyo32 nominated Knock You Down for GA on December 26, 2010 (see here) yet submitted the article for points in the 2011 wikicup. I wanted to check if that was allowed? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry I didn't realize. This is my first cup so I wasn't aware, should have read more. Sorrryy! Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 14:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Edwin Hubble image
Hello J Milburn. I have reverted your change to the Edwin Hubble article. There are two images of Dr. Hubble: File:Edwin Hubble.jpg and File:Hubble.jpg. Both of these images are featured on NASA websites. Neither image was created by NASA. (So it's probable that File:Edwin Hubble.jpg has an invalid NASA tag). See, for example, this NASA page; those portraits are not NASA photographs. (Dr. Hubble died before NASA existed!) The File:Edwin Hubble.jpg license is probably incorrect if it is asserting that this image should be released under the NASA photo guidelines or license. Both images should both bear the same fair use tag; and our article should use the higher-quality image, especially because it shows Dr. Hubble with his characteristic tobacco-pipe (which is an historical and noteworthy identifiable mark). I understand the need to keep our articles and images free and unencumbered by copyright, but in this particular case, no available images of Edwin Hubble are in the public domain, and Dr. Hubble died before the GFDL license existed; so there will be no way to create a replacement image. You can read about the authorship and the original copyright status of these portrait images of Dr. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory historical archive webpage. Nimur (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Responding to your last post: the issue is that File:Edwin Hubble.jpg is not free - it is mis-licensed. Both images need to be Fair-Use tagged. I have also added the "Wrong License" template to File:Edwin Hubble.jpg. Both photos are portraits from Mount Wilson Observatory's archive - and neither is copyright-free. Nimur (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your vote(s) of confidence. :) I haven't met Darrin Drader in person, but we have communicated informally over the internet for a while, so I will contact him shortly about his article. We'll see how that goes! BOZ (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to confirm one thing, after seeing ThinkBlue's submission here. Well all the articles were developed in 2010, and the submission was also for 2010. Is that allowed? Because I specifically remember that the FT/GT was for articles developed in 2011. Am I missing something? — Legolas(talk2me)06:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Question
You left me a message a few days ago, and I had a question about it [12]. I imagine you didn't see my request, but if you could let me know here or there, that would be great. TY. --Slp1 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I note you have a DYK nom relating to a mushroom that smells of iodoform. It has benn given a tick but I added a recent comment about how well known is the smell of iodoform. I want to draw your attention to my comment, in case you haven't noticed it. Regards, EdChem (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
On 14 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mycena arcangeliana, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that angel's bonnets(pictured) smell strongly of iodoform? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, Please note, u are telling the wrong person with this deletion notification on my talk page, i did not upload this image, u might want to inform User:Gsorby who did uplaod it though? if u check the talk page of the article a discussion is going on surrounding this image, perhaps would have been courteous to those discussing to wait until a decision was made or contribute in discussion yourself before taking this action? I am pro its removal by the way. GunGagdinMoan12:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
J Milburn, at first I was pretty sure that your comment on the FP candidate page was meant for me, and apologized. On a second reading I think your remark was referring to the original comment by another editor, but am still not sure. Would you please consider clarifying it at my talk page so I could either stand by my apology or retract my comment as based on a sheer misreading of yours? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice message. I'm not discouraged at all by how the FAN went at all; in my two years as an editor on Wiki, I have yet to see a FAN that passed on its first nomination. The article does, however, need some work so I think I'll test out a writing strategy and ignore it for at least a month for a fresh perspective. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello J Milburn,
When you tagged the Music of Madagascar article as containing excessive non-free content, you wrote: "There really is an excessive amount of NFC here. Ideally, this would be illustrated with free sound files- what's to stop pieces of music representing these genres being released under free licenses?" The answer, at least for now, is that I'm a new editor learning as I go and I don't know where to look or what to do to have comparable freely licensed audio to illustrate the page. Can you point me in the right direction?
I've read through much of the audio copyright information here on Wikipedia and from what I can see, foreign audio is covered by copyright after 1946. There are some Malagasy music audio clips in the public domain in France through Gallica but I haven't figured out a way to get a download of them yet. Certainly the majority of the clips I have on the page cannot be replaced with early free content files, especially in the contemporary music section. As far as I know, there is no relevant audio of Malagasy music released to the public in the US prior to 1972, which could have made it free-use.
This conversation really should be transcluded to Talk:Music of Madagascar but I don't understand the code well enough to do that. I'll copy/paste for now. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
WWE Superstar Kane Profile Imgage
Hi I edited the Kane image to give it a proper license. If they is any problem's with this can you try and sort them out please as this is a good image of Kane and it is direct from WWE.com
Thanks
Dr Eggman12
Hi again J Milburn is there anything wrong with this image of Kane for his profile picture.
File:Tribute to the Troops 2010 Kane.jpg
because I noticed alot of WWE wrestler's have a picture from Tribute to the Troops event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Eggman12 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to 
TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to 
Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – 
White Shadows (submissions), 
William S. Saturn (submissions), 
Staxringold (submissions) and 
ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to 
Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is 
Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
_edit.jpg)
Done Coded and BRFA filed. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Knopfler_Bilbao.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ray_Carles_260971neu000.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/31/Rogaine_Foam.jpg/235px-Rogaine_Foam.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://i.acdn.us/image/A3706/370682/75_370682.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fotograf%C3%ADa_del_Aquelarre_de_Juan_Laurent.jpg){kind=link}
