Jump to content

User talk:J Milburn/archive39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Happy first edit day!

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, J Milburn, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

DYK for Constance Peel

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

I don't know if you might consider this worth mentioning in the Wikicup newsletter but I just put in a 10 article DYK hook Template:Did you know nominations/Women's Premiership for the competition. Also, I'd like to put myself forward to try and win the oddball barnstar again with Segar Bastard and "...that the 1878 FA Cup Final did have a Bastard in the black?" The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Ike Altgens FAC

A great deal of work has been put in to Ike Altgens since I first listed it, including a new free image. It should be about as "done" as a living article for a dead man (xD) can get. Please revisit at your convenience, with my thanks. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 04:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Amnesiac page

Hi. Could you explain which media on the Amnesiac page you think is non-kosher, and why? Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Understudy (Inside No. 9)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Understudy (Inside No. 9) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

J Milburn, I've finished reviewing your article and have left my comments and questions on the article's GAR page! You've done an amazing job with this article, and it has been a privilege reviewing it! Please let me know if you have any concerns in the meantime! -- Caponer (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Understudy (Inside No. 9)

The article The Understudy (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Understudy (Inside No. 9) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The Good Article Barnstar
J Milburn, it is a great privilege for me to bestow upon you The Good Article Barnstar in recognition of your phenomenal efforts to bring "The Understudy" (Inside No. 9) to Good Article status! Your contributions to the articles illustrating the episodes of Inside No. 9 are to be commended for their well written and comprehensive content. -- Caponer (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Scoring question

If 2014 GoDaddy Bowl were to be promoted to GA, would the work I have done constitute the requisite "significant" work done in 2014? Go Phightins! 00:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Terrific. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with review

Hey, Milburn, how's work going? Listen, since you're frequently reviewing music articles, can you take a look at Megadeth and post your advice on what should be improved at the peer review page? I'm planning to candidate this article for a FA award, and your input is always welcomed. Thanks a lot.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Understudy (Inside No. 9)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thopha saccata redux

....think we fixed everything we could or explianed why at the Peer Review, so at FAC now - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thopha saccata/archive2....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Points calculation error

Hey J! In the latest update of the WikiCup table, LivingBot didn't factor in the 1.2× bonus multiplier for my Premier League Golden Boot FL entry. Could you have a look into it? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right, the bot thought that Featured Lists were ineligible for multipliers... not sure how long it has been working under that misapprehension. Could be a while, perhaps even years... Fortunately, multiplied FLs do strike me as pretty rare though. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 10:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dana boomer: also gains points in this round. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 10:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I do? I know I have a FL claimed this round, but as far as I know it doesn't have any corresponding lists in other languages, so it wouldn't be eligible for bonus points anyways. Unless I've completely missed something...I'm a little short on sleep right now, so it's entirely possible :) Dana boomer (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It was the GA, not the FL, which granted Dana bonus points. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for getting your hopes up! I meant @WikiRedactor:, who gained a 1.2x multiplier on List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bonus points?

Hi J Milburn-Silver certificate (United States) exists (albeit in poor form) on a total of 5 different language wikis. Can bonus credit be claimed, or are the corresponding "articles" in too primitive a condition?--Godot13 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Godot13: The bot didn't pick it up because there were only four articles at the start of the year- is this incorrect? If so, I can manually update; if it's accurate, I'm afraid it's not eligible for bonus points. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Understood, the bot is correct, it seems the Arabic version was created this year. Thanks for the quick response.--Godot13 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Black Coffee (All Saints song)

Hi J Milburn, I was wondering what is going to happen re:the screenshot for the music video of "Black Coffee", is it going to be deleted? It's deletion proposal came quite unconveniently for me as I nominated the article for GA and with the deletion proposal of the screenshot it will most likely not meet the GA criteria as a result? Could you possibly suggest a solution for me please? I really am keen on having the song reach GA status, I've worked very hard on it! —CoolMarc 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation J. I thought the usage of a screencap would improve the article's reading and visual appearance. The video itself is very dramatic if you watch it. It is very hard to find sources for music videos released in that era, I was lucky to find the one I did! That source alone described the video's Matrix-like imagery as well as its location and the book source describes how each member shot their scenes separately due to group in-fighting. I'm guessing from your explanation these two sources are not enough for the article to have a screenshot? I see the previous screenshot is also now nominated for deletion which pictured its Matrix-like dramatic domestic violent argument with again a member separately at the forefront. Is there no way at all that the article will be allowed to have a screenshot? It is truly disheartening for me to promote the article without one. I've also noticed GA song articles with minimal sourcing and description that have screenshots such as "Live to Tell" and "Love Profusion". —CoolMarc 18:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
If I upload a better quality screenshot from a more appropriate scene would it be acceptable then? —CoolMarc 20:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nuthatch list

Thanks for your edits. Apart from filling in the table, I can't think that there is much else significant to add. There are no images of other ssps. Is it worth adding a footnote to explain that the order is geographical? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

pulse of the earth
Thank you for quality articles to "your" featured portals fungi and sharks, such as Inocybe saliceticola, taking care of details as your own sketch of the spores, and for featured pictures and sounds, like Pulse of the Earth, all based on a background of philosophy, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 459th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikicup bot error?

I nominated Thine Be the Glory for DYK points however, the bot has given me the 5 extra for the date but it hasn't given me the multiplier. Is there another glitch with the bot and could you override it to give me the multiplier? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

More Unicode control characters... (i.e. same as Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2014/2#Multiplier_error.3F). Perhaps I'll have to make the bot be able to ignore them. Still not actually sure how you're entering them though...? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 08:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Jarry, please put my 5 points for 2014 Football League Cup Final back. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Perhaps as a WikiCup judge, you should know this?

I am leaving here a copy of a message left on the talk page of the Bivalves Project:

"Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) This edit unsigned by User Cwmhiraeth at 06:23, 16 April 2014"

There is no suggestion that Cwmhiraeth is deliberately abusing the system; her edits all appear to be good faith, but rushing to paraphrase without sufficient careful analysis of the sources has apparently lead to a fair number of small but significant errors of fact in many (but not all) of her articles, for DYK and even for GA and FA. I am concerned that competing (successfully in 2012) to be winner of the Cup has encouraged this rushed approach. Invertzoo (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor review

An editor review is underway of one the 2014 WikiCup competitors; see Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. I think that your opinions would be welcome especially with regard to the WikiCup. Snowman (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to put the judges under any undue pressure, so I have added this to the editor review; "I think that I have done the responsible thing to inform the three judges of this editor review. If the judges do not want to participate here, then perhaps that is understandable, so do not expect too much.". Snowman (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Smith

I'm writing to you because you are one of the people that helped with this article. An editor has just decided to use the Samantha Smith talk page to make an anti-communist political statement. Should i remove it? It's not aimed at improving the article and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Paul Austin (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Askam and Ireleth

I've opened a GAR on the Askam and Ireleth article that you are a major contributor on. I have some concerns regarding sourcing, and general tidying up. See Talk:Askam and Ireleth/GA1. I feel the tidying up is not a serious matter, and should be able to be done fairly quickly. The sourcing may prove more problematic, but also should be achievable with a little effort. Any questions, please ping me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PDF

Hey, Mr Milburn, thanks for the GA review and the kind words. I'm not having any luck with the pdf you linked to—I've downloaded it several times, but it keeps refusing to open as an "empty document" ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For reviewing 3 articles (for a total of 12 points) during the March 2014 GAN Drive! Dom497 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup ineligible entry

Hey J! I was just perusing around when I notice this DYK nom that was claimed for a large number of bonus points. How did this get past the WikiCup approval log? Not only is this DYK ineligible for Cup points (since it was an improved GA only, not 5×), the WikiCup competitor merely nominated it and didn't contribute one iota to the article (let alone to its promotion to GA). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinging The ed17 and Miyagawa as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: Thanks for the message. I will say that anything on the log page has yet to be checked- we have quite a backlog, sadly. I will be carrying out spotchecks over the next couple of days. I have removed the DYK in question and left the user a note. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it was about half way down the check list still. I've been catching up over the last couple of days but hadn't got that far yet. I'll remove it from the list now though. Miyagawa (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

BMW images

Hey, Thanks for your work on the site. I have taken these pictures(BMW E12) myself, but I don't know how to announce that on Wikipedia. I also want it to be copyright free. Could you help me with that? Thanks, Farzad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BMW_E12,_520i_in_Iran.jpg.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farzadhosseini (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

re:DYKs

J, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Every one I have submitted has been vetted and checked before it was allowed. I don't believe I have ever submitted a sub-par DYK knowingly. Could you enlighten me please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, those last two were oversights and were corrected quickly. Some articles I create are short because of sources limiting the amount of content I can include. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup

I'm going to grab your notes for the Signpost. I'll tell Ed to check it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Will wait until next week, then. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

WikiCup: disclosure of WikiCup participation when reviewing FLC

Hi J! I think it'll be a good idea for there to be a rule in the future requiring disclosure of WikiCup participation when a fellow competitor reviews another participant's FLC, similar to the one currently in place for FAC. My FLC nom is currently being derailed by a fellow competitor's blind opposition, even after I've succinctly explained to him why the one trivial point he's basing his opposition on is not valid. I've cited him recently-passed FL precedent, and he hasn't been able to rebut a single one of my arguments. It's not even FL criteria he's using to formulate his argument on, so I can't think of any other reason why he'd oppose other than the fact that he's a fellow competitor in the WikiCup. Thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: (in the interests of transparency, tagging @Miyagawa:, @The ed17: and @Cloudz679:)- On the general point, yes, I think there is good reason for us to have that rule. Remind me when we're making the changes for next year, and we'll look into adding it. On the more specific point: C679's opposition, on the face of it, is a reasonable one. Featured list criterion 5 stipulates that a FL "complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages". So, pointing out a MOS requirement which the article (supposedly) does not meet seems reasonable enough- the disagreement can then arise as to whether it actually does violate the guideline. C679 has pointed out an example of what he considers problematic text, as well as a possible solution; even if you feel that he is mistaken about the guideline, I think there has been something of a failure to assume good faith, here. Without further evidence, I am not convinced that C679 is opposing for WikiCup-related reasons, and I think some of your comments on the nomination page are unnecessarily combative. I would recommend withdrawing your comments in the interests of fostering a cordial atmosphere, and thinking a bit more carefully about C679's suggestion. Even if you feel he is wrong (which I don't think is nearly as cut-and-dried as you think) part of the nomination process is going to be a give-and-take to balance how you feel the article should look with how the reviewers think the article should look. The same is true in any kind of publishing to some degree. J Milburn (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
(Also tagging @Crisco 1492: so the "FL people" are aware of this.) J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
He already acknowledged that he found the discussion through the WikiCup, not the FLC page. Sure, I AGF to a large extent, but I'm not that thick. And I stand by everything I said – the discussion would've ended far sooner and more peacefully had he decided to listen to consensus as oppose to going on a tangent about a suggested MOS. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I still feel that you're being unfair and unnecessarily combative. That he found the discussion through the WikiCup does not mean that his opposition was motivated by WikiCup-related concerns. I'm not sure you have demonstrated that there is any consensus that the MOS guideline does not apply; as far as I can see, it is a real guideline (not a "suggested" guideline) and the FL criteria do require MOS compliance. You have pointed out that previous FLCs have progressed without the issue being raised, but that's certainly not the same thing as a consensus that the guideline does not apply. Equally, to use an extreme example, there have been FAC candidates that have passed despite the fact that they contained plagiarised text- this doesn't mean that plagiarised text is allowed in featured articles. I'm also unconvinced that the discussion would have been more peaceful if C679 just accepted your claims. Surely, it would have been most peaceful if you just made the changes suggested. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The MOS guideline he cited states "Prefer specific statements of time to general ones", not "specific statements of time must be used to general ones." I'm adhering to the common sense application of MOS – as I mentioned on the nom page, "readers are more interested as to who the most recent winner is, as opposed to who the [insert specific year] winner is." So I don't see why I should be the one making the changes suggested when I'm not the one in the wrong. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
If the guideline states that we prefer specific statements, we should use specific statements unless we have a good reason not to. That you and C679 disagree on what constitutes a good reason not to does not make him "in the wrong". J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-05-07/WikiCup

Just a heads up. If you'd want to add anything for a general audience, please add it: I'm WAY too involved to edit you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Thanks for the note- I'll look over the page in the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Stamps-history RfC

You were kind enough to inquire at at Wikipedia Talk:Non-free content#Request for Summary of RFC so I have tried to make an answer. I am relatively new, and note the RfC is sort of highjacked away from me by walls of unrelated text. So at the link, I have tried to restate the case as opposed to the reductio ad absurdum. To date, six agree to the use of the stamp with historical analysis to meet "contextual significance" for the stamp itself, a commemorative. --- One has disagreed saying there is no context at History of Virginia on stamps relative to the commemorative on the Virginia Ratification Convention. --- Your comments and opinion are welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

I wish...

I wish we could include the term "copromancy" in the McKeith article, it is the perfect term for her shit examination schtick. Maybe I'll plant it in some notable ears. David Colquhoun has knocked six bells out of TAPL in the past, he'd do. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Article needs review

Hello J.Milburn, I saw your name on the Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page and noticed as an editor you're involved with GA and FA reviews and was hoping that you might want to tackle the USS Monitor review which has been waiting for a GA review for some time now. It's sort of a large article, actually it's huge, with many sources and citations, so I can appreciate why no one has stepped up to the plate and knocked this one out of the park yet. If you're so inclined and up to the task it would be appreciated greatly if someone were to initiate the review. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Media review request

Hello, J Milburn. If you have the time and are interested, would you please consider providing a media review at the Sgt. Pepper peer review. I am particularly interested in your opinions regarding the ogg files, specifically their number and appropriateness vis-a-vis the strength of the FURs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Talking Heads - Once in a Lifetime.ogg

Hey there, so I guess I did this wrong. I attempted to go by the instructions at WP:SAMPLE. I first saved the sample as a 64 kbps MP3, as apparently bit rate does not apply for OGG...? Then I opened the MP3 and saved it as OGG with the Vorbis quality set to zero. Yet, as you justifiably noted, it still says it is a 276 kbps sample. I will admit the quality still sounded good, but my ears aren't what they used to be ;) Anyhoo, do you know how to adjust the bitrate? I have serious doubts the bot will be able to do that automatically. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 02:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter assistance, please

Hi J, not the Wikicup newsletter, but something totally different! ;)

User:Dom497 and I are currently attempting to revitalize the GA Recruitment Centre, and we thought that we'd publish a newsletter. Trouble is, neither of us know how to set one up! I thought I'd turn to you because the GA Wikiproject's newsletter is inactive at this time, and your newsletter is not. Would you mind helping us? I'd muchly appreciate it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the help would be greatly appreciated as I don't have a lot of free time on my hands.--Dom497 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WT:WikiCup

So, the entire talk page has devolved into attacks on featured pictures. Great. I'm going to sleep on it, but if this continues, and the WikiCup judges don't start laying the smackdown, I'm withdrawing. The WikiCup is meant to be a friendly competition. It's become a damn hostile one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

WikiCup points miscalculation

Why were 5 bonus points awarded to the Flag of Akrotiri and Dhekelia submission here. The scoring rules state that "[a]rticles which were previously redirects or disambiguation pages are not eligible" for 5 bonus points. The article was a re-direct started in 2006, but only created a few weeks ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed ([1]). It's odd this hasn't come up before; we've not had an actual bytesize (or similar) until today. I've set the bar at 100 bytes, which is totally gameable, if you want to add random comments to your favourite redirects today, then dig 'em up again in five years' time :) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 08:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Jarry: Thanks for the quick fix. Something similar came up before when, for bonus point purposes, the bot didn't recognise redirects as a valid interwiki. Of course, it shouldn't- the bot was right and the participant wrong in that case. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Though I think you could give me those points back for Namibia, Land of the Brave as that has not been given the 5 bonus despite being on wiki since 2004. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. No-one else was affected by that slipup, fortunately (thanks for the quick report, I was just a little slow in getting round to a fix). - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 08:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Josh Woodward deleted

I noticed your uploads to Wikimedia Commons of Ashes, so I thought I'd notify you that the Wikipedia page of Josh Woodward has been deleted. Thought you might be interested :) Logictheo (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

nevermind. I read in Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Ashes that you support this delete. Thus you are now 4 Wikipedia administrators who support his delete, well at least you don't oppose it which puts 3 admins against and 1(you) neutral. Logictheo (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

re:‎WikiCup and DYKs

The thing is that it does feel that since Jesus Christ is Risen Today ran on the main page at Easter, I do appear to have my DYKs being forensically examined, which means that the minor grammar mistakes (not my strong suit I admit in that I sometimes cant see them) that do happen are often left and the nom is held up. Also when points are raised and I fix them, the nom often gets ignored too. I always try my best to write DYKs and articles to the best of my ability and I have no intention of nominating articles I think are sub-par. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Proteus FAC #2

Hi J Milburn, as you shared your thoughts in the last FAC, I thought you might like to know that I have opened a new FAC for Proteus (video game). It would be great to hear your opinion on the article again. Sam Walton (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Westward Ho!

I've responded here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If your comments are satisfied, could you say so, please? =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FPs

Well, starting to pull together some relatively easy FP points so that I can take some leisure to work on a couple difficult ones I had planned for May, but got preempted by the burnout from that stupid attack on FPs in the Wikicup. I really hope that isn't allowed to develop like that again without the Wikicup heads forcibly ending the conversation; I can't afford to lose most of a month of Wikipedia work to harassment again. (Not helped by some failed efforts to get sufficiently good scans of some Shakespeare illustrations: I really need an A3 scanner for some of the things I want to do, but they're way out of my budget, so I have to use stiff board and an A4, which is... finicky. Not fun).

There are some things I can do in a pinch - check for half-finished work from previous months (for example, the Drums of the Fore and Aft four-image set is actually almost half-done, and there's a Urania's Mirror image ready to be added to a set. I'm going to come back in with some relatively easy work for the moment. Mind, relatively easy for me is still a pretty high standard of restoration work and prep. Maybe I'll finish the Heroes of Asgard illustrations - did two of them back in 2009, but was listening to Durova's ideas at the time - she thought that one had to flit around subjects rapidly, and could never complete work, because FPC would never stand for it. In the last couple years I've started doing what my preference has always been: Completionism. Far better to have a consistent set than a half-finished thing of much less value. If people are interested in, say, the illustrations from Puck of Pook's Hill, they want to see all twenty of them, not some random selection, with no more to be seen again ever, which is what Durova's plan seemed to work out to a lot of times. (Was also annoying because I have always done quite a few of my own scans, which meant I was jumping awkwardly around books, when I wanted to finish one...

Eh, well, just needed to vent a little bit. Take care, J! Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Peer review for "Can't Hold Us Down"

Hello there. If you don't mind, could you please take the peer review for "Can't Hold Us Down"? As the last FAC it failed so I need your help to bring the article to FA status. Feel free to ignore this, by the way. Cheers, Simon (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi J.,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Wirecoral goby.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 19, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-06-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


Askam and Ireleth

I've opened a GAR on the Askam and Ireleth article that you are a major contributor on. I have some concerns regarding sourcing, and general tidying up. See Talk:Askam and Ireleth/GA1. I feel the tidying up is not a serious matter, and should be able to be done fairly quickly. The sourcing may prove more problematic, but also should be achievable with a little effort. Any questions, please ping me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note- I've no doubt the article needs a looking at. Not one I've paid any attention to in a while. I'll take a look over the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Cool. I'll roll up my sleeves and see what I can do as well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have the time or inclination to sort this one out at the moment. How do you feel about it? Shall I delist, and the work can be done when either of us feel like it, and the article renominated - or do you feel up to doing some work in the next few days? SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, this completely slipped my mind. I'm not sure I feel up to it this evening, but I'll try to give it a look over soon. I don't think it'd have much chance of passing at GAC today without a complete rewrite, to be honest, but I'll see if it can be cleaned up a little. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

AVC

I noted you have written most of the Anti-Vivisection Coalition article.

On 6th June 2014 You removed Luke Steele from the list of key people - do you have any evidence for him not being in the group anymore? There are plenty of links online mentioning Luke Steele's involvement. In fact over the past few months you seem to have gone through systematically removing Steele's name and replacing it with "spokesman".

Also a lot of the article reads like a Press Release - with AVC statements (of which their value is inverified) being added to mentions of protests of up to 50 people (which doesn't seem notable for mention). London prophet (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

GAR

Desolate North, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--Retrohead (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Advertisements and the main page

I understand where you're coming from, which is why I suggested having a pseudo-RFC (i.e. not actually post the RFC template, but advertise the discussion in the usual forums) to see if the video would be acceptable to the general community. We've done it twice, once for the smallpox image and once for the Michelle Merkin FP. The first one went, according to consensus, and the second one was sent back to WP:POTD/Unused (also according to consensus). If consensus is against running the video, it will go straight to POTD/Unused.

On a related topic, we do have one advertisement scheduled for the main page, actually... Daisy. Of course, the person it's been promoting has been dead for forty years, so I don't think we need to go as far as a pseudo-RFC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Christian Woman single - Type O Negative.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Christian Woman single - Type O Negative.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Claiming Cup points several weeks after promotion?

Echoing Sasata's concern after the end of the 2012 comp, I'm disappointed by these 2 edits. The DYKs and ITNs claimed were promoted several weeks before back in May. I wonder why they are being claimed only now when there are just 2 more weeks left for round 3, making it nearly impossible to equal them. Sure, it's not against the current rules, but I don't think abusing the system is acceptable either, is it? I thought this comp is suppose to "make editing…more fun"; if this kind of sly trickery is deemed acceptable, then I will seriously consider withdrawing from the tournament in protest. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: Thanks for the note- I'm sorry that you feel this way. I will talk to the other judges about this issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

GAR

Celestiial, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--Retrohead (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup#End_day

You know, J, I like you, but you're either incredibly tone-deaf, or didn't bother to read the three-paragraph post I made on your talk page - that is, where you are now - explaining the burnout in detail, and why I was upset. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-free images in Bonny Hicks

After I removed the excessive non-free images in Bonny Hicks per your concerns, an unregistered editor restored them. What should we do, admin? --Hildanknight (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet

Hi J Milburn, I wonder if you are available for a special request: I am taking Tintin in Tibet to FA soon. You're an editor I trust, so would you please consider reviewing it for me first? I have had a few other expert editors take a look at it also. Thanks for your consideration! Prhartcom (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand completely about busy schedules. I think I will wait for you, actually; you may spot something big that I and the others missed. I think it is ready for prime time, though! So when you do get time, please feel free to spend a few minutes just reading the article, and then click Edit and dive in for a good copy edit, or let me know what you think. Thanks again! Prhartcom (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ineligible Cup submission

This DYK was claimed for both DYK and GA points. However, it only got promoted at DYK because it was improved to GA, not because it was new or 5× expanded. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Pinging The ed17 and Miyagawa. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Bloom6132 - thanks, I've investigated and removed it from the claims page. Miyagawa (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it accidentally got placed back on the claims page. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Bloom6132 Fixed, sorry. Don't know what happened there. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Re: Claiming Cup points several weeks after promotion?

A week has passed since I brought this up – any progress? What have the other judges said about this issue? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: Apologies for the delay. I've spoken with the other judges, and, after considering the matter, we are of the view that while these "delayed updates" can be irritating for other competitors, in this case the user in question did not break any particular rule, nor did they act in bad faith, so we will not be docking any points. What I will do, however, is ensure that there's a prominent note about this issue in the next newsletter, reminding everyone to be prompt. Sorry if this is not the result you were hoping for. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, no need to apologize – we all have a lot of other things to attend to apart from the WikiCup. Actually, it's the result I was expecting, since I understand how it would be unfair to punish any competitor without warning them first. I appreciate your efforts in bringing this issue to light in the upcoming newsletter; hopefully that will sort things out. Even if it doesn't, we could always discuss it in the year-end straw polls. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: I agree that this is something which could be adjusted for next year- Ed brought that up. Do have a think about how it could be done- I'm happy to help fine-tune it if you have some ideas, and hopefully we can propose a fully-formed rule change for the end-of-year-polls. J Milburn (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about placing it under the "General rules" section, something along the lines of: "Content must be claimed within a week of promotion. Failing to update your submissions page in a timely fashion when you do not have a legitimate reason is considered an abuse of the system, and the judges reserve the right to not award points. This is to ensure transparency, not to deny you your points." How does that sound? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That does sound reasonable; my only fear is that this would add to the judges' workload- it's another thing they'd have to check for. Perhaps something like "Content must be claimed within a week of promotion. Failing to update your submissions page in a timely fashion when you do not have a legitimate reason is considered problematic. If you are regularly failing to update your submission page in a timely fashion [alternatively, "within x number of days"] without good reason, your points may not be awarded, at the judges' discretion. This is to ensure transparency, not to deny you your points." J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I like your revised wording to the proposed rule. It's perfectly understandable why this needs to be discretionary, as the whole point of having the rule in the first place is to prevent the judges' workload from being swamped during the last few days of a round. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: I see this was about me. I apologize about the late entries. However, this was entirely about me being behind on updating my personal log of all my content work (I update WikiCup and it at the same time). Last round, I didn't even claim a large % of my points due to being behind. It had nothing to do with "sly trickery" - you'll notice I was nowhere near the cutoff point (5th overall with 16 qualifying) and even if the specific articles you noted were disallowed completely, I would have made the next round. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest a lot of care with putting a cutoff: If someone goes on holiday - and, let's face it, in an ten-month competition that's to be expected - they could well be screwed on return. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's just too bad – you snooze, you lose. The private lives of individuals/WP users should have no bearing on WP itself, and vice-versa. We shouldn't expect WP to wait around just because we go on a holiday or have school to attend. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@ThaddeusB: That was my view of your actions. I agree that any implication that you were acting in bad faith would be completely inappropriate. @Adam Cuerden: I agree that any rule would have to be written to allow for situations such as the competitors having no (or limited) access to Wikipedia for extended periods. @Bloom6132: I completely disagree. People will already be losing out if they're away from Wikipedia, as they will be unable to produce content in that time. We shouldn't also be out to deny them points for content promoted in that time... Nobody is supporting a "bonus points for people who are busy in real life" scheme, all we're suggesting is that people sometimes have good reasons for not updating their submission pages quickly, and any sensible ruleset would take account of that. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I never said (explicitly or implicitly) that ThaddeusB's actions were in bad faith. I was saying in general that anyone failing to update ones points in a timely manner without a valid reason is sly trickery (there's no other way to put it). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
If someone is engaging in "sly trickery", then that pretty strongly implies that they are editing in bad faith. I can see no reason to believe that Thaddeus was behaving slyly or trying to trick anyone. While I accept that this could be a reason that submission pages are not updated immediately, I'm not convinced that this would be the usual reason. J Milburn (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
He appears to have given a valid reason, so he does not fall under my definition of "sly trickery". His reason is corroborated by his editing history, as he seems pretty consistent in updating his content log en masse rather than individually each and every time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hello J Milburn, Why did you remove "Ain't It Fun" from my submissions page? The user didn't close the review page but he did indicate that the article was a GA, he did add the GA icon to the page. You can ask him if you want to... But I think this is very unfair because if you hadn't removed it, I would have gotten 244 points and advanced to the next round. pedro | talk 20:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Prism (also tagging The ed17 and Miyagawa). I apologise, it looks like I may have made a mess of this- the round end has fallen at a very inconvenient time for me. I will ensure that this is sorted. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to apologize... Thank you in advance. pedro | talk 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
So, as you may have guessed, I accidentally reverted Miyagawa, and then, rather than self-reverting, I removed the page manually- but removed the wrong one. This is why we have the two-day period between rounds. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it... Mistakes happen to all of us. pedro | talk 22:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Eliminated?

Hello there J Milburn, The ed17, and Miyagawa. When I checked in a few days ago, I was marked as progressing through as a wild card. I just saw the newsletter and went over to the cup page, however, only to find that I was not listed. I didn't really spend any time working to earn points this past round, and had actually planned on resigning and letting the next person in line take my spot, but I was still surprised.

As I'm now spending my time putting out a major licensing fire over on Commons, I really don't mind going out (so long as I either win or tie for most featured portals, and get that badge again, otherwise I'd feel bad for not having done more). I just wanted to let you know that I was kind of taken back by how that situation played out, since no one told me that I was out after seemingly making the cut, or how/why it happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sven Manguard- it's correct that for about three hours, you were listed as progressing. This was because a good article by Prism was was accidentally removed from the submission page (by me), and thus temporarily not counted when it should have been. (Issues like that are one of the reasons we have the inter-round period.) You were the highest scoring person not to progress to the next round, though I must say that I was quite taken by the variety of content on your submission page this round, so you can certainly bow out with your head held high. I apologise for not contacting you to explain the issue- you're right that I should have done that. On the other hand, I can't see anyone else claiming a featured portal, so I think that prize will be yours! J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Regarding the portals, another contestant had one that I supported for promotion, but ended up not getting promoted because the user disappeared for a while after an issue was raised by someone else. That user bowed out a round ago. Adam Cuerden has a candidate at FPOC now, but I have mixed feelings about it because it's not a traditional portal, so I haven't followed the candidacy. Either way, I certainly don't see someone getting two portals through in the next four months. The process has a critically low level of participation, and moves very slowly. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

WP:BRD

Hi in answer to your question I understand it's better to not immediately redirect baseline names after moves in order to allow WP:BRD from anyone watching the page. There is more specific information about why the 5 moves you questioned were made in the edit summaries and on talk pages of some of the articles, and I've also answered per each one on my own User Talk page. As regards 28 May 2014‎ (In ictu oculi moved page Self Made Man to Self Made Man (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles): no primary), the reason I say no WP:primary topic is because of the other items at the Self-made man (disambiguation), principally the book, however the book has a hyphen, hence leaving the hyphen base name intact as a redirect. The italics issue I missed, thanks for pointing that out. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the whole category is missing italics in the titles. Can you help with this please, what needs doing? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

His Last Vow

Hi J Milburn, please can I just check a few things with you regarding the article? Thanks, Matty.007 14:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Flass

Hi. I've had a go, but it is not particularly good. I've tried to combine the NHLE with Pevsner, but the problem is that neither is comprehensive, and the details given are (to me) confusing. Both sources describe the west front, but say little in detail about the rest. The photo is, I think, of the east front; the NHLE does not even mention the porte-cochère, which is so obvious on the photo. Using BING bird's eye views, I think I have identified the orientation of the fronts correctly, but would accept any correction. So, for what it is worth, my attempt is here. Please let me know when you have "finished" with it, so that I can clear the sandbox. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Songs From the Black Hole sound sample

Yo. When you say the sound sample is "too large", do you mean file size (bitrate quality?) or clip length? The guidelines said 30 seconds; it's 25 seconds long. What do you think an acceptable length would be? Popcornduff (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thinking ahead a bit... (next Wikicup report)

Alright, in about a couple weeks, we're going to get the half-way point Wikicup report. How should we handle this? I'm willing to make a gallery, but I suspect it's not going to be as representative as the round end ones, and probably would end up not including a couple people who make the cut. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adam Cuerden- I'll reply here in case anyone else wants to join in. I'm not sure of the utility of producing mid-round Signpost reports, as that seems to leave an open question as to the difference in scope between the Signpost reports and the WikiCup newsletters. That said, with just 16 people remaining, you could do little write-ups on each semi-finalist? I normally do a couple of lines on every person going into the final. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to do it, I think that'd be the way. But I'd best start now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Reviewer's Barnstar
Where to start? An excellent and detailed review of "His Last Vow", then topped by further help with making the article better. And you run the WikiCup. How do you have time to do so much good work? Best, Matty.007 08:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Flass

Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

WikiCup points question

The former article Arsenal F.C.–Stoke City F.C. rivalry was submitted for points, but was subsequently AFD'ed and deleted. What are the rules concerning the submission of non-existent articles for Cup points? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think that would be unfair to take points away from something that was submitted and passed in DYK, where it was only after submission that someone AFDed it because clearly it was fine under the rules for DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Bloom, thanks for the note. C of E, it clearly wasn't "fine under the rules for DYK", as articles are deleted because they are not appropriate for Wikipedia (for whatever reason), and articles not appropriate for Wikipedia are not appropriate for DYK. I have removed the article from your submission page. I've talked to you plenty of times about problematic DYKs this year, so I'm not going to let you claim points for an article that was deleted. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
But it was deleted after it ran on DYK, thus it must have been deemed appropriate enough to appear on the front page. Also there is precedence I think from last year when Windowgate ran on DYK but was deleted later but was still allowed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Precedence? Are you kidding me? Just because no one noticed the deleted article or brought up the issue doesn't mean "precedence" is established. Windowgate wasn't "allowed"; it simply wasn't brought to the attention of the judges, which is why it was (wrongfully) left there as a submission. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
C of E: "it was deleted after it ran on DYK, thus it must have been deemed appropriate enough to appear on the front page". Sure, someone deemed the rivalry article appropriate, but they were wrong, as it was subsequently deleted. (Though, to be clear, I'm not blaming them for this- it's the kind of thing that can easily be missed.) Bloom is correct that the mere fact the Windowgate article wasn't removed doesn't establish precedence as such (if you can find a discussion or a judge's sayso, that may be different) but, importantly, this case is relevantly different- the rivalry article was deleted during the round in which the points were claimed, while the Windowgate article was deleted after the round had finished, so it couldn't be removed in the same way. All the Windowgate article proves is what I've already said- you have a history of submitting questionable articles at DYK and the WikiCup. That's hardly something which is going to encourage myself or another judge to let this one slide. (Tagging Miyagawa and The ed17 so that they are aware of this discussion.) J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
J, I have nothing but respect for you but I cannot recall any other DYK of mine being fully removed due to it being "questionable". I know I have had multipliers removed in the past which I can completely understand and accept the reasoning behind them (especially given they brought to light glitches in the bot) but I do not think I've had any other DYK fully removed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems you have forgotten this incident – this one wasn't because of a bot glitch and I'm surprised such tactics had to be used so early in the tournament. And what about this warning and the next one? Sure, you didn't have any articles removed, but you were warn of the many problematic aspects that appear to be a recurring theme in your DYK noms. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
C of E, I did not claim that any of your DYKs had been removed from your submission page, I simply said that you have claimed "questionable" or "problematic" DYKs. I stand by that. I certainly have talked to you about your questionable DYKs this year, and as you say, I have removed multipliers (and you yourself raised an example of a problematic DYK last year). J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm completely in agreement with J Milburn here. This article was deleted under Wikipedia policies and therefore is not deserving of points, even though it ran on DYK before then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's step back a moment. I didn't see the article, but the AfD commenters are pretty much all in agreement that it was well-written and well-researched, just not [yet?] notable enough. Given that, The C of E clearly put a fair bit of work into it, and, whether it's eligible for cup points or not, let's not pile on someone who's just lost a lot of work. It's only natural not to want to have the work be completely for nothing. The judges may have to act dispassionately when deciding if it qualifies for points, but a little sympathy wouldn't go amiss. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Your GA nomination of The Harrowing (Inside No. 9)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Harrowing (Inside No. 9) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. 23W 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hi J, I'm afraid your help on "His Last Vow" was so good I've come to ask you something else... Please can you give Ernest Radcliffe Bond a thorough going over/tell me issues as if it was a peer review, as I would really like to get him to FA sometime. I would be happy to review Inside No. 9 if you wanted in return (bearing in mind I am currently doing a GA review for a Cup contestant)? Thanks, Matty.007 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matty.007- I'll certainly take a look, but it's not a subject I know anything about. Small world, though, as I'm currently visiting my parents, so I'm actually staying only a few miles from Barrow, where Bond was born. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Do you want me to review Inside No. 9 at some point? Thanks, Matty.007 16:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't object- it's been in the queue a long time! J Milburn (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid it may be a few weeks, but if it's still there I'll definitely take a look (taking a holiday from 15 August till end of month so want to get points for things before then). Thanks, Matty.007 18:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Harrowing (Inside No. 9)

Hello! Your submission of The Harrowing (Inside No. 9) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Harrowing (Inside No. 9)

The article The Harrowing (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Harrowing (Inside No. 9) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. 23W 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Primary Colours (Eddy Current Suppression Ring album)

I have addressed most of the concerns left from your GA review. It seems I can never remember how hard it is to pass a GA nomination! If you could have another look and tell me if you still think anything needs to be changed, that would be great. Jinkinson talk to me 00:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on my talk, most of which I have now addressed as well--I uploaded a better cover image, expanded the reception section, and added the missing person under "personnel" I had a hard time finding interviews, though. Do you think it's ready for another GA nomination now? Jinkinson talk to me 19:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. I'm taking a look now, and will hopefully get back to you later. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Jinkinson: I still don't think it'd sail through GAC, but it's much better. Here are a few more things you may want to change:

  • Original release date in the lead?
  • So it was released only in those three countries? That's what "finally" implies.
  • Two paragraphs of lead would probably be best.
  • Don't be scared of redlinks- if the topic's notable, link away. (See WP:REDLINK)
  • "They recorded Primary Colours in a single day—from August 3 to 4, 2007—" ??
  • There's a little editorialising, which potentially compromises neutrality. "in just four hours" and "a cost of only", for example.
  • Also be aware of undefined jargon- 8-track, overdub, guitar chopping
  • You've got some very short sections- most album articles don't need a whole section for the title or the release.
  • "colors are made by combining primary colours" What's the Australian spelling?
  • ""It's like sounds as well - drums and guitars - you get four dudes together and they come up with this," he added.[7]" Editorialising.
  • Be aware of MOS:LQ
  • The Fall and The Pixies, surely

Feel free to strike/reply inline/whatever. I think it would now probably be best for me not to be the GA reviewer if you renominate so that you can hear another voice. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm planning on renominating it now if you have no more concerns. Jinkinson talk to me 19:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jinkinson: Best of luck with it! J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Stroma

Hi John, you kindly complimented my article on Stroma, Scotland when it appeared on DYK back in January. I thought you might like to know that I've nominated it for GA, hopefully as the first step towards an eventual featured article nomination. Prioryman (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prioryman- that's great news; I actually had another look at the article yesterday after I saw it pop up on my watchlist. If the article's still on the list in a few days, I'll pick it up to review it myself- it wouldn't actually be the first article on an island I'd reviewed at GAC. If not, I'll be sure to take a good look through before FAC. (It's Josh, by the way!) J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for the typo - that's the disadvantage of editing late at night! Off to bed for me now, I think! Thanks for offering to review it if nobody else steps up to it first; I'll look forward to seeing what the eventual reviewer says about the article. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Input required

Personal feelings aside, your input is needed in reviewing the images used in Thirteen for its FA candidature. Giving weight your experience as Wikipedia administrator, it should be a piece of cake for you.--Retrohead (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for John Gregorson Campbell

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucille Clifton image

Hi,

I am still learning about "Fair Use" photos, and only today learned that on Wikipedia they can be used in a biographical article, but are harder to use in other articles.

Do you know of any kinds of supporting citations that I could provide that would allow reinstating her image in the St. Mary's College of Maryland article?

Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Orelsan et Gringe sont les Casseurs Flowters

Hi. I looked at the issues you expressed regarding the non-free files in the article and took steps to deal with them, and as such I've removed the {{non-free}} tag you added to the article. When you mentioned "the sample" I took it to mean the sample for "Bloqué". Now that that's over with, it would be nice if you began reviewing it for GAC since you're a sysop and you're the one who brought these problems into the spotlight. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with the remaining concerns you expressed on the article, and as such I've removed your non-free tag again. Now you can feel free to start the GAC review. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 02:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Davykamanzi, be patient- we sometimes have to wait a long time for GA reviews. I do take on a lot of reviews, but I also do what I can to help spot issues prior to reviews, and I'm afraid I don't have enough time to review every article in the GAC queue I edit. J Milburn (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I didn't mean to rush you or anything. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inside No. 9

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Inside No. 9 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemonade51 -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inside No. 9

The article Inside No. 9 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Inside No. 9 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemonade51 -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Stroma FAC

Thanks very much for your review of Stroma, Scotland. I've now nominated it for FAC - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stroma, Scotland/archive1. Feel free to comment or offer any suggestions there! Prioryman (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

ORCID

I see you're reading for a PhD. May I encourage you to register for an ORCID identifier (if you haven't already) and to then display it on your user page, using {{Authority control}}, as described at WP:ORCID? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thank you- this is definitely something I should do. I will look into it in the coming days. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Marton, Cumbria

I started an article on Marton, Cumbria, but it's just a stub (with an infobox). You may want to expand it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Thanks for the note. I've had a play around, but there's not too much information online- I'd need to delve into some local history books or local newspaper archives to find more, but I don't live in the area any more, so I don't have access to that kind of thing. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

for pointing out those dab links on So. The David Rhodes links now lead to his band Random Hold, of which I believe he is most prominently associated with. Do you think that's suitable? —JennKR | ☎ 18:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

DYK for The Harrowing (Inside No. 9)

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Inside No. 9

Thank you from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Claiming Cup points a month after promotion?

Is this considered acceptable? I was fine with what ThaddeusB did earlier, because his editing patterns were consistent in terms of editing his content log in blocks. But in this instance, this strikes me as gaming the system, given that this user edited his submissions page individually in the previous rounds and was active throughout the entire summer to make any updates needed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging The ed17 and Miyagawa. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I'll look into this later today or tomorrow. Pinging Czar. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm out of town and then moving, so forgive me if I may be slow to respond to reply. I waited to update because I had enough notifs coming in that it became a chore to track—thought it wouldn't be a problem to just do it at once so I didn't miss anything. I wouldn't have done it that way had I thought it would bother anyone. czar ♔ 11:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you telling me you were "storing" these submissions in secret all along before deciding to release one big deluge just a week before the round ends? The last WikiCup newsletter reminded everyone in the comp to "update submission pages promptly". And for someone who has always added submissions individually (according to your revision history), this strains the bounds of credulity to the breaking point. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit put off by your presumption of bad faith, to be honest. I didn't compile the list until I posted it and I'm afraid I must have skimmed that part of the newsletter, which would be my own fault (though I receive a lot of notifications). I really didn't think it was going to be a problem. Anyway, looks like this is out of my hands at this point, unless I would need to withdraw. czar ♔ 12:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit put off by how someone can go from dead last with no points to third place overall with just one edit a week before the tournament ends, to be honest. As things stand, I don't see the point of having a scoreboard if it doesn't reflect the true progress of each competitor. It just comes to show that being open and transparent (i.e. acting in good faith) in this comp only means you lose out. And it's not just me – all but two competitors have dropped a place because of this. If this action is deemed acceptable, then I might as well adopt this strategy of late updates myself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Bloom, this does all come across as a bit witch-hunt-y- this isn't a cross-examination! What Czar did certainly isn't exactly ideal practice, and I understand why you're frustrated. That said, it doesn't stretch credulity to believe that it was done in good faith- if it was done in a few days time, perhaps not; if Czar had a history of gaming the system, perhaps not. I don't mind admitting that I'm not quite sure how best to deal with this. Miyagawa, have you any views? Feel free to email me. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course this is "a bit witch-hunt-y" – that's what happens when I want a fair, transparent and honest competition. And I hope the judges and everyone else in the comp want the same thing too. Sure, the Cup is meant to "make editing on Wikipedia more fun", but it ruins the fun for all of us when one or two people act in this manner. Of course, one can argue that no written rule was broken per se, but someone acts in a way that makes the tournament less fair, less transparent and less honest, are we going to continue saying that nothing wrong was done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Bloom6132, Czar: I'm afraid I have had no response from the other judges, and I am moving house tomorrow, so will have limited Internet access for at least a few days. Bloom, to be honest, I think you need to reconsider your relationship with other Wikipedians; when you think it's obvious that you're on a witch-hunt, I think you may have lost the spirit of collegiality which we should ideally have with each other. WikiCup or no WikiCup, I don't think that is ideal. To be clear: I don't personally have any intention of stripping Czar of any points, and I note that, even if Czar's score was still zero, you would not currently be in a qualifying position. I will say that it may be worth trying to introduce a rule about this next year, but I'm certainly not going to start enforcing rules that weren't in place at the start of the competition. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Stroma FAC needs reviews

I nominated Stroma, Scotland for FA status nearly two weeks ago - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stroma, Scotland/archive1 - but unfortunately it's received only one substantive review in that time. I'm a bit concerned that the FAC is at risk of failing for lack of responses. In the light of your previous feedback on this article, do you think you might be able to offer some comments on the FAC? Prioryman (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prioryman: Thanks for the note. I do intend to get to this, but I've got a lot going on at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
  2. Scotland Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
  3. Nepal Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
  4. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
  6. Florida 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
  7. Colorado Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
  8. Canada Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Herm Matty.007 (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), United States WikiRedactor (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), Portugal Prism (submissions) and Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You forgot me in this :(. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The C of E: I'm really sorry, I'm not sure how that happened. Rest assured that you, too, have done well to get this far, and you, too, are certainly welcome back next year! J Milburn (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'll be back. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear

If Godot13 doesn't win - and, frankly, my money's on Cwmhiraeth - but you still allow FPs to be devalued, despite not ever being shown to be a route one could use to win since the bonus point system was added in response to Durova, I will have lost all respect for you. I'm sorry, but after nearly a year of largely-personal attacks on the idea of people working with featured pictures being in the Wikicup, it's already a very hostile environment. If you're going to make it even more hostile, and if you cannot back up your making it more hostile, I'm done with you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: there's really no need to be like this, and holding me to ransom in that way is not at all fair. I can't please everyone, and the decision is not mine; I will write the polls, yes, but I will do so in such a way as to avoid unduly influencing people. There are some strong feelings in this area (including some quite baffling feelings) but I really don't think that getting aggressive with people who disagree with you is going to be helpful to your case. I've done my best to point out mistakes when people make them about the featured picture process, but I'm doing what I can to remain relatively impartial, or else my ability to close the polls will be questioned. Please don't be disheartened by a few ill-thought-out comments, as I know that there are a lot of people who aren't speaking who recognise them for what they are. J Milburn (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, but still... this is meant to be a competition for all content. That means people working very hard in all content fields should be able to win it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Psylliodes luridipennis

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi J.,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Cymbiola nobilis 01.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 22, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-09-22. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Red stuff

[2]. See the preceding edit summary... sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Certainly seems to go against my inclination that it's the editors who have been here for a lot of years who favour redlinks, while it's the relative newcomers who dislike them! Perhaps SV simply believes that the subject is not notable, but "rmvd red" certainly gives the false impression that redlinks are something to be removed. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it's that very edit summary that raised my eyebrows. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I do detect a red link aversion: [3]. Isn't there something in the MoS about this (piping interwiki links to hide reds) being not recommended? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this, I still cannot find a MoS part which clearly states RED is preferred, outside WP:RED, which however should mention the word pipe. I think we should add a note about interwiki links to WP:NOPIPE, and a note about RED to Help:Interlanguage_links#Local_links. I may not be able to work on this for a few days (not sure how busy I'll be). So if you feel like working on this to reflect RED and such... also, I wonder if you'd agree with me about [4]. I have to admit I didn't know about the interlanguage template till now. At first it jarred me as "it is so rarely seen so probably bad MoS", but now I think it's a very good idea. And from the links above I don't think it's discouraged, on the contrary, it seem to be in line with WP:RED? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should start collecting those: [5]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: That is exactly the problem I was talking about. I have reinstated the redlink and left a note on the user's talk page. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in Tibet/archive1#Comments from Neelix

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tintin in Tibet/archive1#Comments from Neelix. In this section, please look for the phrase "please help". Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn/archive39&oldid=1138970597"