Jump to content

User talk:J Milburn/archive40

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


WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello J Milburn/archive40! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!


Banned USer: Iaaasi use user "INeverCry" as his meta puppet

Dear administrator!

User:INeverCry act like a meta puppet of Banned user Iaaasi on Wikimedia Commons, and she deleted many old Hungarian historic photos and paintings from the medieval to pre ww1 era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iaaasi

Banned Iaaasi is a well known chauvinist romanian troll, who is known for his anti-Hungarian sentiment.

Here is the meta puppet's wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:INeverCry

Meta puppets must be deleted.

Bye!--Brelczer (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-free images in Bonny Hicks

What should be done in response to this edit? --Hildanknight (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup

WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.

Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.

Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Red Lipstick

The result was redirect, so why have you deleted it?  — ₳aron 17:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|Calvin999}{ I have now merged the histories, meaning it has been restored. This was explained my deletion comment. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cognitive Dissonance (The Art of Lying to Yourself).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cognitive Dissonance (The Art of Lying to Yourself).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) 13:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Current issue of the rupiah

Hi J., I responded to your concern at the nomination page. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar appreciation

The Invisible Barnstar
I re-read Tintin in Tibet today; I have to admit: It's a great read. That's because everyone who contributed to it did an outstanding job. This includes your contributions, J Milburn! I'm very appreciative for the Pre-FAC review you gave it, which naturally made the article even better going into the final round. But what an honour it was to work on this particular article, right? Thanks again for your uniquely clear and observant contributions; keep them coming. :-) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: Thank you, it's appreciated. I agree that this was a real team effort- it was a pleasure working with you, and I'm very happy to see the article promoted to FA. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I never got around to commenting on the FAC, by the way- I've had a lot going on... J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ant subfamilies/archive1

Thanks again for your comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ant subfamilies/archive1. I have now fixed or responded to your concerns and I would appreciate any further comments or suggestions. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: I completely forgot about this- I've had a lot on my plate. I'll do my best to take another look at this in the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. 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) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this file

How many seconds of the sample needs to be reduce? Best, jonatalk to me 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi J.,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Kyle-cassidy-weird-al-yankovic.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 23, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-10-23. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Ping

Hello, J Milburn. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

GA Cup -Round 1 Newsletter

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1

As we move into the middle of Round 1, we wanted to report some of the lessons we've learned thus far, as well as announce a major rule change going into Round 2, which begins November 1. Remember, sign-ups for this year's Cup ends on September 15.

Thus far, we're very happy with the results of the competition. One of our major goals, reducing the long backlog at GAN, is well on the way to being accomplished, mostly due to the enthusiastic efforts of Jonas Vinther, who has earned over 250 points. Over 80 reviews have been made thus far. Thank you all for your efforts and for your part in making the GA Cup a success.

However, this is the inaugural year of the GA Cup, so there have been some unforeseen circumstances that have come up. One has been a glaring inadequacy with the rules, which the judges feel makes the competition unfair. As a result, there will be a major change in the rules, starting at the beginning of Round 2:

  • Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification.

What this means is that you must provide some feedback to the article's nominator, and must wait for him or her to respond before passing the article. If the nominator has not responded in the standard 7 days, you can fail the article. We're instituting this rule change to prevent the possibility of competitors passing articles for the sake of passing articles (or failing them) and to gain more points. We believe that the change will make it more fair to all competitors in the GA Cup.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, we increased the "guarantee" for Round 2 to 25 participants. The exact number will be decided in the near future.

We thank your for your participation, and for your flexibility and understanding as we learn what works and what doesn't work in this competition.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup Newsletter Correction

Hi everyone,

It was brought to the attention of the judges that there was an error in the newsletter sent out earlier today.

Sign-ups for the GA Cup will close on October 15, 2014, not September 15, 2014 (as mentioned in the newsletter).

Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 1 Newsletter #2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1

Hello GA Cup competitors!

The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal.

To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system.

Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tripedalia cystophora
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Tripedalia-cystophora.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi J,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Maggie Roswell.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 14, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-11-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Birthday J Milburn

Hey, J Milburn. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello J Milburn:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Hafspajen (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Query on WikiCup withdrawal

Hey J! I was wondering whether or not a Cup contestant can continue to add points even after he/she has withdrawn from the comp. Adam Cuerden had withdrawn himself from the Cup on October 3, but since then he has added points[1][2] to his submissions page while continuing to be listed as withdrawn. Given that this issue has not been answered in the Cup FAQ, is this permissible? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging The ed17 and Miyagawa as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Happy Halloween!!!

 Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

'"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple.


If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!


Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 2

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively.

Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters).

In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here

Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup awards

Hi J, I know there is a lot of negativity going around the straw polls and discussions at the moment but maybe there might be a way to calm things down. I've noticed there were no awards or award newsletters given out this year and I think a way to distract people from bickering might be if this year's wikicup awards start doing the rounds. Just a suggestion The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There will be awards and a newsletter- they've just not been sent out yet! J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Scotland Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

J Milburn, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, The ed17, and Miyagawa for all your combined hard work, labor, and dedication in moderating this year's WikiCup! It was an honor and a privilege to participate, and I thank you for both the participation and FL prize awards--they certainly mean a great deal! Here's looking forward to next year's Cup! -- Caponer (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll Make a Man...

Hi there! In regards to your post on the "I'll Make a Man Out of You" article, the sample can definitely be reduced; however, I believe that the image is essential to depicting the scene to which the article refers. The image of Jackie Chan, however, can definitely be cut if you'd like.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well then let's analyze the image:

No free equivalent. It's a screenshot from a film. Therefore, there is no free equivalent.

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.

Minimal usage: Used only once in the article. Low resolution.

Previous publication. It's a screenshot from a film, so yeah it is.

Content. It adheres to the above criteria, so I guess it is.

Media-specific policy. Check.

One-article minimum. Check.

Contextual significance. Screenshot of the film included in the article's "Context" section, so yup.

Restrictions on location. Check.

Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following: Check.

And as for guidelines, it falls under "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." So I believe the image is safe. Thoughts?--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

Question...

Just curious: if I strongly allude to someone's ignorance (or call them ignorant), is that considered an "attack"? - Godot13 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Godot13- I'm not sure I'd want to commit either way in the abstract, and I don't like the idea that any words are banned. In certain contexts, I think calling someone ignorant could be construed as an attack; even calling them ignorant of something could be seen as a little strong, as I think the word has judgmental undertones (along with negligent or lazy, for instance). It seems entirely reasonable, though, to say that someone is not aware of x, or does not understand y, if you have reason to make that claim and follow it up with an explanation of x or y. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Data on WikiCup 2014

Hi J Milburn, I hope this finds you well. My name is María, I am community liaison for Program Evaluation & Design team at Wikimedia Foundation. I reach out to you because we are going through one of our biggest projects: the second round of data collection. This voluntary program reporting helps us understand Wikimedia programs better. WE look for information on many programs, like editathons, Wiki Loves Monuments, Education Programs... and editing contests! I reach out to you know because I have some questions about WikiCup 2014. I believe you coordinated this contest, right? (Please let me know if I should refer to someone else.) I have some data as regards participants, and bytes added, but I still have some learning questions that I would like to complete. Can you please get back to me on my talk page or via email at mcruz [at] wikimedia [dot] org? Many thanks! MCruz (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Question...

Hey there Josh. Since you work with visual media, may I ask which non-free images are appropriate for uploading on Master of Puppets? I'm thinking about the recording studio Sweet Silence or the band touring with Ozzy Osbourne? Commons doesn't have a single image of the band from this period, so some advice would be beneficial.--Retrohead (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Retrohead: I'm afraid I can't see how either could be justified. The fact that we don't have any free images from that era is regrettable, but unless how they looked at the time is in some way relevant (I know they weren't, but imagine if they were touring in corpse paint and this led to a boycott of the album for some reason) this couldn't be a reason to upload a non-free image. Something similar is true of the recording studio- while the fact it was recorded at the studio is no doubt important, I can't see how seeing a picture of the studio would help readers understand the topic. If you're concerned about adding more images to the article, you could use images of people/the band but specify in the caption when the image was taken so as not to mislead readers (see what I've done on A Quiet Night In, for example). The other thing to do would be to contact the copyright holders of images which do show the band at the time and ask them to release the images under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. It's a pity we don't have some photos, but there's not much I can do about it. In any case, can you formally do the image review at the FAC, so I can put that duty aside? Appreciate it.--Retrohead (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

WikiCup awarding system.

Greetings, J Milburn! Just dropping off this little reminder, like you said. Cheers! :) If I had to guess... (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psylliodes luridipennis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Psylliodes luridipennis 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psylliodes luridipennis

The article Psylliodes luridipennis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Psylliodes luridipennis 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note

I'm still annoyed at you, but "annoyed" is not the same as hate, and I just want to say that I strongly disagree with how Bloom is using my words. I think you handled a situation very badly, particularly when you started hurling abuse at me on my talk page, which is not a good way to calm someone down who's feeling attacked on all sides at the time. But that hardly justifies Bloom's comments. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Consider this a rather grudging vote of support. If he wasn't such a giant ass, I'm pretty sure I could have continued to avoid you a while longer, but, I can't hold grudges forever, and I'm not willing to be used in random attacks just because I disagree with you on another point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Thanks for the note. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(And, in all honesty, that's all I had planned to do ignore you for a couple months until I felt able to act civilly to you again. But this here...
You know, I hate to ask but... you know you can just ban people from the cup, right?) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Whatever Bloom might tell you, we have removed users from the competition (and refused to welcome users into the competition) in the past. For obvious reasons, we don't advertise this. It will always remain an option, but it's a last resort. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3

Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday.

Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November.

In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles.

For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges.

Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year.

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange Tales update

Just a note to say that I've expanded Strange Tales; thanks for the pointer to that source, and thanks again for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the GAR

Hey J; just a quick message to say thank you very much for the GAR over at The Shooting Star. I know that these things take time, so it is much appreciated. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

  • We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
  • In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
  • The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup

Having just received the news, I feel I ought to say thank you for all your hard work as the senior judge of the wikicup. I have always found you to be fair and even handed when it came to making judgments. Although I didn't always agree with them (that Arsenal-Stoke rivalry DYK, 10 points I could have used!) I know you always did put the integrity of the cup first. With that, I thank you and wish you an enjoyable retirement. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I can believe it, but I can't believe it. I want to say "thank you" for taking over back in 2010? 11? and keeping the Cup running over the past few years. You did an outstanding job and should be proud of yourself. Gloss 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Extra Apsaras to go with it

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Hi.

We worked together to keep Samantha Smith a Featured Article, so I'm hoping you'd be willing to do me a big favour and help me in expanding Murder of Kylie Maybury. I'm also contacting other Wikipedians from the old days to try and help us with Kylie's article. Paul Austin (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ike Altgens

I've brought this article to GAN. The review was begun on 10 December by Location, a longtime contributor to the fringe theories noticeboard who caught some issues I'd missed. I am asking for more eyes to get this article over the hump. Care to weigh in? TIA. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello J Milburn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
The Herald : here I am 11:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello J Milburn! As we gather to celebrate the changing of years and reflect on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, I would like to wish you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Attached is a small snack which I hope will give you the energy to continue being an amazing person and editor in the coming year.


Happy editing,
 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

Happy Holiday Cheer
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4

Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season.

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all!

114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal!

For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here.

We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup.

Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Curve-billed Thrasher nominated for DYK!

—Cerabot (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year J Milburn!

Happy New Year!

J Milburn,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Dear J Milburn,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
：） Navigaid (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Lady Mary Hamilton

per [3], the "under construction" banner has been removed from Lady Mary Hamilton, and you're kindly invited to confirm and send the DYK on its way; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My GANs

I feel bad nominating Malagasy civet and Royals (song) for GA prematurely, I didn't mean to waste your time. I'm sort of new at getting articles to GA. Sometimes it's just hard to find sources. I'm afraid that Caracal isn't ready either? You don't have to review it, but do you think it has enough content to pass? I'm much better at verifying unreferenced statements than adding to an article. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: Please don't feel bad about it- it's the kind of thing you'll get better at with practice; it's a constant learning experience for all of us, which is part of what makes contributing to Wikipedia so interesting. I hadn't made the connection that you were the person who nominated "Royals" as well, so my apologies for failing two of yours in a short timeframe! The two articles are quite different, and the expectations for the two vary quite significantly; I think you would have a better shot with "Royals" than with the civet, as it's a good bit closer and the sources are more accessible (both in terms of paywalls and expertise). Caracal is a big topic, but the article certainly doesn't look poor; a little restructuring would perhaps help. I suspect (though I am by no means an expert on the topic) that there would be a lot more to say about caracals. It would be a worthy topic to take on, but it'd take a good bit of work. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to feel bad about failing those, you were doing what you do, reviewing. I'll try to work on all three, and try to look in other places for sources. It looks that UtherSRG will be able to assist me on the civet article. Thanks! :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Neil Gaiman
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Kyle-cassidy-neil-gaiman-April-2013.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Caracal

Do you consider caracal a good article? The review didn't particularly seem adequate, but I don't specialize in mammalian articles either. Seattle (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look into this shortly. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Seattle: I agree that the review is woefully inadequate, but the article is actually fairly good- certainly better than it was when I looked at it last week. While I think a better reviewer would have requested a few changes (for instance: a bit of a restructure/shift in focus in some places, some expansion of the taxonomy section, more information on the subspecies), I'm not sure a reassessment would be appropriate. However, someone should probably have a chat with the reviewer- all of their reviews seem to be rather poor. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

DYK for The Turn of the Screw (2009 film)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

POTD notification

POTD
POTD

Hi J,

Just to let you know, the Featured Pictures File:Carpodacus purpureus CT3.jpg and File:Carpodacus purpureus CT4.jpg are due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 18, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-02-18. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

GA Cup - The Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 5/Final

GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though!

Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all!

Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month.

In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [4] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish!

The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

Good luck to all our finalists!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

China warns universities on qualities

According to the media that training clergyman of China has advised universities to disregard reading material that advance Western qualities.

Yuan Guiren said colleges ought to keep up political uprightness and keep feedback of China’s pioneers or political framework out of the classroom.

His remarks, reported by Xinhua news office, had a go at an instructive gathering.

In December, law teacher Zhang Xuehong said he was sacked by the East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai in the wake of declining to apologize for composing articles scrutinizing the legislature.

His rejection took after the removal of straightforward economist and free discourse advocate Xia Yeliang from Peking University in October.

As per Xinhua news organization, Mr Yuan said tertiary training organizations ought to “never let reading material advancing Western qualities show up in our classes”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raheemkhattak (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Raheemkhattak: Does this have anything to do with me or Wikipedia? I'm not really sure why you are contacting me. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Hmm...

I seem to have dropped a hatchet into this hole. Want to help me throw dirt over it with these shovels? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Sorry, this appears to be some kind of code I'm not privy to- perhaps you could enlighten me? J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I tend to use humour to lighten the mood a bit - was asking if you'd like to properly bury the hatchet, and move on as friends again? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Of course. Trying to balance all the different views in the WikiCup was not something I found at all easy, and was a contributing reason (though not the main reason) I stepped down as a judge. While I was a little taken aback by the new judging team's decision right at the start of this year, things now seem to have settled well and I'm hoping the competition can move forward productively. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm just going to take a year off the Wikicup and see how it goes. I don't think it's going to attract FP people with the current rules, but, y'know, that's for them to deal with. We'll see how it goes! Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Rodrigues starling

Hi there, I don't mean to pressure you at all, but do you think you are close to being comfortable with a declaration either way at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rodrigues starling/archive1? I left a note for the nominator suggesting he ask for reviews from other bird editors as well. --Laser brain (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup Feedback Form

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Feedback

Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it.

Your responses will only be visible to the three judges.

Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition!

2014-15 GA Cup Feedback Form

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello J Milburn, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
 Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
 - T H (here I am) 12:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Commons question

Hi J Milburn- Are you aware of any specific Commons copyright policy that states a scan (versus a photograph), of a 3D object (coin) is ineligible for copyright (i.e., requires no permission for use), because it is a scan (whereas a photograph would be eligible). Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Godot13: The coin issue comes up a lot- my understanding is that, as far as the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, a coin is a 3D object as much as any other, and so even if the coin is out of copyright, a scan is still copyrightable. Mike Godwin, who was the WMF lawyer, confirmed this- see this thread. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I had seen that thread and wanted to make sure there was no other policies I was missing.--Godot13 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Godot13: There may be something else I'm unaware of, but, given that we do have some "official" word on this, I suspect it could only be overridden by some contrary advice from a Foundation representative. Commons:COM:COINS says that "a photograph of a coin has two requirements before it can be included. The first is that the design of the coin itself is not copyrighted, or permission has been obtained. The second is that the photographer agrees to license it under a free licence. A picture of a 3D-object creates in most jurisdictions a new copyright on the picture, something that is not the case when photographing pure 2D-objects", which coheres with what I know, so I reckon that the requirement is still in place (even if it might not always be evenly enforced...). Of course, this means that we'd be happy to receive your scans of coins, provided the coins' designs were PD, and that you'd even be able to retain copyright on them and only release them under a CC license. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup Barnstar

Round 4 Barnstar for the GA Cup
You made it to Round 4! Thank-you for being part of the success for the first GA Cup! We hope to see you next year! --Dom497 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

File:Young Jay Gould and Hamilton Burhans.jpg

Do you really think this is in copyright? I ask, because I often see clearly free-use images presented as if they were fair use, because people don't know better. This looks like a likely {{PD-Art}}. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Gould lived 1836-1892, figure this is from the 1850s. While it might still have some protection if it was never published before 1923, that's much less likely for a famous person than, say, some random person's great-grandmother. But I was serious with my opening question: what's the reasons for thinking it's in copyright? Non-publication? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hirticlavula

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hirticlavula

Hello - first thanks for the great work you are doing here, especially on the Fungi pages. However, the MOS is clear of preferred citation style, see Template:Citation. There is no need for discussion on the Hirticlavula talk page as this is the MOS across the whole of en wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you wish cite the individual pages this can be done with the citation templates by changing pages= item to page=. Keep up the good work. Simuliid talk 14:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Talk:Bruton Dovecote/GA1

Thanks for your comments etc at Talk:Bruton Dovecote/GA1. A while ago I added a bit more about the location and architecture (windows). I was wondering if you had any ideas about other specifics which could be included to make the article comprehensive.— Rod talk 15:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up

The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats!

Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year.

We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition.

There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form.

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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. 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. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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. 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. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Possible GAN for you

Hi Josh, if you are not too disinclined to reviewing another GAN, I have one in the queue that needs a good eye: Little Annie Fanny. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I will certainly consider taking up the article, but I can't commit right now. The one thing I will say is that File:Will Elder and Harvey Kurtzman, 1962.jpg should really be removed- the use of non-free content to show what someone (even two someones) looked like in an article of this sort really isn't appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you for considering it, I know you are busy, and thanks for your advice. I honestly don't understand; really? How is it inappropriate? It's history, I thought, and the section extensively discusses these two people. Same advice for the other historic photo in this section (who is also extensively discussed)? (BTW, between you and me, I have a few doubts that that other photo is a free image.) Some other editor commented that the photo of one of the notable people who provided Critical analysis in that section was inappropriate, same advice there too? I'm not arguing, I am earnestly trying to understand images on Wikipedia; I still don't have the hang of it like I do writing, researching, copy editing, etc.; I seem to get conflicting information about it, and I'd really like to get a handle on understanding it like you do. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: Basically, a non-free image of x is only acceptable when readers could not reasonably/fully understand the article without seeing what x looks like. So, the question is not whether x is important, it's whether what x looks like is important. This means that, for example, non-free images of people just to show what they look like are very rarely going to be acceptable outside of articles about those people. Non-free comics images, for example, are going to be acceptable when the article discusses particular visual elements of the comic- so, (just for example) if the art style, unusual use of colours or potentially racist imagery in a comic is discussed, a non-free image may be a good addition. If, however, a comic artist's style is discussed, even if there are plenty of details about the artist's life, a non-free image of the artist almost certainly won't be required. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I get it now! So the comics panel in this article and the one on Tintin in Tibet is appropriate. And the other two images of men in this article are fine because they are free images. The sad part is I can hardy see how the pic of Hef is a free image. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The claim about the Heffner image is that it is free due to a particular rule (loophole?) concerning the fact that it appears to have been published without a copyright notice. I am not a lawyer, but this is a rule we take advantage of on Wikipedia quite a lot, though not one I profess to be an expert concerning. Crisco 1492 or Adam Cuerden may be able to offer some guidance concerning that particular rule, or you could contact the image's uploader. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The Heffner image is, to the best of my understanding, free. The US had some really complicated copyright laws before the 1970s, and a lot of things made it through either on accident (Romero's original Night of the Living Dead being a famous example) or because nobody thought/wanted to copyright an image (like this Heffner image, and a lot of our free posters). Even a typo in the year could invalidate certain copyright notices. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you, gentlemen. I've heard of the Romero example. Now, J Milburn and Crisco 1492, since I have the ear of experts, may I ask a "thought experiment" question about the image File:Will Elder and Harvey Kurtzman, 1962.jpg that Josh brought up, namely: This image was scanned from a book; there is no copyright notice on the page of that book nor on any nearby page; the title page of the book states that the book's title is published by the publisher and that the book's fictional characters in the book are copyrighted and that the "stories and characters are fictional"; it states that the logos are copyrighted, and finishes with "All rights reserved." I am wondering about the copyright of this photo of the book's authors, which is not explicitly mentioned. Thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Anything published in the US after (checks) 1989 definitely does not need a copyright notice to be considered copyrighted. Anything before 1976 needed one. Works published between 1976 and 1989 are special cases, but since that doesn't seem to apply we don't need to worry. For that image, if the image was first published in 2000, it is almost certainly copyrighted. If it was published elsewhere (which would need to be shown) before 1976, the issue of a copyright notice would be important. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is good information and completes my understanding; finally, after years of not understanding, I think I get it now. thank-you, Crisco 1492 and J Milburn. (P.S.: I think you meant "before 1978".) I have removed the image from the article. BTW: Perhaps both of you can pass on this GAN but drop by someday for its FAC. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Josh (and Crisco 1492 if you want), I am honing my understanding of non-free images, so may I ask this one interesting question: In a new article I just created, I wrote three paragraphs of prose describing a single non-free image in detail. I literally described the image in words alone. Now that it is finished, I am thinking it sure would be nice to actually see the image next to the text. What do you think, would it fly? The article is here (search for the words "meticulous design") and the image is here. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: My first thought is that this could meet the NFCC, but I wonder if someone might ask why we would need two images. Note that you would need to write a detailed rationale and that a significantly lower resolution than the one on the source page would need to be uploaded. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant answer, this gives me some hope, thank-you. Although yes, from the beginning I assumed I would not get away with more than one image of the same non-free object. But you answered my main question in the affirmative, that's interesting and good to know. So then the question becomes, are there such a thing as featured articles about non-free subjects in which two images of the subject appear in the article? Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Update: I just found numerous examples of a "Yes" answer to that last question, from Batman to Nancy Drew to If (magazine). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There will be; we are required to minimise the extent to which we use non-free content, but if we cannot fully understand a topic without seeing multiple images of the subject, and free images cannot be found/created, then multiple images are acceptable. It's plausible that this might be a case when multiple non-free images are justified. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Your GA nomination of The Turn of the Screw (2009 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Hi,

I enjoyed your Red links opinion piece recently. When creating a red link about a notable topic (which I'd also had the time to create a draft article for), I recently came across the attitude that an article on the topic was 'unlikely' to be created, and therefore the red link should not exist. While I had a draft article to back up my assertion that the topic was encyclopedia-worthy and furthermore that an article was imminent, this won't always be the case for everyone. If you revisit red link-phobia again, could you please include a discussion of the 'likelihood' and perceived obscurity of an article not being an obstacle to redlinking? In fact, de-redlinking reduces the likelihood of an article being created, because the red link is an invitation to all to make an article, and plain text is not. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@110.20.234.69: Hi, thanks for the note. While I can't comment on the specific case, I am very strongly against removing red links to notable topics just because someone feels the article is unlikely to be created. This just perpetuates the status quo in terms of well-covered topics, and quite clearly works against underrepresented topics- this is exactly the opposite of what we should be trying to do. You're quite right that de-redlinking reduces the likelihood of article being created, but, even if this doesn't convince a user that a redlink is helpful, there are actually a number of other reasons to support redlink retention. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't get pings because I edit under an IP, but thanks for the thought. :) Perhaps 'what is unlikely' needs to be included in the discussions on 'when to redlink and when to retain redlinks'? That could help dispel the assumption that because 'obscure topics' are unlikely to get articles written for them, these topics should not have red links pointing to them. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, the guideline starts with the very sensible "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject" and "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article" but then, further down, it says "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". I think the latter quote may give the mistaken impression that we have to ask whether we think it's likely that an article will be created, when, in fact, it's a slightly broader question of whether an article should be created. I'd rather not change my Signpost piece at this time, but perhaps a clarification of this point in the appropriate guidelines would be useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, my attempt to clarify the guideline lasted about 20 minutes.  :( --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm slightly surprised by that reversion- while it certainly isn't the case that "a topic is notable" is equivalent to "a topic should have an article", it doesn't seem like that's what you claimed. I'll have a further look at the guideline over the next few days. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A second opinion

Perhaps this article I just wrote is not notable after all: Carreidas 160. Please skim through it and let me know your opinion. Thanks, Josh. Prhartcom (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I did wonder about that when I first looked; my reaction was similar to Neelix's. Great to see a really well-sourced article about fictional technology, but an open question as to whether it warrants an article of its own. My inclination (I'll take a closer look in the coming days) is that the plane is notable in its own right, but that it would only need to have its own article if there was sufficient information to make the parent article (namely, Flight 714) unweildy if it was all included. The fact that something is technically notable doesn't mean that it has to have an article, of course- if the information can sensibly be included elsewhere, that's sometimes the best option. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; let me know. I'm also wondering about this article I finished before that one: Unicorn (ship). I believe that they could of course exist in the parent article, but that only about one-tenth of their sourced information would fit before their subjects were given undue weight (they absolutely shouldn't have their own sections there). That was the whole reason I had thought of a separate article in the first place. Thanks again for your expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: I've had a quick read through, and I pretty much stand by what I said. If it was nominated at AfD, I would support retaining the article, but I do wonder if the topic could be appropriately covered in the article on the book. Perhaps if there was too much in the "finished" book article on the plane, it could be split off (in the manner we have split off articles like the FA Development of Grand Theft Auto V). The other option is this: you could possibly have an article called something like "Technology in Tintin" to which you could merge these various articles; however, unless you have some literature talking about technology in Tintin generally, you could be accused of synthesis. Just thinking aloud... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick thank you to offer my appreciation for your peer review of George Pickingill. It's definitely in a better state now and I hope to send the article to FAC later in the week. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: My pleasure; I'll certainly try to find time to take part in the nomination. I think you should be ready to be questioned about the family history website, but, other than that, I can't foresee any particularly problematic challenges. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; if you do get a chance, that would be good. I agree that someone will no doubt raise questions regarding the website, but I shall just have to defend its use as best as I can. It would be a shame to lose it, as so much of the article itself relies upon it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

TFA

The Nauru reed warbler, precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Turn of the Screw (2009 film)

The article The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) 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 Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for La Couchette

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Inside No. 9 Topic

I noticed that La Couchette has been created which means that it and the other upcoming episodes will have to be part of the Inside No. 9 topic. But I wanna make sure if there are plans to make separate series pages for the show or all the episodes are going to be part of the one topic. GamerPro64 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Right now, I intend to create articles on all of the new episodes. I didn't have any thoughts about series lists; but I could. Hopefully, I'll be able to get all the new episodes up to GA over the next few months, creating a 13-article topic. I suppose the other way to do it would be one topic for the main article and the two series lists and two subtopics for the series. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Talk back

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

invisible rail

I think you missed my point I am precisely trying to point out that the article is not a joke --Naytz (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If you noticed in the talk page some people questioned if this was a real bird

Naytz (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Josh, Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:The Pig-faced Lady and the Spanish Mule.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 27, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-04-27. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg
All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mind Meld

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mind Meld/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn/archive40&oldid=1143370766"