Jump to content

User talk:J Milburn/archive42

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


A beer for you!

Look. I know things are a little heated over at the Wikicup, but we've gotten along fine in the past, and I don't want this to sour an otherwise respectful dynamic. You're right. I don't know enough about the rules or past cups, so I admit that some of what I've said is probably wrong. But I know it's just for fun, so can we please get past this and move on? RO(talk) 22:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: I couldn't agree more. No hard feelings on my part; I do hope we can work together again in the future. Let's try to avoid any argument (though allowing respectful disagreement!) when the discussions/votes for next year's rules changes open up soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's a good plan. I promise to keep my comments succinct and on point, and I won't argue for the sake of it if I can help it. What do you think of my alternate plan: ([1])? We could run them concurrently, and people could choose which they like best, and more people would be happy and engaged. RO(talk) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've certainly got no objections to new competitions being set up, as long as they're run responsibly (and so don't give any ammunition to the anti-WikiCup crew). A lot of competitions have taken inspiration for the WikiCup- some have been very successful (the Stub Contest is an old competition that has recently become a bit more WikiCup-like, while the GA Cup has grown out of the GAC backlog elimination drives on the one hand and the WikiCup on the other- both are excellent), while others (like the now-deleted Amazing Race Wikipedia and the Bacon Challenge, as well as some versions on other Wikipedias) didn't work out. I will say, though, that running a competition is a lot of work. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt it's a lot of work. I wouldn't run it myself, but if people wanted it maybe we could run it concurrently with the cup, and have the same judges. It would be more like a second division of the cup. RO(talk) 15:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry (again)

Alright, I believe that I have done everything! Tell me whether it looks good or whether there's anything more I should do. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Josh,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Cymbiola imperialis 01.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 30, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-09-30. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

GAR notification

Chrome Division, 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) 09:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for this inconvenience, as the other two articles (Alphastates and Byzantine) I've listed for reassessment were written by users who are not active anymore, and forgot to check this one.--Retrohead (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Cave of the Patriarchs

the Wikipedia article on the machpelah cave has this information: "Israeli authorities have placed restrictions on calling the faithful to prayer by the muezzin of the Ibrahimi mosque. The order was enforced 61 times in October 2014, and 52 times in December of that year. The reason given is that the call to prayer bothers Jewish settlers in the city." I believe it is unbalanced if it doesn't include the information here. I don't want to add it myself because of my partiality. Could you, please? -- Naytz (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Naytz: Hi Naytz; I'm afraid I have no interest in editing that article on behalf of others, and I am not in a position to judge the reliability of the article you have linked. If you're uncomfortable editing the article, you may want to raise the issue on the article's talk page, or perhaps on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Naytz (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Freida Pinto

Thanks for your copy edits. Do you think the prose meets FA standards? —Vensatry (ping) 12:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Rod Steiger

Thankyou for your constructive comments during the peer review. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rod Steiger/archive1 is underway if you'd care to comment further. Cheers. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you, I will make time to have a look. I am fairly sure I will be supporting. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Josh,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Calocoris affinis.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 7, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-10-07. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for the GAN review, Josh! Regarding your comment about potential FAC, I know that there are indeed a number of older German sources on the subject (all of which are cited by Goodrick-Clarke), however it may well also be that there have been more recent studies undertaken too that I am currently unaware of. Unfortunately, my German is largely non-existent so I don't have any plans to utilise them in the near future. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, J Milburn. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC). 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.

 — Calvin999 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I've replied- I hope it's useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry one more time

Just trying to reach out to you one last time. If I don't get a response here for some reason, I think I'll just nominate it myself. Thanks! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: Sorry, that completely slipped my mind. I'll try to find some time for another look through- it is looking much, much better, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Johanna: It's looking very strong; I'm sure some ironing wouldn't hurt it, but I think sending it FAC-wards again wouldn't be a bad idea. The trick would be to find a few people who are willing to give it a good look through. Maybe some people from the LGBT project would be happy to give it a look. I'll certainly do my best to find some time myself. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

File:American Horror Story-Hotel, cast art.jpg

Hi Milburn, can you please check if the above image is usable as a non-free content in the article, American Horror Story: Hotel? Its actually quite large, with blank spaces on either side, but reducing it would render them useless so it will make them useless. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@IndianBio: The rationale's woefully inadequate (and straight up incorrect) but, given the unusual costumes and visual style, it does look like a plausibly acceptable use of a non-free image- and, indeed, an unusually large one. Perhaps (given that it's a publicity photo released to advertise the series) you could consider shifting it to the infobox, to replace the one currently used. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Once again, thank you.

The Original Barnstar
For being a diligent reviewer - it really is appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4

GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck!

Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia.

The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

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.

Meteora

I just replaced the cover with a 300px version. Please check it. Thank you. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 04:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nacunda nighthawk
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Nacunda nighthawk.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 21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Rapid strep test has been nominated for Did You Know

Invitation

Not sure if you're interested, but we'd love to have you if you are. RO(talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I'm pretty swamped, so I'm afraid I can't take anything on right now- best of luck with it all! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

PR request

I had to withdraw the nomination because of certain issues. Since you did an extensive review during the FAC, it would be really nice if you could offer some comments at the peer review. Thanks, —Vensatry (ping) 13:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I'll try to find some time to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge 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 Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Give Me Your Everything

May you can review Give Me Your Everything against the GA criteria? Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: I'm very busy at the moment; I may find some time to have a look, but I'm afraid I can't promise anything. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
J Milburn, thank you for taking the time to patiently explain to me the inherent difficulty in changing the points for GA Reviews in the WikiCup process.

I do believe that, unfortunately, there is a bit of a token economy created whereby participants are incentivized to focus their efforts on other ways to gain points and shifted away from GA Reviewing.

But you are also definitely correct that any form of Quality improvement and content contribution to Wikipedia -- is a very very good thing indeed ! :)

Hopefully there can be at least some slight tweaking involved to at least emphasize the important of chipping in to do some GA Reviews -- at least a teensy weensy bit more, in the future.

Thanks again for elucidating WikiCup issues to me. — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Marilyn Monroe

Hi, any chance you could give this a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for the invite- a combination of workload and visiting family makes this week a busy one, but I'll try to find some time. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it's Susie's article, I reviewed it for GA and was keen that it had a good peer review. I may be doing the same with Sinatra in a week or two!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review?

This will be the last favor, I swear, and I owe you a bazillion once this FAC is done. It just needs a formal source review at this point. If you could do that, that would be great, but if not, no worries. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This is long overdue, but I thought it would have more meaning after everything was done with the article. This is just a little way of showing that your help with me on the article has meant a lot to me, and I couldn't have gotten it to FA without you.

You've been very civil and kind throughout the whole thing. If someone else had given that first round of comments, the article probably wouldn't be where it is now!

Here's to hoping we run across each other again! Cheers! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: Thanks! There will be many readers who will appreciate your diligent work on the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

RIhanna PDF's

Hey, I want to use some info from the PDF's you sent me. But how do I make one of the further reading's you added on the article into an inline citation elsewhere?  — Calvin999 10:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: You could just cut-paste the further reading item into a reference, so that it looks like
Smith argued that the song blah blah.<ref>{{cite journal|....}}</ref>
And this would mean that the journal reference appeared in your reflist, along with the other references. Alternatively, you could create a "Cited sources" or "Bibliography" section and refer to the sources in short form, perhaps using a template like {{sfn}} or {{sfnm}}. Does this answer your question? Have a bash, and if you make a mess of it, let me know and I'll clean it up as much as I can. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. There's actually quite a lot of info in those three sources. I'm not sure what is necessary to include and what isn't.  — Calvin999 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd say we should be favouring the academic sources, so certainly don't skimp on it. We're an encyclopedia after all! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg

The old revision that you deleted—is it the same as the current revision or bigger? --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Looking now, it seems that the old version was basically the same screenshot, but (very) slightly smaller and grainier. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Change the World

Hi J Milburn, thanks for the reply. I've nominated the article now. Could you please read "Change the World" one time, and correct the grammar or typo mistakes? Thanks very much! :-) Matthias! --Matthiasberoli (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Matthiasberoli: I'm afraid I haven't got the time for that at the moment; if you nominate it at GAC, hopefully the reviewer will be able to help you out in that regard. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Question about DYK and the Wikicup

Per this thread, does this make sense to you ([2])? That submission was 5x expanded and a GA, but Miyagawa says that because I listed GA as a reason at DYK the entry is ineligible for Wikicup points even though it was also expanded five times. The version I nomed had 1,012 words ([3]), and the version when I started to expand it had 177 words ([4]). So this was both a 5x expansion and a GA, but Miyagawa says my "intention" was GA, so it doesn't count. RO(talk) 20:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I'm not sure what you want from me here. Whether I agree with you or M, the competition is over, so we probably shouldn't be changing points around anyway. I'm not a judge, and the discussion has been closed on the WikiCup talk page- I've no desire to stir up trouble. Sorry. If it would be valuable for you, I can take a look and say what decision I personally would have made, but it won't be until tomorrow evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I know. Our points don't matter. Whatever. RO(talk) 21:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for. I will say, though, that I stepped down from being a WikiCup judge for a reason, and I must confess that being dragged back into this kind of thing is not at the top of my list of priorities, despite the fact I think the Cup a fantastic project and worth my full support. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not complicated, Josh. The DYK was a 5x expansion and a new GA, so on what basis could this not be eligible for Wikicup points? Miyagawa says I lost the points because I didn't mark 5x at DYK, but DYK and Wikicup are two different things. I added it as a Wikicup entry because I knew it was eligible. This place is so needlessly tedious that I'm not surprised you can't keep editors. Goodbye! RO(talk) 21:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Like you, I am just a volunteer here. I feel that you are taking out frustration on me and that this is misdirected. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up


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

The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!

Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.

The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

You've got mail!

Hello, J Milburn. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC). 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.

 — Calvin999 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Congratulations on making it all the way to Round 3 of the 2nd Annual GA Cup. Although you didn't make the Final/top 5 (which was very hard), we'd like to commend you with this barnstar. We hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

WikiCup is actually contributing to backlogs

Note: I am not a WikiCup participant myself, my interest in this is reducing Wikipedia community backlogs.

By introducing a token economy system, WikiCup is making it about eight (8) times more rewarding to nominate to GA than to review for GA.

This means people will be incentivized to gain points by focusing all their energies on flooding Good Article nominations, and not reviewing, as reviews are less points.

How do we fix this, without even allowing a "note" about it?

Can we please do something to help stem the tide and address the backlogs?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I'm not your enemy here. I review far, far more than I nominate. I just don't appreciate the bull-in-a-China-shop undiscussed changes to the WikiCup pages. We originally had low points for GA reviews specifically to discouraged people from engaging in very large numbers of substandard reviews- the points were very delicately token. Perhaps it's time to change that- but we change it through discussion, not through unilateral changes. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I've reviewed countless GA candidates in the last week. I've spend time and effort on good quality reviews. I've been patient with people and put articles on hold that I could have failed outright. I did not fail most of them but worked back-and-forth with people to help them. And I feel I have not made a dent in the ocean. There is over a six-month backlog. WikiCup is not actually even helping with this, it is hurting this. Surely something can be done? — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see both angles here. On the one hand, we don't want frantic races to earn points to undermine the quality of GA reviews, but on the other, the 4 points awarded for them are not incentive enough to do the work. When the top three Wikicup participants have 8,876 points between them, but have done only four reviews combined, there should be no doubt that the Wikicup is not incentivizing GA reviews, and as Cirt said, is actually contributing to the backlog. I was told we have a GA cup already, and that's the point of that event, so the Wikicup need not incentivize GA reviews. Maybe the points aren't the issue, but the Wikicup should be requiring some form of QPQ for all entries. IDK. RO(talk) 17:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This is NOT asking for a "quid pro quo". This is asking for a fix to the current imbalance. — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Then how do you think we can balance this, if not with a QPQ? RO(talk) 17:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
By having a better balance between GA points and Review points. That does NOT imply a "quid pro quo" it implies fixing the current imbalance which is quite lopsided and damaging to Wikipedia's backlogs. — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
How many points are you suggesting? RO(talk) 17:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Certainly more than 1/8 as much as nominating. — Cirt (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cirt, I have little time for the "The WikiCup is contributes to review backlogs and therefore the WikiCup is evil" argument, which you're drifting close to. Producing large amounts of high-quality content is not damaging the project, even if it would be decent of people to take on their fair share of reviewing insofar as they are able. (And let's be clear- people could be taking on their share of reviewing without participating in GAC or peer review, or even doing much reviewing right now.) I am completely open to the idea of the WikiCup doing something more to encourage reviewing, but let's not pretend that the WikiCup is somehow harming Wikipedia because it's encouraging the creation/development of lots of GA-quality articles... (Also, and this is a side-point- if Editor1 nominates a strong article for GA status, she's not necessarily "taking" a review from Editor2, who nominates one afterwards, or from Editor3, who has been waiting for a review for months. Typically, I won't say "right, I am reviewing 2 GA nominees tonight- time to roll the dice!" I'll scroll through the list to see what I fancy. If there's nothing there of interest, there's a good chance I won't review anything...) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

J Milburn, please, I am NOT saying the WikiCup is "evil". I like the WikiCup. I haven't tried it yet myself, but I think it's great to encourage high quality contributions from our community. Please don't read things into my mind that are not there. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you said that. This isn't complicated. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

J Milburn, thank you for acknowledging that I do not think WikiCup is "evil". Far from it. I love the idea of fostering high quality contributions. But there is a token economy going on that results in incentivized GA nominating and basically discouraging spending time on reviewing. As noted, above, by Rationalobserver, the top three Wikicup participants have 8,876 points between them, but have done only four reviews combined. Do you see that as a problem? — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

First thing: "the top three Wikicup participants ... have done only four reviews combined". Not true. As you yourself have noted, FAC reviews don't count. Neither do other kinds of review which are important. These participants have been doing at least some level of reviewing outside of those for which they have been awarded WikiCup points. To answer your question: I recognise it as a problem, to a given degree of "problem". Longer answer: If you asked me to choose between a lower GAC backlog and a higher number of good quality articles, I would of course choose the latter. It would be a weird kind of navel-gazing to say otherwise. (I realise that this is probably a false dilemma, but it's nonetheless instructive.) That said, I note that Godot hasn't actually nominated any GAs in addition to not reviewing any, so his contribution to the issue is 0. I reviewed three of Cas's five GAs so far this round- I'm quite happy to say that he wasn't "taking" reviews from anyone else, as I reviewed them specifically because they were his (and in an area I thought interesting). He's also involved in a good amount of FAC reviewing (and, indeed, has been for years). The numbers alone don't prove very much. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The numbers might not prove much, but I think they do indicate that reviews are an inefficient way to earn Wikicup points. If they weren't you'd see the leaders using them to boost their points, which they almost never do. RO(talk) 19:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I definitely agree that reviews are an inefficient way to earn points. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)But how many GAs have they nominated? The answer isn't very many, so while there may be some degree of disparity between the number of GA reviews and nominations, it's not a large number. DYK is on a QPQ basis so all the points there are balanced by all the necessary reviews. And I've seen Casliber review at FAC so, again, I doubt there's any problem here that can be laid at the foot of the Cup rather than a decline of the # of GA reviewers. And if you tally up the numbers of GA vs the number of GA reviews, which is quite easily done by paging through the result of each round, I think that you'll find that there are more reviews than noms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I happen to agree with everything said above. But I also think that the imbalance of GAs being 8 times higher than GA Reviews is a bit too much and does cause a token economy that may dissuade reviewing, which would be unfortunate. — Cirt (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn:Perhaps there's some compromise fix we can come to here to at least partially address the discrepancy? Something between the status quo and my ideas? What do you think? Do you have any suggestions? — Cirt (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I definitely like that GA reviews are a part of the WikiCup, and I am pleased to see that PR has been integrated rather nicely. I am nervous about the idea of FAC becoming a part of the WikiCup due to the previous opposition from some members of the FAC crowd. I am definitely opposed to instituting some kind of mandatory "you must review in order to nominate" stuff, as I don't like telling people what to do. Some people just aren't very comfortable/capable when it comes to reviewing, or may not be interested in any of the topics currently up for review. And that's fine. What I am not opposed to an increase in points for GAC/PR, but you can expect vocal opposition from those who don't like the idea of increasing reviewing points above the bottom level article points (IE, short DYKs- 5 points). Would I support increasing GAC/PR points? I think I probably would. 5? 8? 10? 12? 15 sounds too much. Maybe more than 10 (IE- long DYKs and ITN) is too much. The judges will probably be opening a kind of "what should we change" discussion in the next couple of months, and I definitely think we should present our case there. 16:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I think 12 would be quite better than 4. Maybe could you perhaps bring that up at the next discussion? — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll let you know when these discussions start, and possibly start the discussion myself. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you! Not asking for much, any slight improvements would be appreciated! Thanks very much for your polite and professional demeanor and your advice! — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Two and a half GA reviews = 1 GA? Two GA reviews > 1 FP? ~3 GA reviews = 1 FPortal? These values are ridiculous. Just require one (or even two) good article review(s) for a GA to be counted, don't devalue everything else. There's literally no reason not to enforce a number of reviews to every GA scored, after all, but very good reasons not to put a reviews too near other content. This isn't the GA cup; we shouldn't try to make clearing out the GA reviews - and no other work - a viable way to win a content creation competition. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Adam, I disagree strongly with the idea that we "enforce" (that word alone is an indication of why...) a given number of GA reviews. @Cirt: Like I said, there would be people opposed to your proposal! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden, but the Wikicup isn't really just a content creation competition, because one could conceivable win without creating any content at all. E.g., FPs via OTRS are as likely to win as a couple of FAs. In fact, they're probably more likely to win, as nobody could get 10 or 12 FAs through during the final round, but someone could get 2,400 points from images they did not create, but uploaded with OTRS. RO(talk) 18:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, J Milburn, appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why the word "enforce" is a problem. If you want points for your Wikicup GA, you need to provide the documentation, and if that includes proof of quid pro quo review[s].... well, that rule makes sure, in and of itself, that Wikicup is no burden on GAN. If you accept that the Wikicup needs to do something about balancing GA reviews with GANs, then why on earth would you do it any other way? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't like telling people what they can and can't work on. I don't like this in any part of Wikipedia, and I think it's very much in the WikiCup's interest to avoid it. I would have thought that you of all people - given the "let's make sure the FP people are doing some real work" vibe that we have had at some points in the development of the WikiCup - could understand that. One of the strengths of the WikiCup (and, indeed, Wikipedia in general) is that people come to the table with different interests and abilities, and the WikiCup can recognise and reward those different interests and abilities. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why people might reasonably nominate articles and not review others in return. Here are five:
  1. Maybe they're not fully familiar/confident with the system. This could be for any number of reasons, but an obvious one is that they are taking one of their first steps into GAC. This should be encouraged and supported, not hit with a "BUT HAVE YOU DONE YOUR BIT, YOU SCROUNGER?"-style response.
  2. Maybe they don't have any interest in any of the topics on offer, or are not comfortable with any of the topics nominated. I know I've encountered this before, and I've reviewed hundreds of articles. This might be particularly true of certain demographics; imagine younger Wikipedians here to improve coverage of their favourite [whatever], or professionals/experts who are on Wikipedia with the express interest of improving their particular subject area. Both would be more than welcome in the WikiCup, but it might be a particularly bad idea to push either of them into reviewing articles about which they have no interest.
  3. What happens if the backlog does go down? We exaggerate other problems, while potentially creating a new one- what do people do then when they want to claim GA points? Race everyone else to next thing nominated?
  4. Maybe people just don't like doing GA reviews. Maybe they would rather (andwould more productively) spend their time doing something the rest of us find arduous- perhaps closing deletion discussions, or new page patrol, or fixing copy-paste moves. Why, this person might ask, do we all have to do our "fair share" of one particular task, but not others?
  5. Maybe people have already done their "fair share" of reviewing in the past, or maybe they currently do their "fair share" of reviewing in other areas- FAC, PR and FLC spring to mind, but there's also a lot of informal/semiformal reviewing which goes on.
Finally, on a more general note, I think this may well lead to a culture of suspicion and accusation. Everybody's here to take from other people until proven otherwise. That's not the kind of collegiate, collaborative atmosphere we should want to foster. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Or, a short answer: the GAC community has long-resisted the introduction of QPQ reviews. There are plenty of good reasons for this. Let's not try to introduce one it by proxy. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I happen to agree with J Milburn, that I don't think forcing anyone to do anything is the way to go here. Suggestions, options, things to consider, sure, but not hard and fast enforcement. :) — Cirt (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can't make a thirty-minute review have a point value at all comparable to any sort of featured or good content without turning this into the GA cup by proxy, so I don't see how there's any way to take Cirt's point on board, then, short of removing GAs from the competition, with suitable increase in FA points. I'd consider all alternate solutions far, FAR worse, as massive point spikes to GA reviews degrade the value of all other content by putting quick work on that level, and, as GA is probably the most roughly comparable in difficulty to the other featured content types, not FA, removing GA is a problem too. So, we should utterly reject Cirt's suggestion, as we have no way to make it work if we're not going to tie it directly to the cause of the [assumed] problem. I mean, we could try a variant solution - Drop GA points to 20, but give a 10-point bonus for GA/GAR pairs, say - but we cannot make, what, an hour or two's work to review three GAs, say? - equivalent to actual featured content which is on quite a longer timeframe. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well Adam Cuerden you do raise lots of good points to consider. I'm not asking for a drastic dramatic change, but any little change to address the imbalance would help. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: @Adam Cuerden: @Rationalobserver: The judges have now opened some straw polls for determining the rules of next year's competition; see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#2016 WikiCup points discussions and the subsequent section (if you've not done this before, you just sign your name in a numbered list in the option(s) you prefer- typically, most votes wins, but it's up to the judges to make a call on the appropriate way forward given the spread of opinions). Josh Milburn (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to United States Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

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 2016 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.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

Awarded for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinto FAC

Hi, since you provided an extensive review during the previous FAC, will it be possible for you to review the article this time around? —Vensatry (Talk) 13:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Disruptive editing of Heathenry

Hi Josh; I kept an eye out for socks as you suggested, and found a lot more than I was expecting. I've called for a check user investigation here. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I haven't got time to look into this in depth right now, but I've watchlisted the page at least. I will say that if it turns out that there is some problematic sockpuppetry going on, this would at least probably result in some heavy blocks/bans, meaning that problem editors will be out of your hair. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Lochner

First thanks v much for the detailed FAC comments. Second, can you revisit when you get a chance. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Yes- apologies for the delay. I hope to find time over the weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Such a detail reading and commentary was gratefully received. Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Andrew Johnston (singer) nominated for TFA

Josh, I have nominated Andrew Johnston (singer), an article you brought to FA status, for TFA. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#December 25. Thanks. sst✈(discuss) 15:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Many thanks!

Just popping by to say a big thank you for undertaking the review of the GAN for Heathenry (new religious movement). It was a lengthy article and must have taken some time but I do hope that you found it to be of some interest! Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: That's my pleasure- I definitely enjoyed it. I look forward to seeing what you produce in the future! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Josh. If you are interested (and don't worry if you aren't) I currently have RfCs open in which I have argued that the pages on Odinism and Ásatrú (here and here) should be converted into redirects directing the reader back to the main Heathenry article. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Apologies

Hey, when I logged on to wikipedia I noticed your recent messages on my talk page about my edits on Kaitlyn Maher. I wanted to apologize. The first edit was mine, but I do not recall undoing the others. I share this account with my younger brother so it must have been him that kept making the edits. Anyways, I apologize for my brother's rash behavior and hope the edits did not offend you. Cheers! 112aws — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112aws (talk • contribs) 01:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Killer Instinct Gold

Hey—wanted to leave a note that based on your peer review, I've brought Killer Instinct Gold to FAC:

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killer Instinct Gold/archive1

Thanks for your help! czar 14:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

FLC

Hi there! Have you got time to look over Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Inna discography/archive1? Thanks in advance. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: I'm not that familiar with FLC- I may be able to find some time, but I'm afraid that I can't make any promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again

I took your advice and told my brother to register his own account. He hasn't done that yet, but I've made it clear that he cannot make edits on my account like that, and I've also changed my password. Cheers! (112aws (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

It's that season again...

Happy Saturnalia
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 17:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

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. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A Thousand Suns

Why do you say these are inappropriate? In any case, I have converted information about Waiting for the End to prose, and The Catalyst's information in the caption was already covered, so the samples have been removed. I also feel that the live album part is worth mentioning, but it would seem out of place when the album cover is missing. What do you suggest I do? dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 20:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful holidays

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! --Tremonist (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Precious again, your singer, "illustrated, well sourced, pretty comprehensive, avoids anything gossipy", and previously nominated for deletion, by you!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks, it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Redirect Peep Bowling

Many years ago, in the year 2007, you have redirected Peep Bowling to Rollercoaster Tycoon 3. I do not think that Peep Bowling should exist because it is simply a fad on Youtube such as this video, and not an intended feature in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiman6464 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: Hi there, thanks for the note. If you think that the redirect should be deleted, you can nominate it at redirects for discussion. I don't really have any particular views on the issue and don't remember doing it. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

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. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

WikiProject Adele proposal

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Adele. All comments are welcome and appreciated! MaranoFan (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
There are things that are sometimes left undone and there are things that can be left sometimes unsaid. There are things that can be sometimes left unsaid, but wishing someone like you can’t ever be left, so I take this moment to wish you and your loved ones a joyous and wonderful New Year. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Many thanks for the Brian Williamson GAN review! Hope that you had a good festive period. All the best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Very much my pleasure- a very worthy topic. I'm aiming to up my GA reviews in the next few months to try to be vaguely competitive in the WikiCup, but my real-world workload is shooting up as well... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know the feeling! I do suspect that I am spending far too much time working on Wikipedia, to the detriment of my 'real world' workload. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

How nice to see you...

....at the Isabella Beeton PR. Long time no see; hope all is well! CassiantoTalk 18:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I am indeed well- I hope you are too. I've found myself lacking the time/energy to do much writing, so I'm trying to put my energy into reviewing instead. Hopefully we'll bump into each other in that area! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, it does appear that there is a lacking-in-time epidemic going on around here at the moment! Maybe it's the New Year lull, who knows. Great to hear you're in the reviewing corps currently. I shall have one at PR very shortly if you can spare the time. CassiantoTalk 19:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Cassianto: Happy to- do let me know when it's nominated and I'll add it to my to-do list. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jo-Anne McArthur

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Ghosts in Our Machine

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Isabella Beeton

Many thanks for your comments at the recent PR for Isabella Beeton. I have dropped the good lady into FAC for comments and thoughts. If you have time for any, I'd be delighted to hear with them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Sydowia

I remember you asking me several years ago if I had access to Sydowia (I think you were working on Meinhard Moser at the time). I just learned that all articles of this journal up to and including 2003 are now freely accessible here, in case you wanted to pick up where you left off ... Seriously, I think the Moser article is pretty good and I'd be happy to help if you wanted to give it a push further! Sasata (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sasata: Aha! Fantastic; thanks for letting me know. I always intended to get back to Moser- I'll definitely give the article another look. I don't think it's too far from GA status now- a few more sources to round things out, perhaps. I vaguely remember that a bibliography was due to be published somewhere after his death... Perhaps that's why I wanted access to Sydowia... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Was wondering why

you deleted my post on Jimfbleak's talk page. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I'm incredibly sorry- it must have been a slip on my mouse while I was looking at my watchlist. I will restore it immediately. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply & fixing it. I was wondering what I had done wrong.... No worries, we've all done it a time or two. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Murrell

Once again - many thanks! Glad that you found the subject to be of some interest! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meinhard Michael Moser

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meinhard Michael Moser 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 Sasata -- Sasata (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meinhard Michael Moser

The article Meinhard Michael Moser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meinhard Michael Moser 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 Sasata -- Sasata (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

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

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, 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) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Josh, thanks very much for the fantastic comments and copy edits on Sir Michael. I'm running a bit behind with things at the moment so may not get to it for a few days or so. But be rest assured, I'm much looking forward to answering them. CassiantoTalk 21:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell

Sorry to come at you out of the blue, but I noted your rightful rejection (for the third time) of Jonathan Mitchell being a featured article. This is a determined effort by the user nominating it to gain a publicity boost for the subject - promotional in other words. The user has also confessed to a COI in this matter (see the talk page of the subject) and has been told not to edit the article directly (see the edit history - in particular from admin Jytdog). I can tell you that there is no more reliable sourcing available aside from the subject's own blog (which is naturally not permitted) and I agree with your concern over the Mass blog. The whole idea by User:Ylevental is to promote Jonathan Mitchell as the face of the Autistic community in order to attack the neurodiversity movement (Mitchell's personal blog does carry the tag line "We don't need no stinking neurodiversity"). I also agree with you about borderline notability, with much reliance on Newsweek and the other two magazine articles (LA and New York), but there was an AfD that resoundingly came back as "Keep" so consensus is that it stays. Just my two cents and I would recommend that Ylevental be told to leave the whole thing alone as he isn't going to get his way, and he shouldn't be behaving like a promoter - which is what he is doing. I don't know if that warrants a block (is non paid promotional editing against the rules?) but honestly all that will do is cause socking for which an SPI was lodged (and failed because it took too long to investigate resulting in stale statistics). Ylevental even added the Osborne material through an IP and it was allowed despite socking (I know who his provider is and where it came from and there was a match - I can't provide those exact details due to privacy of course preventing another SPI). 1.132.97.74 (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I'm afraid there's not a lot I can do about this right now; if you have concrete evidence/examples of recent problematic behaviour (POV-pushing, edit warring, sockpuppetry, etc.) I can look into it, but to preempt a little, I will probably not be able to do much more than point you in the right direction to report the problem. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Possible peer review

Hi there,

So recently I noticed that you did a small peer review for Habits (Tove Lo song). Since you done other peer reviews, would you mind looking over Help Is on the Way? I put it up for peer review a little more than a week ago, but it seems no one took the bait. As I say on the review page, I'm willing to review any articles you may have up for PR/GA/FA etc. Thanks for reading! Famous Hobo (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Famous Hobo: I'll try to find some times, but no promises, I'm afraid. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hordern FAC

...has been started here. Thanks once again for all you help. CassiantoTalk 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cass; I've watchlisted and will try to drop by! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hartebeest FAC

An update. I am afraid you accidentally deleted all the comments of the earlier reviewers. I have restored them now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Questions about Leavin'

Hello,

I have a couple quick questions related to the edits you have done to the page. I have uploaded a resized version of the cover that should comply with the expectations for the site and I completely understand the removal of the image, but I am confused on your comments about the audio sample.

I have used Good Girl Gone Bad as one of my templates in creating and expanding the page as it is both a featured article and an album I am familiar with. This page uses two audio samples that I believe have the same quality of the samples I used for my page. I did not notice a big difference between the samples from either pages and why one set of samples is allowed and another is flagged. Also, I do not follow your concern with having multiple audio samples. I chose to include a sample from the single and a sample from a song prominently discussehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&action=edit&section=2d in the promotion/review of the album. I could also limit the audio samples to just the single from the album.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope I do not come across as rude as I am grateful for your help. I just want to make sure I do not repeat the same mistakes in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@Aoba47: So sorry I didn't reply sooner, and I'm not really here right now. I'll get back to you first thing tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries! I just wanted to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Ok, sorry about that. The issue with the samples is quite a simple one; per WP:SAMPLE, the bitrate should be no more than around 64kbps. That page explains how to make the change if you don't already have a means. I was asking about the use of two samples because of NFCC#3a; we shouldn't use two samples if we can get away with using one. If two are indeed necessary, then two are acceptable- I don't have an opinion on whether two are necessary at this time. Also, take a look at the rationales and make sure that they're properly filled out with detailed, specific explanations. Template:Album cover fur is good for album covers, but the rationales for the samples are probably going to have to be written by hand. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick response! I am sorry for any inconvenience that I may have caused. I am still very new to Wikipedia so I am still trying to familiarize myself with everything. I probably should starting on a smaller level. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I have lowered the bitrate of the audio sample and added it to the page. Hopefully, I have done it correctly, but please let me know if it still needs work. I also agree that it is best to keep the number of audio samples to just one as it is a relatively short article and there is no need to overwhelm the piece. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Great stuff- thanks very much! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with Lancashire J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, all.

The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,

If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

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) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tatjana Višak

Hello! Your submission of Tatjana Višak 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! Edwardx (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Saving Private Ryan Soundtrack

Hey man,

I appreciate the review. I thought I had exhausted all the possible articles but I appreciate the stuff you've found. Although I am having trouble locating a link to the Calgary Herald article you mentioned in the review, as well as the title of the documentary or movie-thing that the youtube video was from. Could you possibly send the link for the former? And if you have any ideas on how to ID the movie from the youtube clip that would be awesome.

Thanks again. Disc Wheel (T + C) 01:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Disc Wheel: I found the Calgary Herald article through Nexis; there were a lot of hits, some of which may have also been relevant. You don't have to cite the online version of the article- the print version is fine. I'll have a shufty around about the YT video, but leaving a comment or PMing the uploader may be an option. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay sweet, I'll do that then; just having the link is nice and whatnot. Thanks man. Disc Wheel (T + C) 20:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

question

Hey, im in the [5] course and when i went on the dashboard and choose two articles to review, for some reason on the page itself of the course it has two names of wikipedia pages in the "assigned" column (one being my article, that of Anna Hamilton Phelan) and there are none in the "reviewing" column. How is this possible? and how can i remove the the other article thats in the "assigned" column next to my name?

Thanks Pepito gun (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tatjana Višak

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


Invitation to our April event

You are invited...

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

@Ipigott: Thanks, looks like a great project. I'll advertise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel free to send it on to anyone you think might be interested. Looking forward to your participation.--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cold Comfort (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 Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9)

The article Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cold Comfort (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 Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
Good work on the GA, also working with you has given me a new perspective of working on similar articles. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: Thanks- it was good working with you. I don't think I've seen you around before, but hopefully we'll bump into each other again soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope! In fact, if you find some spare time, would you mind taking a look at my WP:FA nomination of Kalki Koechlin. I would really appreciate the comments! NumerounovedantTalk 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: Ah! Yes, I had seen that. I'll see if I can find some time, but I can't make any promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that's alright. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 18:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points.

In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. 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, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 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 effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

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) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon

Hi, I was wondering if you could help produce a few articles towards this in April? The idea is that people can use the Amazon vouchers to buy books for their future projects. I'm sure the getting articles to GA is compatible with the WikiCup too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for the note! I did see that. I'm not sure how much I could contribute, but I'll have a think. I reviewed an fascinating Wales-related article at GAC recently, by the way; Midnightblueowl's Mari Lwyd. I don't know if she's sitting on any other Wales-related topics. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I know a few people who only have the time to contribute a single article. That's fine, even if a 3 kb expansion of something will all count. The focus is on core and quality rather than quantity really, though there are prizes for the people who destub the most articles and who expand/create the most articles on things like women. Anybody who doesn't like contests or prizes can simply work independently at their own pace and just add an article or two they've worked on at the list on the bottom. Tim did Welsh National Opera, Schro did Senghenydd colliery disaster, a current FAC. See if anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Core articles interests you. Have a think anyway, if you might do something feel free to put your name down in the participants section. No worries though if you want to pass!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Siobhan O'Sullivan

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Buster Keaton Rides Again

Hi J, I do need some advice here or perhaps some admin action over what has become a very tendentious situation that began when I edited Buster Keaton Rides Again. I noted that the screenshot title page could be replaced by a poster or cover art from the DVD of the film. Once the screenshot image was orphaned, the editor who had uploaded the file, complained to me that the original image should be used. I did explain on his home page the rationale behind the use of the infobox image. That didn't seem to help as the next thing was the editor canvassing his "mentor" (Masem) who used the same argument as to removing the image I had used, and later replaced with a more appropriate "dedicated" poster/cover art. Regardless, I again posted on the editor's talk page, the reasoning behind the infobox image, and as a "sign-of-good-faith", re-introduced the screenshot image as a non-free illustration, taking care to make sure it qualified by providing a rationale and a reference source. For awhile, that seemed to suffice, although the editor made it a point to re-edit my edits, and challenge the use of one of my sources of information. I made a comment on his talk page to the effect that actions like that should not take place. The next thing that occurred was that the editor again challenged the use of the infobox image, insinuating that the image used was "created" to supersede the screenshot. My reaction led to a long exchange on the discussion page which was erroneously listed as for discussion but it appears that the editor really meant to have the infobox image deleted. I went back through the article history to find only one edit made by the aforementioned editor in 2013 than a barrage of edits that were un-doing my previous edits. The edit history on other articles is precisely the same pattern of edits. What do you suggest? Nothing I say or provide as background seems to make any difference. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bzuk: My view of the use of the images (I do not want to comment on behavioural issues at this time) is that a single infobox image is acceptable, but I see no reason to think that two "representative" images (title cards, posters, covers, etc.) are acceptable in the present case. The question, then, is which one of the two images we use. As you have pointed out, the guidelines suggest that the original theatrical release poster is typically the best lead image, but that if we do not have one for some reason, a DVD (or VHS, etc.) cover could be used. A title card would be the right choice (your quote from the guideline) "[i]n the absence of an appropriate poster or cover image". I note the word appropriate, here, meaning that there's the possibility of legitimate disagreement about whether a given DVD cover is "appropriate". My understanding of the current discussion is that you think this DVD cover is appropriate, while George Ho believes that it is not appropriate. I don't think there are knock-down policy-based arguments either way. Perhaps a quick straw-poll (with a request to the appropriate WikiProjects) could decide it? Or have I misunderstood what is at stake, here? Also tagging Masem and George Ho so I'm not talking about anyone behind their back. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Care to join discussion at FFD then? George Ho (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for your patient guidance on how to work with citations, it will help me a lot in FACs to come. Will remember all that you said! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sainsf: Thanks for the note. Some of those citations were tricky; that conference proceeding one, for example, was pretty unusual! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but I got such a lot to learn from all this. Thanks for all those last minute fixes. Damn, how could I mix up those books and journals?! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
pulse of the earth
... you were recipient
no. 459 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The section requested is completed.

The section requested by both you and Tim Riley at the featured article nomination for Jane Austen has now been written and added. What is next for the featured article nomination to continue. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice and useful edits of yours at Jane Austen. It should take 2 or 3 days for me to pull some materials together for some new edits. In the meantime here are my two authorities for the Northanger material one of which is linked and which you might enjoy glancing at.
(1) Tomalin, Claire. Jane Austen: A Life. New York: Vintage, 1997, p. 165.
(2) [6]. "How Might Jane Austen Have Revised Northanger Abbey?, from Persuasions, a publication of the Jane Austen Society of North America by Aiken in 1985 (link provided).
It also confirms the writing dates for the manuscripts. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Responses complete now to your comments if you have a chance to look at them. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fountains-of-Paris: Noted, thanks; I'll aim to find some time to drop by again. If I haven't gotten to you in a week, ping me... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Heathenry

I think we should ask for temporary PP on that page because of the IP-hopping POV people; Alt-Right and a few others got temp PP for this exact reason. I'm not sure if it's a single person or coincidence but the Racialists are restless. I wanted a second opinion, though... Ogress 21:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ogress (also tagging Midnightblueowl): I'm inclined to agree. I considered protecting it myself, but I didn't think it was appropriate as I have been somewhat involved in the article and this is not so much vandalism as a content dispute (though, of course, one side in the dispute is currently not providing sources). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
IPs removing cited content and obscuring blatant racism isn't a "content dispute" though. Like, there's a debate with racialists on Alt-Right right now and also IPs deleting things the same way they are on this page. The two are not the same. Ogress 01:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
From the outside, I think this would look like a content dispute; there's a disagreement about how to present information, what information should be presented and precisely what the facts of the matter are. That's not to say that I think the IPs are going about this in the right way (they certainly aren't), but it does limit the actions I feel I can take as someone vaguely "involved" in the article. (I don't know what "Alt-Right" is; I guessed a Usenet board, but Googling suggests that you may be talking about the discussions going on at Talk:Alt-right?) In any case, please do consider making a request at RPP, and I'll keep an eye on things and perhaps step in further myself if the problems continue. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of getting a PP on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Ogress J Milburn although perhaps semi-protection is best given that we are mostly dealing with anonymous IPs? Either way they are being very persistent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep, they just reverted again and I'll all out of reverts. Ogress 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ivy – Disappointed (Video image)

Hello J Milburn, I noticed your recent nomination of the aforementioned image for deletion. I would like to say that I disagree with your explanation. Without the inclusion of the image, the article honestly looks bland and plain. I have created a better caption for the image in hopes that it will stay; I hope you can reconsider your decision or perhaps help me out otherwise. I would appreciate it, thank you. Carbrera (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: We do not and cannot use non-free images to stop articles from looking "bland and plain", we use them only when they add significantly to reader understanding. If you wish to use an image for decorative purposes, use a freely-licensed one. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey Josh! I opened a Peer Review for Kalki Koechlin, (after a long and exhausting FAC) and I would really appreciate some help. I need some help with the "Media Image" section of the article, so if you find some spare anytime soon could you take a look on just the section and help me arrange it in a better way. I am a little divided on the structure of the section. All the help would be really appreciated. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Sure, I'll try to find some time. Ping me in a week if I haven't got to this... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey Josh! As you asked, a reminder of my request. Get back to me whenever you find time. NumerounovedantTalk 20:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: I've copyedited the article and left some comments. It's certainly not a bad article, but, based on the prose alone, I'd say a bit of work needs to go into the article before its FAC ready. The key issues are the over-lengthy public image section and the weird way that (some) theatre discussion is split off from the details about the rest of her career. I'm watching the PR page, so feel free to reply there. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for such an extensive ce. I will take up your comments as well. Also, the only reason I have a separate section for the theatre work is because in India the theatre and film industries are totally unrelated to each other. So, I thought the details would work better in a separate section. Thanks again for all the work that you have put in! NumerounovedantTalk 16:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: My pleasure. I'm not opposed to keeping film and theatre info separate, but there seems to be at least three problems with the way it's done currently. First, there are some details of her theatre career in the film section; second, the film section is titled as her "career" when, as you say, she has a separate career in the theatre; and third, the details of her early (pre-career) life are included in the film career section. All of this adds up to skewing the article to being about her film career when both should receive coverage (not necessarily the same number of words [I have no view on that], but I hope you can see my concern). Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I totally understand your concerns, do you trimming the first paragraph (that includes bits from the Early Life section) would help? I am all for the "Career" - "Film Career" change. However, I do not see the mention of her work in theatre in the film career section. NumerounovedantTalk 17:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Numerounovedant: I'm sorry, my mistake; I thought the early life section was a part of the film career section. That does mean that some of my concerns were misplaced. Just as a thought (by no means necessary!) you may want to consider splitting the article like this (I self-reverted- it's your call). That's perhaps how I would do it. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
How about this? NumerounovedantTalk 17:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Knight Lore/archive1

Per your comment on the peer review, would you have a moment to leave a quick review of this one? czar 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: If I haven't gotten to this in a week, ping me again... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Unarchiving... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Title TK/archive1

Hi Josh, how are you? I hope all is well with you. I was wondering whether you might possibly have time to look at this Peer Review. If you do, I would be very happy to help you out with anything now or in the future to return the favour. :-) Of course, if you don't happen to have time, no worries at all! Have a good day. Moisejp (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Moisejp: Hi, good to hear from you- I'll see if I can find some time, but I'm afraid I can't make any promises! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Unarchiving... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn/archive42&oldid=1143365515"