User talk:J Milburn/archive32

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

Vote

Can you please vote here. Thanks. Rodrigo15 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to several wikiepdia members those are reliable sources. They are the official websites from Phonographic industries. Rodrigo15 (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Ok, i've replaced all the "questionable sources" on Nightwish discography, but many of the new sources are coming from Nightwish's official website, cause i couldn't get any other realiable site, but now i hope the current references are enough cause there are no other place to get references. Rodrigo15 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup Question

Is it against cup rules if I request that a particular editor (who is also participating in the cup) conduct a GA review? Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 01:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not as such, no, but that's a pretty bad idea anyway. It kind of undermines the whole GAC process. I would advise against this. J Milburn (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the reason I wanted to use the particular reviewer (Legolas2186), because I wanted the article in question to be better prepared for FAC, with most major concerns being dealt with. Would you still advise against? Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 01:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm speaking as a regular at GAC more than a WikiCup judge when I say that asking specific people to do reviews is a bad thing. If you want to note that you intend to take it to FAC, use the "note" function, and the reviewer will probably look twice as hard. From a WikiCup perspective, any kind of deliberate "in-house" reviewing would rightfully trigger alarm bells from those not involved in the Cup, as it implies a "one rule for one, different rule for another" kind of situation. There's nothing wrong with asking a specific person to take a look at the article in preparation for the likes of GAC or FAC, but asking someone to do the GAC review is a little questionable. Certainly not a good habit to get in to. J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll let the nom take its course. Thanks! Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Purposefully butting in Milburn, apologize for that. The real problem is there are very few good reviewers for the music related articles. Most of them look for the frivolous issues and pass articles, result being the deteriorating conditions of the music articles. So I'm not sure how much you will be benefitted by putting that note Candy. Its just an overall concern. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I can appreciate that worry (pop culture articles often don't go down that well at FAC, either) but the process has still got to be respected. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Thats why I seny candyo332 to you. Thanks again. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question

Hello! Thank you for signing me in. I have a question. If I get Skanderbeg's Italian expedition to GA status soon, will points be awarded to me? Much of the work was done in December and that is why I am not sure.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine- you've clearly done significant work this year, and it will be nominated this year. Fascinating subject! J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A similar question

If a reviewer starts a GA review in December, but passes it in January, is it eligible for GA review points? Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. If the main bulk of the review was in January (as in, all they did in December was say "yeah, I'll review this") then that's OK, but, otherwise, no. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

In response to copyright questions for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bank_of_Hills_and_MBM_logo.jpg - These are subsidiaries of Sterling Bank and the logos are owned by Sterling Bank. As the Vice President of Sterling Bank, we are given full authority to upload these images. Smgriffin0815 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 04:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:KR Kiva Title Card.jpg

There's a fair use rational here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting an image of Studs Terkel

Hi Milburn. I have seen that you are involved in the OTRS process, and have been able to collect several nice files for the project.

In our article on Studs Terkel, we only have a free image of Terkel and its not very good. There are many great images of him out there, and I would like to ask the rights holders, possibly the Chicago History Museum, if they be willing to release one image under a free license. How do I do it, and would you be willing to help me? Cheers. —P. S. Burton (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My ITN for Sargent Shriver

Would my ITN for Sargent Shriver count in the current WikiCup? I got it early this morning. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Miller recieves the Navy Cross

A new and larger version has been uploaded here for your consideration. NauticaShades 19:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Does it count if I wrote a WikiNews article that appear on the current affairs portal? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Everything for which you can score points is listed on the scoring page; points can be awarded only for content on the English language Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Mr Milburn,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Danny Lee Wynter.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 21, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-01-21. howcheng {chat} 03:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to avoid "deletionism".

I figure that you and other users who tag images per DI are not doing it personally, but there need to be more editors who actually maintain fair use. Not doing that could easily be mistaken for file "deletionism". mechamind90 16:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Look. I stopped after noticing your message, so you don't need to bring it up anymore. Unfortunately, the balance still hasn't been found yet. I do know copyright infringement exists, though. It sounds as though you're saying it as if I don't. mechamind90 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • In addition, make sure you don't assume I'm one-sided. I did have retagged some such images before as "replaceable fair use". mechamind90 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You're an admin anyway, so I'm definitely not assuming that you are one of the users who might inappropriately tag for deletion. It's the non-admins that I would be paranoid about. mechamind90 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article nomination comments

Thank you for taking the time to review my nomination of ZX81 as a featured article candidate. I have responded to the issues you raised in the FAC discussion - could you please review my replies and let me know if you're satisfied? Prioryman (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Warelwast/archive1

Hate to be a pest, but have my changes met with your satisfaction? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup signups

I'd appreciate if you could respond to the two signup requests at Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Guoguo12--Talk--  03:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kereetadavesha.jpg. I

Hi Milburn, Thank you for reminding me about the photo 'fair use' policy. This photo is not from the news paper but from Sandeep who has provided a link to his album. I am inexperienced in this but there should be no copy right issues. I am frantically trying to change the author name to Sandeep Bhagawath and license to public. But do not know how. Please wait while myself and Sandeep fix this and please with hold deletion. Thank you. ~rAGU (talk)

Hi Milburn,
I have written (email) permission from the author Sandeep to use his work for the purpose of wiki as long as I mention his :authorship. It will be great if you can help with change of info for the image.
~rAGU (talk)
Hi,
I have requested a written confirmation using the wiki format. permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org will also be cced when he replies.
Regards
~rAGU (talk)
Hi Milburn,
Now the work is released under GPL. I have the written confirmation in the wiki format. Wikipedia is also emailed a copy of that :::permission.
I hope this settles the issue. Please confirm.
~rAGU (talk)
Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Sabrebd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your opinion requested

Hi JM, Vision Holder and I were talking about including this image in an article we're working on, and wondering about the licensing. It's clear from the text that we're allowed (and encouraged) to use the maps, but not so clear how we should describe the licensing when uploading to Commons. Any advice? Sasata (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Jeanbartpolish.jpg

Hi. You keep tagging this image for deletion as having no rationale. It has a rationale. Please stop tagging it for deletion. If you are doing your tagging automatically, please check your automated scripts, as they are faulty. fish&karate 14:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

it does not have a rationale, so I reverted you removal of the deletion tag. ΔT The only constant 14:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking to you, as the issue is J Milburn's tagging of it, but it does have a rationale. Don't revert it again, please. fish&karate 14:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That really is not a rationale. A rationale needs to explain what the image shows, why that absolutely needs to be shown, and why what is being shown absolutely could not be shown by free media. Formatting it in Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful. In the mean time, I have retagged the image as having no rationale- it goes without saying that this is now delving into three revert rule territory, and I don't think any of us want to go there. If you are going to remove the tag again, please first expand on the rationale. For the record, I am not using any script, I am manually tagging each time (though, the second time, I just clicked on it in my watchlist, I didn't check the page history and had clearly forgotten about my previous tagging). J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Engvar

When you get a chance, could you check the validity of edits by 194.80.246.1 (talk · contribs) and the related thread on my talk page? I'm not familiar enough with British English to know how to proceed. Thanks. Jujutacular talk 03:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the IP was blocked anyway. Thanks though. Jujutacular talk 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Redeye gaper
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Chaunax stigmaeus dorsal view2.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. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Olivia Shakespear

Hi, was wondering if you'd interested in having a look at the images in Olivia Shakespear again? It's currently undergoing a GA review and the images have been brought up again. I would understand if you don't want to, but hope you would. I'd be happy to remove any images that can't be justified. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm wondering about File:Olivia Tucker Shakespear.png, File:FlorenceFarrFace.jpg, and File:Maudgonne.jpg. I've removed them from the page for now. If they're cleared I'll reinstate, otherwise leave them out. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fairuse Dot Branning

Please review your blanket nominations for deletion of fairuse on this article. I have removed superfluous images and attempted to keep ones that I think have merit. EastEnders' wikiproject has multiple active members and so I request that if you have concerns about particular pages in the future, to bring these up at the wikiproject or the article's talk page so some sort of discussion can be had. Your blanket tagging without any form of discussion appears to go against the assume good faith policy and is alienating and antagonising the editors of these articles unnecessarily. You will find that most contributers are open to discussion.GunGagdinMoan 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Scream GA

Thank you for reviewing the article. Per your comments I've improved the article. There were a few instances where I've not made a change but that's merely because I had a question etc. I've responded where required. Please take a look and drop me a message on my talkpage when done. :) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk]

Hi there. I've resolved (or tried my best to), the issues still noted. With regards to the comment about the sonic sound etc... i've provided more links where possible and tried to simplify the sentence. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi J, Its been a few days since I've made changes to the article etc. but I've not heard from you. I just wondered if you had forgotten? or if you've just been busy. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
OR... its great minds thinking alike!! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I'll work on the music video synopsis in the mean time. I had resolved all of the other things in the mean time. Hopefully we can get it done in time for the wikicup submissions. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Resolved. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removal

Hi, I noticed you removed a speedy tag that I placed on one of your categories. I have reverted this because it is against Wikipedia policy to remove speedy deletion tags of categories you create. I have placed the tag because I do not believe this is the type of category intended to be exempt from C1. There's no reason to keep around placeholder "images" categories like this one, it is not the type of category intended to be empty on occasion. If you still believe it should be deleted please instead place the hang on template along with the reasons you think it should be exempt from C1. Thanks, 69.59.200.77 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair point; I've used a hangon template instead. As to the actual category, what, other than the fact {{PD-DPRKGov}} is (obviously) not used that often, is the difference between this and Category:United States government images? The latter could in theory become empty after all the images are instead uploaded to Commons. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that category would qualify for deletion if empty as well. Perhaps a better question would be why is this category any different from Category:Images of Bedfordshire, an image category tagged as C1 by an admin as needing deletion. Also, if these images are supposed to be on commons, then it would probably be better served simply being tagged as needing to be transferred to commons than temporarily placing them in a category on Wikipedia. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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 GAC, 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, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

I just wanted to tell you a user has commented about the EV on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pedro II of Brazil nomination. Spongie555 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if your still watching this nomination but someone responded to your comment. Spongie555 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The article is the lead image in the Apogee of Pedro II of brazil article as explained more by Lecen in the nomination. I don't know if that adds more EV to it. Spongie555 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Your reason would be appreciated. Spongie555 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
According to what I have read in the Pedro II of Brazil main article during his Apogee he traveled to America and used a pseudonym to travel around the country so he didnt use his offical title as emperor that much. For him to stop by Matheww Brady's shop to take a picture was rare for Brady as he doesnt take pictures of world leaders. Also it looks like that each article in the series of Pedro II have an updated photo of him(like each article has a picture so viewers can see what he looks like during the time frame).Spongie555 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe what J Milburn is trying to say it that it doesn't matter if the photo has an excelent quality, or if it was taken by a renowned photographer or if it despicts a famous monarch. It would have matter if it was enough to make anyone say: "Woooww!!" Like this one or this one. That is, enough to call the attention of any user, not just someone interested in history. He may correct me if I'm wrong.
That's not what I am saying at all. I just don't see how this image is adding to the article to such an extent that it is worthy of featured picture status. The FP star is about a lot more than just high quality pictures. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup query

Hi. Let's say that, unbeknownst to me, some other uninvolved editor created an article, I subsequently create an article on the same topic, but it's longer. Later on, the article/topic gets suggested for ITN either by me or another editor, one article title gets merged to the other, and a cooperation between me and other editors improves the article, and then it is ready for ITN, before being posted. In this scenario, would I be able to present my edits to the article I created and/or to the final version ready for ITN for the judges to review for inclusion as a WikiCup entry? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 03:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo Question

Hi,

I'm Kirk Stauffer, a Seattle photographer. You were refered to me by User:Leahtwosaints.

Please see this page ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KT_Tunstall_Seattle_2010.jpg

I would like to know how I can have the word KirkStauffer (below the photo) link back to my Flickr account for instance instead of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:KirkStauffer

Thanks, Kirk — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirkStauffer (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.— Arctic Night 19:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bornean Slow Loris GAN

I was wondering if you had a moment to revisit the Bornean Slow Loris GAN. I apologize for missing your unanswered question, and I hope I have answered it in a satisfactory manner. If you have any further concerns, please let us know. Thank you for your time and review. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Persistent blanking of properly sourced content by IP editor

Hello Milburn, wonder if you could wave your magic wand to salt the article page of Type 45 destroyer for a week or two? Honestly, we're quite fed-up with the content blanking rhetoric of a certain IP editor over the last 48 hour period. Thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone else has already protected the page, and I see the IP is on a last warning- if they come back after the protection expires, just report them at AIV. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup question

I submitted a newly featured DYK to my submissions page on 2 February 2011, but the bot still hasn't update my score. Is there a problem with my submission? Guoguo12--Talk--  20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Same with me, [1]. Spongie555 (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so Spongie's the odd one out: just a simple syntax error (including the HTML comment). Guoguo and about 4 other editors who are yet to score - and thus to discover the error - had submissions pages at the "wrong" locations, but I've moved them now so all should be fine. Happy editing :). - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 12:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries JM. I get a nice detailed list on demand of where the errors are, makes 'em pretty easy/quick to isolate and fix. One day we may even get bots that'll be able to "know what you mean" without my intervention :) - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 13:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


File:1971gamlaemblem.gif

I have provided additional info for the non free image rationale template and a commentary of why the image is needed. Please rethink your decision or inform me on my talkpage. Thanks! Reckless182 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the images add a significant value for the reader of the article. Sure I could just write a description of every logo in that image. However I believe that the logos in themselves add more value to the article (the specific section in which they are in especially) than just a simple text description. That is my opinion. Reckless182 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
What about File:Aston Villa FC.png which is part of a featured article? The images uses the same rationale as I do, or I am I wrong?Reckless182 (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
How about now then? I've added the same reason, to illustrate the evolution of the crest. I can't see anything else that is wrong with the use of this image. Reckless182 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry If I'm being unclear. I have already explained my opinion of why the reader needs the images. As I said before: The inages explain the evolution of the club crest in much better way than a simple text description does. and no other images than the image in question can do this. No offence but I still haven't heard your explanation for why the images shouldn't be in the article. Reckless182 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I can't see why the images should be deleted without reason? you have written:"Not clear why these four non-free images are needed. The copy-paste rationale is not useful". Could you please explain this further? What do you mean with "copy paste rationale"? The crest evolution is mentioned in the last sentence of the third paragraph. Reckless182 (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It does meet the criteria so I still can't see why it should be deleted. I already answered your question above. Reckless182 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you then please tell me on which point (or points) the image fails the NFCC? Because I can't see it. --Reckless182 (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That's fine then. Go ahead and delete it. I can see what you mean now, I couldn't see it before you actually specified on what point the image fails. Maybe I'll upload it when I have some more sourced content on the evolution of the crest but I can see that it might not be enough at the moment to make the image needed. Excuse me for my lack of expertise on image policy!

Submissions

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at KimChee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No problem, I think I get it now. :) KimChee (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue

You are an admin, who has signed up with the Good Article project. Can you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_passing_several_articles_without_doing_reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot use

I was wondering if you could run your bot to replace all instances of File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06.jpg with File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg (a cleaned up, featured version) in the article namespace. This came to my attention through Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (you should probably wait until the nomination is closed). It appears to have a bit over 100 links [2]. Jujutacular talk 02:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore that. It was used in a template that has now been fixed. Regards, Jujutacular talk 02:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Just wanting to know how the process of this review is going. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup entries

Hi. I have added some submissions to my WikiCup page. However, no bot has come around to update the table, and I still see no change in the page itself. Am I missing a portion of the submission process? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 20:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Ugly Duchess
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Quentin Massys 008.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. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

taxobox fun...

If you have a few minutes...both White Stork and Stonehenge have discussions about which taxobox images to use...Talk:White_Stork#Taxobox_image and Talk:Stonehenge#Stonehenge_Total.jpg_vs._Stonehenge-Green.jpg Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivium

Hi J Milburn. You were involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivium in 2007 (see the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivium). The project is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivium. Is there anything worth keeping, or should it be deleted? Cunard (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Einstein photo deletion

You deleted File:Einstein in UK.jpg stating "You can't just keep uploading an image every time it is deleted." However, the reasons for its first deletion were corrected by the recently added and extensive commentary directly relating to and describing this image. That was also noted on the revised summary information of the newer image. As for contacting the original deleting admin., their name was deleted with the original image, so maybe you can find it. At a minimum, it seems that this image should be proposed for discussion as its original defects were corrected and it now supports the critical commentary. Hope you can help.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You have proposed that File:Death headline.jpg be deleted as replaceable. What free newspapers existed in the year of Einstein's death? Could the amount and substantiality issue (US fair use factor 3; WP:NFCC factor 3b) be solved by blurring out the text of stories on the left half of the page? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would add that the official Notice (template) on the image page states two requirements: 1) "Notify the uploader: . . . ", and 2) "Add following to the image captions . . . " Otherwise, the image will simply vanish from the article without any way for interested watching editors to have fixed the apparent defect, read image talk comments, see who tagged it for deletion, see who deleted it, or anything else, without complicated research. I brought this same concern to User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise yesterday who responded that he simply "refuses to do them" unless they are automated. Since you are also an experienced admin, maybe you can answer this concern, which has been of obvious benefit to others, including Jonas Salk's son who wanted to replace images with tagged captions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Damien: I have not once suggested that there are any "free newspapers existed in the year of Einstein's death". My objection is on NFCC#8 grounds. Wikiwatcher: I have no real opinion on that issue. If you like, I could simply remove the images from the article in the mean time? J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It would make more sense to just delete all the tags and keep the image until someone figures out what the guidelines call for. Otherwise, admins will use their own discretion and cherry-pick whatever rules they feel like relying on or ignoring. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not an issue of waiting until someone files the right report with the right things said to the right location. If an image is unwarranted, it is probably going to remain unwarranted. Your objection seems to either be to the NFCC generally, or the fact that images that do not meet them are removed; sorry, but both of those are going to remain in the forseeable future. J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Neither of those are at issue. The essence of the required tag is to act as a "notice" to others and allow time to repair the stated defects. A fixed time limit is given, even for speedies, and the image discussed above gives 7 days. That warning is stated clearly to apply to uploaders and all interested editors, which is why it says the notice is also to be added to the caption, so others can see it. Your comment seems to imply that the notice "requirement" is a mere formality but not taken seriously by admins: "If an image is unwarranted it is probably going to remain unwarranted." How else to explain why the first paragraph above about another image, where it states that "the reasons for its first deletion were corrected," was totally ignored, even though you deleted the latest image. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comment on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Althea Gibson’s Wimbledon Trophy 1956. As you said, this is my first time, and it certainly won't be my last ;) Just wait. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 01:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/Submissions/Sp33dyphil and see if my edits are credible? Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 01:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I'm trying to promote the article Airbus A330 to GA status, but the reviewer, Arsenikk, doesn't seem to be paying attention much. Nearly every comment of his at Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 have been fulfilled, but it looks like he's not going to respond soon. Can you please tell him, since you're an admin, because my calls for his comments have fallen on deaf ears. Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 05:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Remember the Manila Purple Line article? I think you should check-out its GAC Talk:Manila Purple Line/GA1. « ₣M₣ » 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey, do you think this Cort has FPC potential? Sasata (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ORTS question

Hi JM- This is up your alley and I'm getting frustrated and desperate. ALL the images I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons has been via Flickr. However for more than a year, I've been dying to get a permit for use of other photos via ORTS, however, each time I've gone about trying to get or use one, it asks for my username (which is the same in any Wikipedia, etc.) but then for a password-- WHAT password?!?? Is it some secret society to keep good photos with permission to be used via Creative Commons' CC-BY-SA or.. what?! Would you please tell me what is required? Thanks. Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's confusing. Commons doesn't make it any less confusing. When I go hunting for photos that are almost non-existant in free image form, I end up hunting for the "right" picture for an article lacking one that isn't crap or outdated, or missing. I first have to gain the photographer's trust, and then talk them out of (in some cases, lucrative book deals, as I did with some early Rolling Stones making actual money on selling them. ANYWAY, my point is, "Why is it simple enough to either manually upload -- or use a bot from Commons to upload photos from Flickr but at the same time, the exact same photographers I've met there, right and email me top notch photos from their personal photo websites, and I can't do shit with them, b/c of --WHAT? I'm responsible enough to judge the validity of the actual photos and photographers or whatever-- but why am I unable to upload photos from other places where I have the emails proving the permission to upload to Commons for the Wikipedias??????? Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Einstein in U.K. image

I researched his visit and came across a similar image, here, where the text included "local EDP reporter of the time - September 1933 - got a tip off and managed to track the professor down for an interview." This would support a reasonable assumption that the images were first published in the U.K. in 1933, and the Life copy from which the deleted image was taken, is a reprint. This should allow for use of the Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure template. Can you restore the deleted "Einstein in UK.jpg" image and add the revised copyright info? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, I'm really not interested in arguing about whether the correct procedure was followed. I'm happy to discuss whether the image should be retained, however, and certainly happy to discuss the possibility that it is free. I'm extremely tired- could you please explain why you believe they were published in 1933 in the UK? J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
And, as I have said repeatedly, I have deleted nothing. Please check the deletion log. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
They was apparently taken at about the same time by the reporter for local newspaper, EDP(?), as quoted in the paragraph above. The original image was deleted by User:Explicit[3], but he has not been available for the last week. Since you deleted it from the article a few days ago, I was hoping you could also review the above research and restore it when you're able. I'd be happy to revise the permissions. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

J Milburn: I've been involved in exchanges with Wikiwatcher1 about passages he recently added the Einstein page involving Oliver Locker-Lampson. I deleted some of it, as it is merely hearsay/speculation from a writer who clearly is ignorant of the science: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Einstein&action=edit&section=16

I'm arguing for deleting some fresh stuff Wikiwatcher1 has posted which gives more information about Locker-Lampson that actually has nothing to do with Einstein. See my comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Einstein&action=edit&section=15

I'd welcome your view. Esterson (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

N.B. Sorry, I gave the wrong URLs. They should have been, respectively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein#Einstein_in_England_1933

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein#Request_image_restoration 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330

Could you please have a look at Airbus A330 and post a message on the talk page, or Talk:Airbus A330/GA1, about whether it should be passed or not. User Arsenikk, the reviewer, seems to not respond to my recent requests on his/her talk page. Thanks Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 08:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Arsenikk responded some 12 hours earlier on Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 and also Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Not responding. Pyrotec (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup

I withdrew two weeks ago, but that still hasn't been acted upon. Could you please do so? Dylan620 (t • c) 22:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Hi J. I emailed the singer of Flux Information Sciences about two years ago asking for help with the band's article, and he sent me a bunch of stuff, press clippings, background info, and liks to images on their website he though I could use. So I uploaded the pics, but of course they were deleted (see attile history logs). I had the same problem with 18th Dye around the same time, images sent by the band they wanted used, but were deleted. To be honest image policy is confusing to me, there is a lot and its very densely stated. I would appreciate if you could let me know the best way to go about this; if I just ask them to send a link an image from their websites and expressly say I release all right to this image into the public domain and send the email to you, that good enough? Thanks. Ceoil 11:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I can forward the emails to you if needed, just dont want to send them unsolicited. Ceoil 11:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
They were not expressly relased into the public domain in the emails, they just said, go ahead use them. Ive emailed them back with a script to send me, and will send on to OTRS. Thanks. Ceoil 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.

- Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.]

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Racal-Redac

I have found that back in 2007 sometime you deleted a reference to a company calle Racal-Redac, is there any way I can see this article? I would like to resurrect it - but improve it and make it acceptable for wikipedia. Thanks Darrell Webb

What was the exact name of the article? There's nothing at Racal-Redac. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

[4] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible FP

What do you think of this image? The setting and quality is fantastic, but the image is a wee bit small...ResMar 05:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Clint Eastwood Fistful of Dollars.jpg

Can you check the PD claims regarding File:Clint Eastwood Fistful of Dollars.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to nominate it for discussion somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not a picture guy. I will nominate it at PUF if you think that is the correct thing to do. Let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for piggybacking onto this thread; I have noticed this image file at A Fistful of Dollars and I think the copyright claim is mistaken. I have raised my reasoning at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 February 24#File:Clint Eastwood Fistful of Dollars.jpg. User:Dr. Blofeld mentions that you approved the image in the GA review for Talk:Clint Eastwood. Similarly, I think File:Eastwood Good Bad and the Ugly.png suffers the same dilemma and it is discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 February 24#File:Eastwood Good Bad and the Ugly.png. Could you voice your opinion on these items there for discussion? Jappalang (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nargis and sons

Firstly, the main poster is the original english version which we should always try to use. Secondly I did not add the poster after removing it from the infobox. Shahid added it on grounds that the image of Nargis shooting her own son it one of Hindi cinema's iconic moments and should be represented. Thirdly I did not add a new rationale I simply copied it form the old image' I thought this image was much better. Fourthly, album covers are generally accepted in GA and FA articles on Hindi films because the soundtracks to the films are often as important or even more important to the film itself. See Dhoom 2 for example. Fifthly, one image should be acceptable at least to illustrate an important scene in the film or concept in relation to the text which I believe the images in the themes section meet. Sixthly, if you are not happy with the rationale you can always alter it yourself and show me which rationale I should actually be using.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that it is pretty irritating to put in some hours of work on an article and to have somebody turn up on your talk page telling you to STOP doing something and how my knowledge of fair use imagery is on par with a newbie. Yes I agree that fair use images need to have a proper rationale and should not be abused but I can't helping thinking that we often have an overly strict policy on them. I agree with you on this, perhaps if I was to upload this and remove the current two images in the themes and use this to accompany the text discussing the shooting of her son with a proper rationale it would be more accpetable. You might respond with some smart alec comment that no images are needed but as I say that scene is important and an iconic one in Hindi cinema which I think should be pictured. I've removed the soundtrack image as it was too large for fair use anyway and not good quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You may delete Mother India poster.jpg and Nargis and sons.jpg. As I'm not certain exactly what sort of rationale you are after or what design can you kindly add whatever rationale template you want in File:Mother India Nargis.jpg and show me where to write why it is being used. If you can do one example or at least show me then I'm likely to remember it. I'll write it but please at least add the basic rationale template and parameters or whatever you want.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I get frustrated because images like File:Clint Eastwood Fistful of Dollars.jpg get deleted and some smart alec always does the legal research to prove why it can't be used. It sucks.... I think we are jeopardising quality because of this strict image policy we have. The Clint Eastwood article will be considerably worse off without these images. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing is I see a lot of double standards, some people claim images can be used under certain rationales as fair use and others say none of them are permitted and you'll see some with several and other with none at all. Fight Club (film) used to have images which was used "for criticial commentary", low res images which for some reason were removed leaving the article incredibly bland in appearance, even if very well written. Admittedly I like images in articles, but I like is not a valid fair use policy, agreed. I think at least a single image of a film or a video game can be encyclopedic if it is directly related to the text. Lack of images really make articles bland in my view. Films are visual mediums so writing about them without any form of image is a shame I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Eastwood Good Bad and the Ugly.png should be kept under fair use I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody ever considered actually contacting a film company and requesting permission to use a restricted number of low res images of the films in articles? Because I'm pretty certain that wikipedia is a big enough site to be able to do that. I think that some film companies would be happy to have images of their films on wikipedia and would see it as a promotion even if the images are encyclopedic and not "adverts" as such. I think its time we contacted some companies and actually heard what their views are on wikipedia using images from their films. Would be very interesting to hear.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Grrrr yeah its the free to reproduce obligations which have caused me to also lose loads of flickr agreements in the same way. They are happy for wikipedia to use the images but not happy for other people to reproduce them and profit. I think there was a debate about us changing the license a while back to accept images which are Creative Commons No Deriratives but a lot of people thought it too radical and contrary to producing a "free encyclopedia". Of course one can google images images of film within seconds but its not the same as have a beautifully illustrated article...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK the pink poster has returned. pLease delete Mother India Nargis.jpg and Mother India.jpg♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 26, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 26, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dakota Blue Richards

Dustbin Baby is a BBC television film directed by Juliet May, based on Jacqueline Wilson's 2001 novel Dustbin Baby. It was first broadcast on BBC One on 21 December 2008. The film stars Dakota Blue Richards as April, a troubled teenager who was abandoned in a dustbin as a baby, and Juliet Stevenson as Marion Bean, April's adoptive mother. The screenplay was written by Helen Blakeman, and the film was produced by Kindle Entertainment. Dustbin Baby deals with themes including maternal bonding, bullying, and youth crime. The story revolves around April running away on her fourteenth birthday, while Marion searches for her. Both Jaqueline Wilson and critics responded positively to the film. It was released on DVD on 12 January 2009. Dustbin Baby was awarded the International Emmy in the children and young people category at the 2009 ceremony. Helen Blakeman won a Children's BAFTA for the screenplay, while the film itself was shortlisted for a Children's BAFTA in the drama category and shortlisted for the Kids' Vote award. The film was also awarded the 2010 KidScreen Award for best one-off, special, or TV movie aimed at a family audience and the KidScreen Award for best acting. (more...)

Wikicup

Please reinstate me and my Wikicup points. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CUP

hello,

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film/archive1; today is the last day; omg D:. This list is going to be promoted, but possibly not today. Are there any options to go into the second round?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns about the above user's GA reviews, and the fact that WikiCup appears to be the motivation. See Talk:Lula 3D/GA1 and Talk:2011 Australian Open/GA1 for two ends of the spectrum. —WFC— 17:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You did remove my points, I really thank you for this, Mr. Milburn. But I still didn't receive the answer of my question above. When will the first round exactly end; what time, what time zone? I see no such information on WP:CUP.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think we're talking UTC; well, it would surprise me if we weren't. (Oh, and on an unrelated not, you can remove the single quote marks from your signature I think, and the spaces after the colons, to save a few characters. And possibly -color as well, I think.)- Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I went ahead and submitted a DYK yesterday. I am not sure if this would count towards the first round, or if I should have waited to submit it for the second round, but just letting you know! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeared on Main Page on 2/27. Thanks for the quick response. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011


Your GA nomination of Northern Lites

The article Northern Lites you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Northern Lites for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikicup Question

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this but thought I'd ask. Are there any points for nominating DYK articles that you haven't worked on, besides minor tweaks? WormTT 08:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought as much. Will probably be doing quite a few over the next few weeks (can't see why people are complaining that there are not enough hooks, when there is a plethora of new articles out there!) but was curious to know if there was any wikicup recognition. No problem if there's not - still worth doing WormTT 11:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dustbin Baby

I'm not sure what kind of good faith it is to say, "With all due respect you don't know I have no idea what you're talking about." WP:ELNO-5 forbids "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." Common sense dictates that if the 5th-most visited Internet site in the world allows businessed to simply add links that drive traffic to their sites, then what is to stop play.com or netflix or anyone else from adding hundreds or thousands of links as inline citations to home-media section? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As you are on the verge of a WP:3RR vio, I think it best than an RfC be called to prevent edit warring. I'll be glad to go ahead and do it.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I did not remove your content. We evidently had an edit conflict. I resent the implication, as I have done nothing in these proceedings that would even suggest that I would do such a thing. Your incivility and lack of good faith are remarkable.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It shows up that way sometimes when there's an edit conflict and one takes the "Your text" and puts it into the top box. Your blasphemous comment aside, you are wrong here. I did not remove your comment. In my entire history of Wikipedia, nearly 48,000 edits, I have never removed another editor's comments. Why would I start now? Your lack of good faith is appalling.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
'No 'blasphemy'.? "Good God"?
I did not remove your content. An "edit conflict" screen came up, I put my "your text" into the main box, and that was all I did. How the programming works from there, I don't know. But I did not even touch your content. If you don't believe me for any other reason, just consider that I have no reason to remove your content, and even if I did have some cockamamie reason, do you seriously believe an editor of over 5 1/2 years and 48,000 edits doesn't know what a History page tracks? Jeeminy Christmas. I did not touch your comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're unaware that in an "Edit conflict" page that moving material from "Your edit" to the top box supersedes what is in the top box, then that is not my problem. But to threaten me because you don't know that is an abuse of admin authority. If we're going to escalate this, fine. I can also bring up your verbal abuse and the way you're rejecting an RS journalistic source in order to move traffic to sales sites. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I admire your candor and your thoughtfulness, and I, too, am sorry for my own part in what escalated further than two experienced editors such as ourselves should have let occur. I'm absolutely happy to consider you a collegial colleague — someone who cares passionately about this project is a valuable resource. (Though I'm glad you put "my" in quotation marks.) Looking on the bright side, I've learned yet another nuance of the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So: No hard feelings, and I'll do what I can to rectify things. I appreciate your being an honorable person and having the integrity to post what you have on my talk page. With genuine regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Television film infobox

Hello, since you wrote a Featured Article about a television film, I was wondering what you think about merging the television film infobox with the standard film infobox. There is a discussion about it here. Anything you can add? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Permissions

As you seem to be the pro for negotiating artists to release works under free licenses, I thought I would draw your attention to this thread: Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Free Downloads or Bach organ but uncertain licence status. Regards, Jujutacular talk 08:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Character images

Hey, hope you're doing well. I recently found an older image of a popular celebrity standing with a dressed up character at a theme park. The image is listed with no copyright limitations, but does the copyrighted character mean I'll have to crop the image? A quick glance at Commons found images such as this and this, but I don't know if they've just not been scrutinized yet for deletion (or if it is allowed). If you have any idea, please let me know. Cropping's not going to look that great, but I'd rather at least get the crop then nothing at all if there is a copyright issue. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Awkward. I'll get back to you when I have a bit more time. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, I appreciate you taking the time to research it. I've uploaded the image, we'll see if the main editors of the article want to keep it there. Thanks again! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:David Yates/GA2

David Yates is now being renominated for GA status. If you have any comments on the article, feel free to add them to the review page linked above. Geometry guy 20:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Mining lamp candidature

You watched the nomination page and saw my answer? --kaʁstn 12:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive answer... --kaʁstn 14:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Kereetadavesha.jpg

Hi Milburn, Someone has deleted this photo even after provinding all the details and permisions as per your instructions. Can you please help? Can you talk this user below and explain that this is resolved ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Feydey#File:Kereetadavesha.jpg ~rAGU (talk)

THANK YOU Milburn ~rAGU (talk)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Mr Milburn,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:MARTAKIS1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 21, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-03-21. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't update your userpage - I can't, since it's protected (a condition I rather object to, since it avails you of a convenience unavailable to the rest of us, but whatever) so you'll have to do it yourself. Since (I infer) you don't use a template, note that rhodium and platinum have also been swapped in the descriptions but not the filenames. Herostratus (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, you slap a template on my talk page that clearly doesn't apply, then explain that it doesn't apply while having a stab at me for protecting my own userpage? I believe there are ways around it so that you can "protect" your own page as I do, or you could just use an external site. Alternatively, if your objection genuinely was that it merely means I lose an advantage, then I'm not sure I buy that as an argument anyway. In any case, I have updated the star- thanks for letting me know, I suppose. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Having his personal user page protected is a problem? As a general rule, others shouldn't be editing someone else's userpage... what's wrong with leaving the note here and letting J deal with it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your article review work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail

You have an email. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

File:My Life As Me by Barry Humphries.jpg

File:My Life As Me by Barry Humphries.jpg

Did you happen to read the edit summary? There is no problem with the fair use rationale: the suitability or unsuitability of an image for an article is a matter that needs to be decided at that article, and it should either be seen as suitable and thus used in the article or it should be seen as unsuitable and deleted as an orphan. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already told you: by itself, there's nothing wrong with it. If this were the only non-free image used there, it would not be problematic, and the appropriateness of one non-free image over another is not a matter to be decided by speedy deleting one or more of them. There's nothing to be lost by waiting a week for the orphan process. Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
That's wrong on several levels. The FUR is quite obviously objectively wrong. The bookcover tag speaks of using the bookcover "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". Which the article doesn't do (it only briefly mentions the book within a list). At the same time, the enigmatic FUR speaks about using the image not to support discussion of the book, but to illustrate the "subject"'s (i.e. the person's) "true self". Whatever that's even supposed to mean, a non-free bookcover should never be used to do this, and using it simply in lieu of a portrait is out anyway, because the person is alive and the other image at the top of the article is in fact free, as it should be. A FUR can't really get a lot more obviously wrong than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me tell you for a third time. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. The. Rationale. By. Itself. If a rationale be valid, its usage on any given page is irrelevant to the image's deletion, unless consensus be that the use is not appropriate on that page, and if it be unused entirely, it should be deleted as an orphan. This is definitely not an obvious situation, and I refuse to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "rationale by itself". A rationale can only be meaningful in relation to the actual use made of the image in the article, and it always has to be evaluated in relation to it. If a rationale doesn't match what the article does, then it is invalid. It is also invalid if it contradicts the non-free-copyright tag which it complements. I just showed you how it does both these things. If you don't feel comfortable doing speedy deletions in such cases, that's fine, but please don't stand in the way of those of us who do. I'm now deleting this file. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] No wonder that I repeat myself when you keep telling me that I've not told you my reasoning: I originally addressed the matter at hand, you rejected that and told me that I'd not offered a reason, so I repeated myself. Accept my rationale or reject it, but don't object that my rationale doesn't address your argument when you make me repeat a rationale from when your argument was different. If the images have already been replaced, you can tag them as {{rfu}}, and if you wish to dispute their rationales, you can tag them with the dfu template in the quote that you gave me. I will not ignore rules when we're in situations that they're set up to address. Moreover, the very fact that we're having a discussion shows why it should not be speedy deleted: the deletion of these images is disputed in good faith and thus not uncontroversial, and that's why we have a place for the discussion of the deletion of images. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of response until now — I've been distracted enough with work and school that I didn't feel ready to make a sensible response to you, since discussion requires more thinking than does category work at Commons. I've never suggested that the images are needed: that's not my responsibility here, so I'm not sure why you object to the lack of such a suggestion. Moreover, yes, the problem is that you repeatedly used the wrong process despite the obvious existence of processes for the deletion of such images. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FPC Question

I was taking a look through the LOC images and stumbled across this. If I restored it to remove the scratches, marks, and dust would it have a shot at FPC? Or is the out-of-focus ear and bright shoulder too much? If it doesn't stand a chance, I'll just do a quick edit for the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Lanthanum-138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Gymnopilus maritimus

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Gymnopilus maritimus.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Scream (Kelis song)/GA1

Have you decided to end involvement with this review? It seemed like there was a disagreement a month ago and nothing's happened since; I can get a new subpage going if you were tired of it. If I'm mistaken in how I read the review comments then hopefully this can be closed soon. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. I admittedly don't touch music articles myself for the same reason though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi J Milburn,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Quentin Massys 008.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 1, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-04-01. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Wikicup

Withdraw me please Jmil. My accident won't let me develop articles now. :( — Legolas (talk2me) 15:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cloud FAC

Hey, you left some comments a while back on the Cloud FAC. Would you consider coming back to it and supporting/opposing? Thanks! --PresN 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review request

Hi, I currently have an Ernest Hemingway novel at FAC and was wondering if you'd minding doing an image review for me? The FAC link is here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the image review on True at First Light. I've updated the one missing link. I have another favor to ask. I'm in the process of finishing The Sun Also Rises, and wondered about File:The Sun Also Rises notebook manuscript.jpg that was added to the article at some point. It seemed to me that it should be under copyright. I've found the image description here and it is indeed under copyright. Don't you think we should delete this image? I'd commented it out, and will remove from the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:D2-ost.jpg

I upgraded the fair use template and removed your banner from. Is this sufficient now? BollyJeff || talk 13:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the album does not have its own article. Are you saying that it would better to have a tiny separate article for the album alone, and then a cover would be okay? It makes more sense to me to keep it all together, and since this is the only place that the album will be mentioned, then the cover should be allowed here. There doesn't have to be pictures anywhere on WP, but I think there is a pretty big precedent for this sort of thing on musical films, for sure on Indian films, which are mostly musicals. BollyJeff || talk 13:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example of an FA with the same thing: Lage Raho Munna Bhai. If your goal is to remove all album covers from all film articles, then have at it buddy. I don't know where you people get your motivation, but I don't have the energy to fight anymore. BollyJeff || talk 14:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lists and timelines

Are articles that are lists or timelines suitable for DYK's and DYK points?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Featured picture candidates/George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll 2
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:George Douglas Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll by George Frederic Watts.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. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Favor again

First, thanks so much for the image review on True at First Light. With great trepidation, I've finally nominated Olivia Shakespear and I was hoping you can help with the questions on the images. Can't entirely remember what we decided there, but I'm willing remove anything not permissible, and would like to keep anything permissible. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so clueless about what to do with images. I've tried to upload File:Maud Gonne.jpg but received multiple error messages that it's a duplicate and I can't save the upload. I've responded on the FAC page re File:Ezra Pound.jpg which exists locally and on commons, but apparently in neither place with the information regarding the English publication date. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry again - ignore above re error messages. Managed it. Now have to fix File:Ezra Pound.jpg. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's all done. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Panama Creature

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on image at FLC

Hello. I was hoping you would be willing to give a second opinion on an image that is currently being discussed at the featured list candidacy of Huskies of Honor. I originally uploaded the image in question, File:Uconnwomenslogo.png, under PD-ineligible, but a reviewer is challenging whether this license is appropriate. If you are too busy and won't be able to look into this, please let me know. Thanks. –Grondemar 05:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Science Fantasy FAC

Hi -- I've replied at the Science Fantasy FAC; would you take a look? I'll remove the images if there's no alternative, but if you can think of a way to illustrate the changes in layout with fair use images I'd like to do so. I'd also like your opinion on whether the R.M. Bull cover would qualify for fair use, given the fairly minor commentary on it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my last comment at the FAC wasn't very accurate; I've replied again, if you wouldn't mind taking another look. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Banksia marginata

Any time now..... ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

FishBase template

Can you reply at Template talk:FishBase?. True, part of what I said is that discussion probably won't get anywhere, but you asked for explanations of disagreements. —innotata 15:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Horrible-a.jpg

I've completed (with a lot of help) the fair use rationale for file File:Horrible-a.jpg. I general, I think it's bad form for the creator to remove any Wikipedia:CSD. Would you please take a look and remove the template if appropriate, and give further advice if not? Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again, per above. 78.26 (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet again per above! 78.26 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikicup

Since I've managed to put aside enough free time (away from here), it's ironically freed up time for me to contribute, so you can add me back onto the cup. Got a couple FAC possibilities in the works so should be able to do well heading forward. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS problem

Hi, can you explain what the problem was with this permissions: File:Cerridwen_Fallingstar_photo_by_Susanna_Frohman.jpg? I sent her the text, copied from Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries, to fill out and sign and date, and she did so, and e-mailed it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and then forwarded me what she had sent, which looked fine. What was the problem? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, since this photo was not uploaded to Commons, and I don't visit there, I'd rather resolve this here. The rights to the photo, a work for hire signed off on by Frohman (whom I have also contacted via e-mail to verify this and who is actually a friend of Fallingstar's), is owned by Fallingstar. Softlavender (talk)

Necrid FAC

Hi! I addressed the issues you brought up with the Necrid article in the FAC awhile ago, would you be able to take another gander at it to make sure everything's up to snuff?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff

Tricky copyright issue, I think, regarding the copyright status of some works by Sergei Rachmaninoff. I hope you can help.

End of March, there was a request to copy sound files by from Commons to enwiki, as it appeared they might be deleted on Commons but might be fine on enwiki - Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Archive 4#Rachnmaninoff call to arms.

I helped get them copied over, along with User:The Earwig.

This week, Earwig got a PUF notification, User talk:The Earwig#Possibly unfree File:Three Nocturnes.2C No. 1.ogg.

Discussion is Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 April 21#File:Three Nocturnes.2C No. 1.ogg.

I also alerted Adam Cuerden, User talk:Adam Cuerden#Rachnmaninoff call to arms.

Can you possibly weigh in and evaluate the copyright issue?

Athough that PUF is one file, the issue concerns all sounds in Category:Compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff (19 of them).

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I've no idea on that one, really; I'm out of my depth, copyright-law-wise. I copied them to the local wiki (with Earwig) in good faith, at the behest of the FS folks; I suppose I will just leave the experts to slug things out. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  05:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

image policy

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 19:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi J,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Lucy Merriam.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 1, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-05-01. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:BroderickPhilanthropist2009.JPG

Why have you deleted this image? Your reason isn't very specific. (Copyvio on a picture I took? Really?) It seems that out of all the bad images on Wikipedia you always seem to delete my uploads... --S.S. Miami (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

National Broadband Network

Since your FA review of National Broadband Network, the article went through main changes. Is there a chance you can revisit your review to provide more feedback? Thanks. — [d'oh] 11:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As predicted....

Hi J - a question has arisen here about whether "official government photos" of the royal wedding party are usable - could you give a response there? Thanks very much Tvoz/talk 08:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks- I suspected that was so.  :) Tvoz/talk 16:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

S.S. Miami block

Hiya Milburn,

I happened across your recent block of S.S. Miami just now, and I wanted to discuss it with you for a second. I don't really know him, or you for that matter, but this block seemed to stick out while scanning the block log for some reason (it's one of the few that doesn't cite vandalism, after all).

Just looking over the history here, what sticks out to me is that there seems to be an ongoing conflict between the two of you. I understand the copyvio thing, but is there a reason that you're the only admin to have taken any action against Miami?

To me, based on contribs, comments, and my being aware that you primarily work at policing images, that the real issue here is Miami's image contributions. I see (text) content contributions that seem helpful, based on a brief scan through his contribs. So, rather then blocking indefinitely, has there been any consideration of proposing a restriction here?

Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for contacting me. I wouldn't say there was a conflict between us as such- it's just that I warned him about his image use, and, because of recurring problems, ended up keeping an eye on him. As you can see from the repeated shorter blocks (and, if you were to check the page history, repeated warnings from myself and others) I have done my best to offer the user as many chances as possible, and attempts at self-imposed restrictions appear to have failed- see this page, where the user pledged to stop uploading unless they were certain about the copyright status of an image. Admittedly, this particular image (the one about which he contacted me) was uploaded before he made that pledge, and so I was happy not to block for it until the user started to protest that the picture was taken by them- quite clearly an out-and-out lie, as I documented on Miami's talk page. As I say, Miami had already received plenty of warnings, and, at the last block, both Sandstein (talk · contribs) ("I do not trust a serial copyright violator to contribute any content at all.") and FisherQueen (talk · contribs) ("In fact, given that this appears to be a deliberate choice to violate copyright, I probably would have made the block indefinite, rather than just three weeks.") suggested that I had been very lenient (both explicitly mentioning the conscious choice to lie, the issue at hand here). People being blocked for repeated copyright violations- be they image or text contributions- is not all that unusual. These are important policies central to Wikipedia's goals, and it is essential that they are enforced if Wikipedia is to be a respectable publication, as almost all of the community is perfectly willing to accept. Can you think of another way to deal with this? Do you feel I was too heavy handed? J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. The other background items are things that I wasn't aware of; I kinda figured that there was more going on than I could see with a brief look around, anyway. The only things that I can think of commenting about further is that, generally speaking, you may want to spread the blocks and whatnot around with other admins in order to avoid the appearance of any sort of... personal conflict, if you see what I'm saying. Otherwise... I mean, getting some sort of "community sanction" against Miami so that he (or she. whatever) isn't allowed to upload images at all seems like a more targeted solution, but then... that takes more doing, really (not to mention more drama).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I certainly take your point about spreading the blocks- I could contact the other admins already involved for a second opinion, if you like? I'd rather avoid the noticeboards if at all possible. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Doing anything about this particular block, at this point, seems overly bureaucratic to me. I was thinking more along the lines of "something to keep in mind for the future", you know?
Actually, while we're sorta talking about the subject, some of you guys (and women) who are the more prolific "enforcement" type admins (Sandstein and FisherQueen are also good examples) should think about spreading your work around amongst each other some, just to avoid the potential appearance issues from cropping up. Although, I know that there's some specialty skills involved in tracking down copyright issues and whatnot... Anyway, just a thought. I'm not starting a campaign about it, or anything.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As a non-admin user who has followed S.S. Miami's actions for about a year and a half, I fully support the indefinite block. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Henry II

Hey. Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Henri II et Catherine de Médicis.JPG. Please take a look at my response. Tomer T (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

interview request

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Needing your help again, Commons related issue..

Hi, I've been uploading photos from Flickr after emailing photographers for permission to use their articles, and showing them the option of adapting one of the Creative Commons licenses we accept. I've noticed with the increase of wikibooks how they could potentially still violate even those photos copyrights. Because of the photographer's concern about this, I thought I'd experiment, feeling if I add the photographer's name to the File name when I upload them to Wikimedia Commons. Ran into one big problem- my spelling! I uploaded a few photos but spelled the photographer's name incorrectly in the file name, and needs your help to fix them, or to upload the photos directly from Commons, the way I see many of my uploads have been done to obtain a better quality photo. Can you help me? Either we need a photo file name with the proper spelling, or a different upload altogether, but the photographer, whose name spelled correctly is 'Zoran Veselinovic --the photos are in Commons and placed on photo pages. I did place a "help" comment on the discussion page for Paul Young (singer and guitarist|Paul Young : [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Young_by_Zoran_Velesinovic.jpg -- the others I can identify to you but are in my most recent uploads if you look at my history in Commons. Please can you assist me? I'll give the other names to be certain. OK? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I've confused you by memtioning two different issues at the same time. Forget about the Wikibooks. I know nothing about Commons beyond uploading photos

I am hoping you, as an Admin will change the file names of the following, or else delete and replace the few I uploaded with the wrong names- they are by the photographer Zoran Veselinovic. That IS the correct spelling of his name. However, the file names of photos needing a name change are: [5], [6], [7], [8], and one last thing... this photo was given a file name given the wrong photographer's name in it: [9] (It's actually by Alec MacKellaig.jpg-- not Jim Williams. I get the feeling that you don't want to be burdened with this. I'm obviously not a "trusted user" in Commons, making such ridiculous mistakes, not to mention that I've been ill and am about to enter the hospital. Please.can you help me with this??!Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! I burned myself bad at the stove yesterday; so it does really distract me from anything that isn't really simple here. I would like to learn to change the file names when I feek better, so this kind of thing doesn't pop up again! The photographer is amazing and has contributed several photos already, but of course, it screws up the attribution when the summary page in Commons says one thing and yet, the actual file name gives yet another name! I think he might even join us in working here and don't want him to decide against it just because of a stupid mistake I made! So, you can see if he was to show his portfolio to someone, and they only saw the file name before even moving on to the summary at Commons, it would be pretty crappy. Thanks for helping quickly from the both of us! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Amaranthus brownii/GA1

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Mr Milburn,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:JohnShea.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 17, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-05-17. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Tephrocybe palustris

Thanks for tweaking the Tephrocybe palustris page. It's my first attempt at creating a Wikipedia page and it's comforting to know someone who has a clue is watching BarnaclePete (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble embedding a picture into the description page. I tried to copy the syntax you used in the I.maculata page, but instead of it showing floating within the text, it shows at the bottom of the screen. What am I missing? BarnaclePete (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Robin Hunicke
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Robinhunicke 240x160 August2009.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. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Whew, another problem

The doctors sent me home too medicated; it does look like a hospital trip. One last photo I uploaded with a bad file name to Commons: [File:Rolling Stines 1975 Bily Preston Nicky Hopkins.jpg] you can see half the problem, its the Rolling Stones (D'uh) and the other keyboardist isn't Nicky Hopkins as the photographer suggested but Ian Stewart. Can you fix this? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

HOLD- yes, the pic is of the Rolling Stones, but in the same set, he specifically notes Nicky Hopkins in this shot here, so.. it doesn't look like Ian Stewart... ?? What to do with that? [10] --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Glass Joe

I think I've cleaned it up to fix all major problems; there may be a few left I reckon, but it should not be anything too big (I hope). You'll have to pardon me, I'm not a great writer. :v - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As for your concerns about in-universe content, the only thing I can even think to possibly add are things that go way too deep into the gameplay of the character, which really blurs the line between guide content and necessary information. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that I addressed your concerns. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for going the extra mile to improve the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Glass Joe's at FAC now. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glass Joe/archive1 - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Dresses

Hi. I am using fair use images in articles like Black and white Valentino dress of Julia Roberts because it is extremely unlikely that we would find a free image of that very dress. Same with the Wedding dress of Diana Spencer etc. I was wondering though if you think fair use applies and what rationale I should be adding. I think an image of dress makes a massive difference to discussing the article for encyclopedic purposes especially if they are of a vibrant colour, it sort of brings it to life. Any thoughts? I want to get it right now so I don't find a load of images up for deletion or rationale sniffing later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IMHO, the rationale is fine, but the images must be smaller. For instance, File:Jennifer-lopez-green-versace-dress.jpg is way too large for a FU image. --Eisfbnore talk 19:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Unless, of course, the dress is in a museum or something, yeah, a non-free image would probably be legit. However, taking an image from a newspaper, magazine or press association is not going to be alright, due to NFCC#2. Some kind of first party or non-commercial source would be far preferable, along with a detailed rationale including the photographer and a discussion of who the photograph belongs to. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to an existing image example of a rationale I should be using for this? 300px though is pretty small surely? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really, that's not how it works. If you find an image that is not questionable under NFCC#2, I'd be happy to have a bash at writing one myself to show you the kind of information a perfect rationale would include? J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How big should the images be then ideally? I want them at 250px in the infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Black and white Valentino dress of Julia Roberts.jpg is about right. There's no hard and fast line; basically, as small as they can be while still being useful. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, can you add a full rationale then so I can copy it for other images and if possible find out the owner of the image? Its difficult to know because so many websites use the image without saying the owner.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, that image is not appropriate, as it is taken from Rex, a press agency. This is a company that makes money by selling the right to redistribute its pictures, and so is not appropriate, as per non-free content criterion 2, and is specifically mentioned (#7) as an example of an unacceptable use of an image. J Milburn (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out an image then which is appropriate? Isn't it likely that the vast majority of people who take photographs on the red carpet are doing so for profit? So how do you find an image which is acceptable? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't got time to have a look right now; it's possible that there isn't a picture that meets our NFCC out there. Perhaps her own people took a picture? Perhaps the dress designer took a picture? Perhaps those organising the event took a picture? Perhaps an organisation that releases its content under a semi-free license? I don't know, I'm not saying it's easy. J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Portal image

As I didn't upload the original, I wasn't aware that image was up for deletion until it was deleted by the closing admin. I spoke to him regarding the minimal input/conflicting issues, and he did reopen it. However, that said, I did take initiative to cut down the NFC in the Portal (video game) article and justify that image better by removing the image of Chell (as there's a separate article for her character now), and to move the image down into the dev section to describe it in combination with the look and feel the devs were aiming for. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Hi there. I'm writing because you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21 (Adele album). I've worked hard to address the comments and concerns, and wondered what your stance was on the article. Thank you. Orane (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the FPC discussion

Civility Award
Thank you for the discussions and info on my FPC nomination of the cavitating prop. GreenPine (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

what chess matches looked like

What these matches looked like is important. Contrast these conditions of the 1960 Tal-Botvinnik match with the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match - the plain wooden chairs versus th Eanes executive chairs, the table, etc. It shows how much the conditions for chessplayers changed as a result of the Fischer-Spassky match. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Mirage IIIEA - FAB.jpg

I'm contacting the original uploader but you'll notice the date of the photo is 1981 and as that particular Mirage III was shot down in 1982....

PS the FUR {{PD-AR-PHOTO}} is PD in the US. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you wish to take a wild guess why the wiki foundation created that license tag? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Yes, I know. I have contacted the other user and told them to take it to the talk page. In the mean time, the images should stay off the page; the NFCC state that it is the responsibility of those wishing to keep the material to provide the rationale, while NFCC enforcement is explicitly mentioned as an exception to the usual 3RR. If you want to take over for a while, be my guest. J Milburn (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you know, why are you breaking the edit warring policy? I understand that the copyright cabal has made the policy and you are simply enforcing it. I don't, however, agree with it and will not be helping you to enforce it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I have already explained that I am not, and I have explained what the next step is. The issue will hopefully be resolved soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Texas Racepacket (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 GAC, 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, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Samuel Reshevsky as a kid

Since you opposed for the small size of the image, please take another look of it, after a larger version was uploaded by Keraunoscopia. Tomer T (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

ITN for Halicephalobus mephisto

--Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Original Barnstar
Thank you for reviewing Heather Chasen so quickly and precisely MayhemMario 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Need copyright help with images on Commons

Hi! :) I was wondering if you could help me with some images on Commons? First there's File:Logo_of_MBDS.jpg, which I think meets the threshold of originality. And then there's File:Mount Pleasant Community Schools.png, which is probably copyrighted but the uploader claims it is his/her own work. And finally File:Manan foundation.jpg, File:Logo-mf.jpg, and File:Archipelagonetwork.jpg, all of which have been uploaded by someone that is probably associated with the Manan Foundation (see the history of that article) without evidence that it's their own work. If you could tell me how to handle images like these in the future too, that'd be great! Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! I tagged the last three with {{subst:npd}} since the article they appear in will probably be deleted soon. Theleftorium (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Please reevaluate your premature support at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1:_Topic_ban_of_TonyTheTiger_from_Featured_Sounds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

This conversation seems to imply that the copyright of an image of a book's dustjacket belongs to the photographer. I image there might be some truth to this, but I have plenty of pages with images of dustjackets and wondered what you thought. See for instance Indian Camp. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just questioned this deletion with the deleting admin before noticing this conversation (given my comment I'd have expected, at the very least, a close with an explanation from the deleting admin rather than them letting the bot close it). We all agree the cover itself is PD so as far as I'm aware to attract copyright the photograph would have to show "sufficient originality" which to my mind this clearly did not (there must be thousands of photos of books taken at similar angles to this). Have we actually contacted our attorney in the past or do you have some other reason for your comment on Truthseeker's page? At the moment I'm not saying the deletion was wrong, I'm just trying to understand it better. Dpmuk (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know of our attorney ever being contacted over this issue, but there certainly has not been any word from the Foundation saying that it is OK- what they have said (see, for instance, Template:PD-art) is that a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law, and so any such reproduction from any country can be considered PD. Clearly, this particular image does not meet those criteria, and so it must be assessed as with any other photograph (we have to view "automatically PD" as the exception, rather than the rule) and, unless I'm mistaken, we have no reason to believe the photograph PD. Consider the following- the chair on which I am sat is clearly public domain (if you doubt that, see this page), but that does not mean that a simple picture of the chair in a white room is also public domain, no matter how little artistry or originality we believe the photograph has. J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I admit that it does not meet the terms of the template but that doesn't mean that it isn't PD. I also agree that there should be a presumption of non-PD but I disagree that we have no reason to believe this photo is PD. To attract copyright (at least under US law) something must show "sufficient originality" and as I said in this case I doubt it did. I'm no copyright lawyer so I may be wrong on this but I think it's enough to at least think it may be PD. But even agreeing that the presumption of non-PD is sensible I wouldn't say this means we shouldn't be making decisions on whether something is original enough as we already make decisions on whether there' enough creativity to warrant copyright in other fields (see for example {{PD-textlogo}}). I'm going to ask a couple of knowledgeable copyright admins if they've got a view. Dpmuk (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, think of the chair analogy. The book itself is PD, as is any art within it, but photographs of it are not. There's a big difference between scans of PD art and photographs of PD objects- unless you've got some evidence (as in, case law, a WMF statement) I think you're fighting a losing battle. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
So that you're not having conversations on multiple pages: can I use this? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of neatness if nothing else, I'd crop the edges, but yeah, I'd have no objection to that being used as a copyright-free photograph. Credit the source and author of the photograph still, but, I would say that (as far as the WMF is concerned) the photographer has no legitimate claim of copyright. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll crop the spine so it's completely flat. I think we should delete File:InOurTime.JPG. Once that's gone I'll upload the other. Thanks again for your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree that the photograph would be PD if the book and cover is. Are we sure the book and cover is PD? If the book was published in 1925 with a copyright notice and this was then renewed then the book won't enter PD until 2020. Or am I missing something (I normally work on text copyright not images). Dpmuk (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
We can use the image in the page In Our Time (book). I'd write a FUR for it, and for Indian Camp, because "Indian Camp" is a short story published in the book. The short story and the book wouldn't exist without one-another. But even if I can't use it in "Indian Camp", we should do something about the image for In Our Time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Can confirm the copyright was renewed (see [11]). Over to people with more image experience now. Dpmuk (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)Having read the rest of the wikimedia commons page you link to (rather than the section you link to) I think you maybe right that I'm fighting a losing battle. My understanding of the law (which I'll admit isn't great) is that this shouldn't be copyrightable but unless I find case law saying something different I think we're going to have to err on the side of caution given the statement on that page that "Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted" which annoyingly also doesn't list any case law or other reason for the statement - we certainly don't want to be taking the risk and then attempting to create new case law. I'd still be interested in more input in case there is case law I'm not aware of. Dpmuk (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I have to concur that we have to conclude this is copyrighted barring other evidence. :/ I understand why it does not seem as though this should be copyrightable because it doesn't seem to have any creativity, but it helps me to think of it like this: if you take a tight close up of the face of a bear, the courts regard the result as creative. Never mind that you did not make the bear or direct the expression on its face. :) You chose the moment to snap the picture and the angle at which you stood when you did. The photographer of that book chose the angle at which to place the book, the angle at which to position himself, the lighting, etc. This is sufficient to meet the minimal threshold of creativity required by the U.S. courts. A straightforward reproduction of a 2D artwork does not...but if the 2d artwork is photographed in any artistic way, the story changes. Then it, too, is protected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually agree that the bear photo would be copyrightable for the reasons you state. However I'm still not sure that this would reach the threshold given the number of existing photographs on a white background at that angle so would be interested to see how a court case played out. That said it's obviously not our place to be starting such court cases so we'll going to have to err on the side of caution. Thanks all, I have learnt something if nothing else. Although I'm reasonably confident now on text copyright I'm definitely still feeling my way when it comes to images. Dpmuk (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm always available for a second opinion. I don't pretend to be a copyright lawyer, but I've got experience with how things play out on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the place to answer Truthkeeper88's query on my talk page - the most relevant policy page for this question I would say is Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. It doesn't refer to photos of books as 3D objects, but the cases of paintings with frames and coins are comparable. In particular note that Mike Godwin was consulted a while back, and he opined that photos of coins (which could seem to show even less creativity than a book photo) are copyrightable. --dave pape (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry everyone if it seems as though I'm flogging a dead horse, but for the sake of the book/novel articles I want to get it straight in my head. Moonriddengirl's comment makes sense and is logical and I understand. But then Davepape seems to be suggesting it's simply a question of having used the wrong license tag. Am I right, or is the issue muddier than that? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Which image are you referring to here? J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, the one that was deleted, linked from the conversation at the top of the page. I can't see it, because I'm not an admin, but I think it was similar to File:InOurTime.JPG in that the book was photographed standing up. If that makes any sense. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it was. These images are not usable as public domain images, regardless of the licensing tag used, unless they are released by the photographer and the book cover itself is PD. They should not really be used as non-free images, unless the photographer has relinquished rights to the image (say, if you or I had taken the picture), as then we are using content that belongs to two others, rather than just the one. Basically, unless the photograph is public domain/freely licensed for whatever reason, such photos really aren't usable, and the plain, forward facing cover images are preferable. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay thanks, that's what I thought. Thanks also for being so patient - this is an issue with some ramification for the novels articles. I'll start replacing these types of images as I come across them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very useful; this is a rather annoying situation, but one that's worth making sure we get right. Make sure to nominate the others for deletion, too; feel free to drop me a line if you'd rather I did it. J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Presumably there's a delete template that's placed at the top of the page? I'll dig around and if I can't find it, will ping you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

RE:Kunio

Sorry for the vague rationalization. I added the image since it's a different character design of Kunio than the one featured in the main image. The main image is a chirashi (flyer) for Nekketsu Kōha Kunio-kun, which features a more realistic character design. The other image is a promotional art from Downtown Nekketsu Monogatari (specifically for the GBA version), which used the "super deformed"-style more prevalent in the later games (particularly in the Downtown Nekketsu sub-series). I see nothing wrong with having two different images of Kunio (especially if they're in different art styles) when articles such as Link and Cloud Strife have more than one image as well. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've used non-free rationale template in the past, but thanks for letting me know about it. The image in question was uploaded almost six years ago, in which the templates were not automatically assigned to image uploads. Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:SemenovaKsenia5.jpg

Can you have a look there? Tomer T (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Male Purple Finch
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Carpodacus purpureus CT3.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. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Female Purple Finch
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Carpodacus purpureus CT4.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. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn/archive32&oldid=1143538657"