Jump to content

User talk:J Milburn/archive41

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


City of Angels FAC

Hello there. Would you like to comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive4? Your help would be very much appreciated.--Earthh (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Precious again

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

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

Two years ago, you were the 459th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9)

Hello! Your submission of Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JuneGloom07 Talk 01:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ramaria gracilis

Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ramaria gracilis
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Zierliche Koralle Ramaria gracilis.JPG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The 12 Days of Christine

Hello! Your submission of The 12 Days of Christine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

DYK for Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9)

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The 12 Days of Christine

Thanks for improving the weekend on the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, did you manage to have a look at the guidelines around red links at all? I've started up a discussion at WP:REDLINK about getting some clarity on what is likely. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Boys Don't Cry (film)

Hi! Thank you so much for taking the time to review Boys Don't Cry (film)—I guess I didn't really read it carefully enough to see some of the sourcing issues. However, I addressed your comments, most of which I just fixed, but some of which I had questions on. These questions are marked. Before I cut and paste your comments, here are some highlights from what I did:

  • Cleaned up all the unsourced passages (in total, I added 24 completely new refs).
  • Cleaned up the tone where you suggested.
  • Removed OR in "Themes" section.
  • Created a comprehensive page on awards, which I split off into List of accolades received by Boys Don't Cry (film).

Here's the full list:

Comments from JM

Oppose, suggest withdrawal. An interesting topic, but the article seems to fall a little short. Though this certainly isn't a bad article, issues with sourcing, neutrality, writing and non-free content all add up to it needing more work yet.

  • "The film has been cited as one of the most controversial and talked-about films of 1999" Where is your source for this? You don't seem to say it in the article proper.
Done. Reworded to fit a source.
  • "Brandon Teena was never his legal name; it is uncertain the extent to which this name was used prior to his death. It is the name most commonly used by the press and other media. Other names may include his legal name, as well as "Billy Brenson" and "Teena Ray"." Could we have a source/sources for this?
Added source from Chicago Tribune. If you want another source, I have one.
  • "In the Boys Don't Cry commentary contained on the 2000 and 2009 DVD release of the film, director Kimberly Peirce states that she admired the way Brandon behaved towards women, especially the good will and generosity he showed them." Why do we need this?
We don't. I'm not sure why it's there. I removed it.
  • "Peirce began working on a concept for the film and gave it the working title Take It Like a Man." Reference?
Added ref from Political Film Society.
  • "Peirce co-wrote the screenplay with Andy Bienen. They worked together for a year and a half on the final drafts and made sure they did not "mythologize" Brandon; the aim was to keep him as human as possible." Reference?
The Salon ref covers this. I added it.
  • "at her home" Whose home?
Tisdel's home. Fixed that up.
  • "Peirce also interviewed Tisdel's mother. She also interviewed" Repetition
Done.
  • "Much factual information was incorporated into Boys Don't Cry, including Nissen being an arsonist, and the games of chicken and joy riding that were a common pastime of the real Lotter, Nissen, and Brandon." Reference? Also, "games of chicken" and "joy riding" may be unfamiliar terms- links?
Added a ref and removed some.
  • "The LGBT community was highly interested in the project because of all the publicity the murder had received." I don't like the fact that this is sourced to Pierce. If you don't have a third-party source, perhaps you could clarify that this was Pierce's claim.
I made it clear that this was Peirce's claim.
  • We do have a better picture of Sevigny- are you attached to that one for some reason?

Question: Were you thinking of File:Chloë Sevigny in Austin.jpg?

  • You use the word "pants" a few times- is this not a little informal?
Changed it to trousers.
  • "Peirce had envisioned only two actors for the role of Lana Tisdel: a young Jodie Foster and Chloë Sevigny, who had prior credits in mostly independent films. Peirce had decided to cast Sevigny based on her impressive performance in The Last Days of Disco (1998).[27] Sevigny had auditioned for the role of Brandon,[28] but Peirce decided that Sevigny would be suited playing Tisdel.[29][30]" This almost reads like three different stories- I think this needs to be restructured.
It's been restructured. I also added detail and a quote.
  • "The film portrays a double murder when in actuality a third person, Phillip DeVine, a black disabled man, was killed at the scene. At the time he had been dating Lana Tisdel's sister, Leslie Tisdel." Is this intended as an example? If so, perhaps "For example, the film portrays a only double murder, when in actuality a third person, Phillip DeVine—a black disabled man—was killed at the scene. At the time, he had been dating Lana Tisdel's sister, Leslie Tisdel."
Done. Good catch. :)
  • "perspective, his imagination, and the way he perceived things" I'm not clear what the difference for the first and last is.
Done.
  • "The bumper-skiing scene was delayed when a police officer, just arriving at a shift change, required that a large lighting crane be moved from one side of the road to the other. The scenes took six hours to shoot and ended up being filmed at sunrise, which resulted in a blue sky in the background." First, I'm not sure what the "shift change" thing is about, second, you refer to the scene even though this scene has not been mentioned yet, and third, I do not know what bumper-skiing is.
I'm not sure what a "shift change" is either. Once again, I'm not that much of a regular contributor, so I didn't write that. I also clarified what scene that was.
  • "A flood gave the cast and crew a "mud bath" and resulted in some of the filming equipment being stuck in mud. Radio wires in some of the scenes conflicted with the sound production. Swank required a stunt double for the scene in which she falls off the back of a truck. Teena's rape scene was given an extended filming time, and Sexton, who portrayed the attacker, walked away in tears afterward." This is just a list of facts.
Question: I know, but it's all from the same source (the DVD commentary). Any ideas about how to change this?
  • You're going to need to do something about that "clarification needed" tag.
Took it out and removed some of the jargon-y stuff around it.
  • Is File:Boysdontcryrollerrinkscene.JPG an artificial combination of four separate screenshots? You can't do that- there's no reason that four screenshots in one JPG is any more acceptable than four separate screenshots. If there were four separate screenshots, people would be opposing based on the excessive use of non-free content.
Question: I didn't upload that. What exactly should I do? Should I reupload it with just one screenshot?
  • "the striking transition shots seen throughout the film" Non-neutral.
Done.
  • "he visual style is often dark, saturated, and raw, depicting the harsh Midwestern United States" Again.
Done.
  • "the violent, emotionally charged scenes" Again (also, repetition of "scene").
Done.
  • "During a very compressed prep period" Colloquial tone
  • "She also watched several of her favorite" Who's "she"?
Peirce. Done.
  • "Peirce also used the same shots in the opening roller rink scene (where Brandon pursues his first relationship with a young girl) that were used in The Wizard of Oz (1939) when Dorothy first left her house and entered the land of Oz. The scene consists of a three shot sequence meant to symbolize a metaphoric "entrance to manhood" for Brandon." I'm afraid I don't follow this. Presumably you don't mean that footage from The Wizard of Oz was used, but, if not, I'm unclear on what you do mean.
No, it's not literally the same shots. I clarified that.
  • "Peirce also used the same shots ... backdrop of the city skyline." This is apparently all unsourced.
There are some sources in there. However, I couldn't find it on some, but it's likely to be on the DVD commentary.
  • "Time lapse photography is used in several sequences, most significantly in the scene where Brandon and Lana discuss plans to tell the family that she has "seen him in the full-flesh", and when Lana is seen driving on the highway after Brandon's murder, before the credits appear." Source?
I couldn't find a source, so I removed it.
  • "The Boys Don't Cry soundtrack features a compilation of country and rock music from the film." Unclear. Of course the soundtrack contains music from the film- that's what a soundtrack is? Or do you mean a soundtrack album?
It's a soundtrack album. I clarified that.
  • "1988 country-pop hit" Non-neutral tone
Done.
  • Who performs the "Boys Don't Cry" cover?
Nathan Larson. Done.
  • ""The Bluest Eyes in Texas" was played when Hilary Swank went onstage to receive her Academy Award for Best Actress in 2000." Unsourced. In any case, is this important?
I added a source. It's not really important, but it'll stay in for now.
  • "This summarization strengthens the academic view that the film is about the search for freedom and identity in a society where diversity is rarely accepted" That's a very strange claim. Why would a tagline/advertising campaign strengthen an academic view? What does your source say?
Removed. See next comment.
  • Actually, that's not a reliable source. It's a student essay "published" through something resembling a vanity press. There is no peer review or editorial oversight. Unless the status of the author gives us reason to think otherwise, the source should be removed.
Okay, I think the material has been removed.
  • "is even uttered" Tone.
Done.
  • "and some critics even cite parallels" Tone. What makes you think Herz is a critic?
Removed that too.
  • "Some critics noted that the film was about the illusions often produced by love or a strong relationship." Source? Also, weasel words.
Not sure where this came from. It's been removed.
  • "Critics and academics have attributed Boys Don't Cry's success" You only seem to have one source, here.
Made it clear that I'm only talking about Halberstam.
  • "many commentators" Ditto.
That sentence got cut out. I also removed a bunch of OR in this section.
  • "Critics have called the film a" Again.
Changed this to Ebert.
  • "describing Brandon—heroic and fatally flawed—as this spirit who was murdered when angry townspeople discovered who he really was." Source?
This was just some shoddy original research making claims about Ebert's statement. I removed it.
  • "Brandon yearns for ... critics suggest Boys Don't Cry "raises the broader, widely explored issue of masculinity in crisis"." Is this all sourced to footnote 51 (which is malformed)? Similar tone/plural "critics" problems.
I completely reformatted this paragraph, removing OR, making the source not malformed, and changing the tone problems.
  • "some scholars and authors" Weasel words cited to a single source.
Done.
  • "Boys Don't Cry premiered ... in the United Kingdom." Unsourced paragraph.
I added a bunch of sources to this paragraph.
  • "The film won a variety of awards, with the majority of wins going to Swank for her performance" Swank winning and he film winning are different things? Same mistake made a few times in that paragraph.
Done.
  • "Some critics called the film one of" Again. Weasel words, and "some" implies more than one.
Not sure where this came from, so I removed it.
  • "The performances of Swank and Sevigny were picked out as some of the film's strongest elements, with many critics declaring Swank's performance to be "one of the greatest" in recent years. Swank was considered an immediate favourite to win Best Actress at various film awards, including the 72nd Academy Awards." Unsourced, same issues.
I sourced the first sentence and removed the second one.
  • "Boys Don't Cry became one of the most applauded films of the year." Source?
This was basically just a restatement of the critical consensus up top, so I removed it.
  • "She ended up calling Boys Don't Cry "the best film of the year"." Source?
Not sure where this came from. I removed it.
  • "Emanuel Levy of Variety Magazine ... a place to call home." Source?
Done. Source was misplaced.
  • "Premiere voted" Magazines(?) can't vote.
Done.
  • "The real Lana Tisdel ... Brandon Teena"." Unsourced…
Added a source from E!.
  • The "Awards and nominations" section is completely unsourced.
Done. This took a couple days, but I decided to split it off into List of accolades received by Boys Don't Cry (film).
  • "A DVD version ... different cover art." Unsourced.
Done.
  • "Exact technical ... picture quality." Source?
Done. Removed it.
  • "Swank later apologized, but many transgender activists asserted that she was correct in referring to Teena as a man, as this was the gender in which Teena preferred to live and act." Unsourced. (Unsourced criticism of a living person?)
Done.
  • Your "Moss and Zeavin" source is malformed. I'm not really clear what's being cited.
Question How is it malformed? It's an essay written in a book that psychoanalyzes various films.
  • Your source formatting generally is a little inconsistent, and some information may be missing. This is the kind of thing which needs to be cleaned up before FAC.
Question I don't see anything. Could you provide me with some specific examples? Thanks.

Response to questions

@BenLinus1214: Hi Ben, I'm glad to see you're putting the work in. I'd recommend that you send the article to peer review and seek a copyeditor if possible before you renominate at FAC. In answer to your particular questions...

  • Were you thinking of File:Chloë Sevigny in Austin.jpg? We have a few; see Commons:Category:Chloë Sevigny. File:Chloe Sevigny 2010 crop.png isn't bad.
  • I know, but it's all from the same source (the DVD commentary). Any ideas about how to change this? You have to ask if this is important information or just trivia. If the former, it needs to be worked into prose.
  • I didn't upload that. What exactly should I do? Should I reupload it with just one screenshot? Well, at the very least, I think that image needs to be removed. If the point can be illustrated with a single screenshot, that would be preferable as per NFCC#3a, but you also have to ask if a non-free image is really required (per NFCC#8).
  • How is it malformed? It's an essay written in a book that psychoanalyzes various films. I've adjusted it myself, but commented it out for now- it's not actually cited.
  • I don't see anything. Could you provide me with some specific examples? Thanks. There are a lot of problems in this regard. For instance, compare the way the Wood citation in the biblio is formatted to the way the Halberstam source is. Some newspapers have publishers, but others don't. The Jenkins source is incomplete. The Zacharek source looks quite different from others. The Playboy citation isn't really a citation at all. Some dates are formatted differently. Some italics where they probably aren't needed. And so on- you'll need to go through this with a fine-toothed comb. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On the Chloë Sevigny file: Done.
  • On the DVD commentary: I think it's important enough information that I'll work it into prose.
  • On the non-free file: I don't really think it's necessary, especially because it cannot be illustrated by a single screenshot. But I do not have deletion powers. Should I nominate it for FfD or what?
  • On the "Moss and Zeavin" source: Okay. I think I'll buy the book to see if I can work some info into the themes section.
  • Alright, I'll get to that soon. :) BenLinus1214talk 18:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
If you remove the file from the article, a bot will get to it and it will be deleted as an orphaned non-free image. Concerning the book, hold off ordering it for now (if you haven't already!) and I'll have a closer look. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get to that soon. Also, seeing your edit summary, I'm pretty sure that it's a reliable source: It was published under the supervision of The International Journal of Psychoanalysis and edited by Glen Gabbard. I haven't ordered it--but in what way will you take a closer look? Thanks again, BenLinus1214talk 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@BenLinus1214: Quite right- I was thinking aloud (or maybe revealing my own biases...). I can access the book; email me and I'll send you across the article. That'll save you some money and time! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've sent that email across. BenLinus1214talk 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@BenLinus1214: Replied, hope it's helpful. Just a note that I have a lot on at the moment, so may be unable to quickly reply if you are seeking further input from the article. I am, of course, happy to offer advice, you may just have to wait for it. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Animal Rights Without Liberation at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Hello from the team at Featured article review!

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

DYK nomination of The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge

Hello! Your submission of The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

DYK:Dimension 5 (film)

Thank you for your suggestions. I was afraid the hook wasn't going to pass, or that the plot wasn't enough expansion. This is an extremely hard film to find references for, even with all the Star Trek and James Bond alumni present. Is it possible to change my hook if I can't source this one better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkwell765 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Inkwell765: A new hook with a better reference would certainly be considered. I can appreciate the difficulty in finding sources about this kind of thing- I suspect there will be material out there, but a lot of it may be in specialist publications. A quick Google Books search suggests that it is fairly widely mentioned. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I may have another hook. It seems 5 cast members have been on Star Trek. And three of them were on the original pilot. Hunter, Lormer, Phillips. I just need to find a reference. Inkwell765 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed my hook. The ref should be good. A book I've had for over 30 years! Inkwell765 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN.

The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same.

We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

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

Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Non-free screenshot of episode

You recently nominated File:The Hawking Excitation.jpg and File:The Werewolf Transformation.jpg for deletion. I think your issue was that you think the images violate WP:NFCCP#8. I have tried to expand the image use rationales: the gist of my message is that showing an image helps identify the subjects of the episodes and the way they are portrayed. A picture paints a thousand words and I know that, as a reader, I find it very helpful when episode articles have a screenshot, because it helps me identify the episode in a way that blocks of text can't. However, if consensus seems to be against including screenshots from episodes without some unique reason for inclusion and you are still unsatisfied with my fair use rationales, go ahead and delete the images. I was under the impression that consensus was in favour of this (in the same way consensus seems to be in favour of album cover images on album articles) when I uploaded the files, but if you're asserting the opposite then fair enough. You might also want to look at File:The Stag Convergence.jpg and File:The Convention Conundrum.jpg (other images I uploaded for episode articles), and nominate them for deletion for the same reasons. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

DYK Nomination: Dimension 5

Hello, wondering if you had another chance to look over DYK nomination for Dimension 5? I found ref for Robert Ito appearing in Coming of Age, but his appearances on Star Trek: Voyager as Harry Kim's father, I can't find reliable refs for, I'm leaving that off for now. Inkwell765 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Images

Sorry, I've had vandals/bots try to delete images before for no reason and my immediate reaction has always been to disregard them. The images represent the situations that lead to the title of their respective episodes. That's why they were included. It adds to the reader's understanding of the series and the episode. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Reece Leonard: I'll talk to you here, seeing as you have removed my comment from your talk page. Perhaps you shouldn't be disregarding the "vandals" who have tried to delete images like this, as the reason you've just offered for keeping them is a decidedly bad one. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there a rule that a non-free screenshot of a scene is justified if said scene led to the title of an episode- that would be ridiculous. We do not judge whether a screenshot should be used based on whether the subject is important, but on the basis of whether how the subject looks is important. Each screenshot has to be justified on the grounds that seeing how the screenshot looks is important, not on the grounds that it shows an important scene. (And, just so we're clear: There is no automatic entitlement to use a screenshot on an episode article, in the way it is generally assumed that a poster image or cover image would be justified in (say) a film or album article.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of cordiality, I'm going to ignore the extreme condescension with which you just responded to me. Additionally, I removed your comment because I responded to you here and didn't want my talk page full of unnecessary clutter. To be clear, I've had bots inaccurately attempt to remove a single image in the past and automatically assumed that your notifications were the result of a similar misunderstanding. Furthermore, I'm confused as to how my rationale was in any way, not EXACTLY what the WP guidelines state in regards to image usage on this site. I quote: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central". Is that not exactly what I just said? Reece Leonard (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Look, I'm not going to argue about what you did and didn't say, because it's right in front of us both. You first said "The images represent the situations that lead to the title of their respective episodes. That's why they were included". That's an exceedingly poor argument, as I've just explained. You then said "It adds to the reader's understanding of the series and the episode". That's not an argument, it's an assertion. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Huge shakeup in the world of Tintin

Hi J Milburn, hope you are well. Interesting news about the Hergé Foundation (Moulinsart) came out yesterday. Read the section "Rights issue" in that article. This is bad news for Nick and Fanny Rodwell (whom the Tintin community has never much liked). I will keep watching for further developments. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: That's very interesting- I can't see it having any effect on our use of the images, but it's certainly something for the Tintin editors to keep their eye on! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I have always half-expected Nick Rodwell to contact the Wikimedia Foundation demanding we cease and desist (this is indisputably his mode d'être). That specter, at least, has now gone away. I'm just curious who the anonymous Tintin expert is ... Prhartcom (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ooser

Many thanks for undertaking the review, Josh. I know that these things take up precious time, so it really is appreciated. I hope that you enjoyed reading the article as much as I enjoyed researching it. All the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) My pleasure- I'm certainly not an expert on on folklore/the occult, but it is a fascinating topic. I've got my eye on Aston as a possible review for this weekend- I loved Time Team as a kid, and a first glance at the article suggests that it's very strong. (Also, he was my fiancée's stepfather's [second?] cousin, I'm told- a slightly tenuous link, but a link nonetheless!) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

JC's Girls

Hi Josh,

Thank you very much for your contributions to the Mind Meld FAC; I was glad to see that TFA blurb go up on the main page. Might you be willing to participate in another FAC? I currently have the JC's Girls article up for an FAC here. It's a very different subject than the Mind Meld FAC, but I would be grateful for any constructive comments you might provide.

Neelix (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Neelix: No promises, but I'll see what I can do. If you get a chance, I've got a nomination up at the moment, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Grey and Pink

I wonder could you explain, in non-template language, what the problem is with File:In the Land of Grey and Pink.ogg? Unless you are too busy in real life, of course. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Now adjusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to do this, like there is for reducing image quality? Or does one always have to re-record a new sample afresh? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Lucy Hutchinson (Actress)

Hello again, Further to my last updates on Lucy's page I wondered if it were better to ask you, as an impartial observer, to update some of the information on the page. I'd be happy to give you the facts and let you present these which would remove my personal relationship to the page?

Radio Credits: 2014 - present - Home Front - BBC Radio 4 - Character Jessie Moore Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/1NGzrZNWzjgWvbpVFVTQTpV/characters For this role Lucy was nominated to the Long List for the BBC Audio Drama awards 2015 in the BEST ACTOR OR ACTRESS IN A DEBUT ROLE category but did not make the short list. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4NbzRXpZymWss9SvpvSgpSy/bbc-audio-drama-awards-2015-long-list

14th June 2014 - The Illustrated Man - BBC Radio 4 - character Anna Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046j2jc

28th April 2015 - Earthsea, Shadow - BBC Radio 4 - character Serret Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pktvt Audio clip Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02msxxn

Filmography updates: July to Sept - Dani's Castle (to be renamed Rich, Jimmy and Kait's Castle) - CBBC - character Leoni 12 Episodes from 2 - 13

Unknown airing date - The Kennedys - BBC1 - character Emma Kennedy Principal character in a brand new BBC comedy based on the Emma Kennedy book The Tent, The Bucket & Me. 6 episodes Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/the_kennedys/ Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://insidemediatrack.com/2015/03/katherine-parkinson-among-cast-of-new-bbc1-comedy-the-kennedys/

Stage updates: the 2013 play To Kill A Mockingbird won the 2014 WhatsOnStage award for Best Play Revival Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.whatsonstage.com/bath-theatre/news/full-list-winners-of-the-2014-whatsonstage-awards_33594.html

Thanks again Gary Hutchinson (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update- in particular, thanks for providing the sources! I've made some updates to the article- do let me know if there's anything else I can do. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Josh, I feel a little better about being 'further back' from the page and not making any physical changes myself after the last situation I encountered. I also forgot to mention a brief unspoken part in the Comic Relief - Mr Bean sketch - Funeral - which was broadcast on March 13th 2015 on BBC1 Comic Relief night. There are a variety of good and bad source references to that particular sketch so I'll let you pick your favorites as I don't want to influence! ;-) Thanks again Gary Hutchinson (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made the update. I saw that skit- really enjoyed it! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Thank you

Again, many thanks for undertaking the GAN, Josh! Apologies that the Mick Aston review ended up getting a little derailed by an argument; I don't quite know exactly why that got so nasty, but I suppose these things happen on Wikipedia. All the best! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It happened because you lied. Eric Corbett 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh for Heaven's sake, not this old chestnut again... (for what it's worth I categorically deny ever having lied at any point during that GAN and am genuinely perplexed as to why this accusation is being repeatedly flung at me.) But Josh's talk page isn't the place for this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Metallica's Black Album

Thanks, I didn't even think about the rationales! I am aware you're busy, but if you get a sec, I've got a question. I have used an audio example from a GA (Korn's "Good God" on Life is Peachy) to follow example for this case. I notice the "Sad but True" sample is much longer than the other two, standing at 2 minutes rather than a short 30 seconds. While it'd be cool to have the things written down about this song, maybe I should migrate the caption to the song page and remove this sample. It doesn't seem fair to use, nor is it consistent with the others. What should I do? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: Per WP:SAMPLE, music samples should (almost) never be longer than 30 seconds/10% of the song length, whichever is shorter. The sample should be replaced with a smaller one, and the page should be tagged with {{non-free reduced}}. If you aren't able/willing to do this, I recommend you remove the sample from the pages in question- especially anything nominated at GAC or already promoted to GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't know about anyone else, but I for one am unable to do so. I have already removed said sample. I'm hoping I can get a better copy in the future. Is this the only concern that brought you to tag the page this way? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't look too closely, but the key issues (I didn't notice that one of the samples was that long!) were, first, that there were samples without detailed rationales (or any rationale) and the open question of whether we really need three samples. As you're dealing with the issue (and I'm happy to trust you to do it well), I don't object to you removing the tag. Thanks for understanding! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the rationales. I'll remove the tag. Thanks again for your help! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Animal Rights Without Liberation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Animal Rights Without Liberation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Animal Rights Without Liberation

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015

Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:

  • This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
  • If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
  • The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded.
  • Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification.

Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.

Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work.

The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.

It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.

Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!

If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.

After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.

Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Animal Rights Without Liberation

The article Animal Rights Without Liberation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Animal Rights Without Liberation for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of La Couchette

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article La Couchette you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Thanks

Hey, I just want to thank you for all the work you've put into the It's a Good Life article so far, and apologize for being less responsive. I've been a bit busy in real life lately, which has limited my Wiki activity to what I could do in a few minutes here and there—I haven't even had a block of time free long enough to sit down and re-read the book so I could re-work the plot, though I've had it in my bag with me everywhere for the last week. I was just telling myself that if I couldn't finally get around to that part at least this weekend, then I should tell you to go ahead and close the nom. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: That's my pleasure- thanks for the time you've put in to the article. I appreciate the difficulty with time, and appreciate that I haven't been as responsive as I could have been. The article's certainly looking a lot better, and as long as you don't rush in to FAC, I'm sure the article could be neatened up to the extent that it would have a very good chance there. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Josh,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Epipedobates-tricolor-dreistreifen-baumsteiger.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 25, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-07-25. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The 12 Days of Christine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The 12 Days of Christine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of La Couchette

The article La Couchette you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:La Couchette for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Just need to reduce the plot a bit and remove an instance of OR before it's good to go. Deadline is July 14th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/My Man Jeeves

Are you reasonably happy with Jimbo's statement on this? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/My_Man_Jeeves Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice on uploading non-free image

Hey Josh, I wanted your opinion on whether this image is eligible for uploading on Kill 'Em All? It's been suggested on the FAC (the last note from "Comments by Bollyjeff") that the use of the alternative cover could be justified because it is discussed at "Background and recording" (4th paragraph).--Retrohead (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead: I wouldn't have thought that it was essential, but, with a well-written rationale, I'm leaning towards thinking that it would be permissible. Given that the cover art was questionable enough that someone thought it would affect shops' willingness to stock it and this led to it being changed and this was important enough to be mentioned in a book... I don't think I'd include it personally, but I wouldn't go out of my way to oppose it's inclusion. I can't commit to reviewing the whole article, but I do note that your reference style is pretty problematic. If you're using {{sfn}} and want to cite something other than a page number, you should use "loc=". So, for example, you'd do something like {{sfn|Smith|1999|loc=chap. 12}} or {{sfn|Smith|1999|loc=p. 12, fn. 2}}. You don't need to worry about chapter names unless you're citing an anthology/edited collection (and, in any case, chapter names should be in speech marks). If you are citing authored chapters in an edited collection, then you should include it in the full citation, using "chapter=" and "author=" in addition to "editor=", and then use the author (not editor) name(s) in the sfn template (along with a page number/page range). That said, I'm not sure that you're write to use "editor=" in some cases; Metallica: The Music And The Mayhem seems to be straightforwardly joint-authored by Wall and Dome, rather than edited by them. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm on the same line about the alt cover. I believe the article already has enough non-free material (2 samples and cover art) and I believe the original cover might cause headaches for something that's not a big deal. I've corrected the "loc" issue; I've cited chapters because the Google Books page counter doesn't show the actual page. Also corrected the cite format on Dome & Wall's book.--Retrohead (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Retrohead: Would you object to me having a fiddle with the references? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead, I'm not very used to that particular format.--Retrohead (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Great, I'll have a play later. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Retrohead: I've done a few bits, but there's more to go. I think you need to be careful with the whole editor/author thing- getting stuff the wrong way around means you end up attributing claims/quotes to the wrong people. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Josh. I saw my name here, and I like what you did with those references. Could you take a look at my article which is also now at FAC, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge? I think there are a couple instances of this on my article as well, such as articles within the encyclopedias. I am not sure how to fix them all. I would appreciate it. If you would like to review it as well if you have time that would be great too. I think the Kill 'em All readers would be fascinated to know about the proposed cover, but I understand that its hard to justify another image. Would you say the same about the t-shirt? Maybe Retro could add an external link rather than including the picture directly? BollyJeff | talk 23:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead: I have boldly added the external link. BollyJeff | talk 13:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Great idea. That's the easiest way to undirectly show the cover without going through the non-free content labyrinths.--Retrohead (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: I've had a play. In addition to citing the particular chapters (in one case, I couldn't find the responsible author- I changed your Encyclopedia Britannica ref quite a lot, do check it), I've removed Amazon links (I'm not sure that's appropriate) and adjusted your journal citations. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know that it was appropriate to list the same book twice (with different authors for the chapters) as you have done. Let me ask you one more thing. There is another problem that I do not know how to solve in the origin, casting, and filming sections. There are four people mentioned with the last name Chopra, and six with the last name Khan. Normally in articles I write a person's whole name, and follow with just their last name in subsequent mentions. That obviously will not work here. I have tried to stick to that while adding in whole names and just first names to clarify, but one reviewer has complained about it. Please have a look and tell me what you think is best in a case like this. BollyJeff | talk 20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: I'll have a closer look another time, but the MOS (WP:SAMESURNAME) suggests that full names would generally be appropriate, or, if multiple people with the same surname are mentioned at the same time (especially if they're related) first names only could be used. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: And I couldn't tell you if there's a specific guideline about citing different sections of multi-author works (such as contributions to an edited collection), but I can assure you that it's standard in more traditional academic works. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I have now used only first names after the first mention for all the Chopras and Khans in the Production section. I think it's okay elsewhere as there is minimal repetition. BollyJeff | talk 12:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The 12 Days of Christine

The article The 12 Days of Christine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The 12 Days of Christine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/My Man Jeeves

Right. Copyright status argument may be a bit unimportant after this - but then, it's useful for future reference, I'm sure, and means we don't have to crop the original file, which is helpful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lyriothemis acigastra
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lyriothemis acigastra male at Kadavoor.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lyriothemis acigastra female at Kadavoor.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Your GA nomination of La Couchette

The article La Couchette you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:La Couchette for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry (film)

I feel as though the peer review is basically done now, so I was wondering if you could take another look at the article. No worries if you're crunched for time. Just do it when you get a chance. :) Thanks again! BenLinus1214talk 21:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus1214: I'm sorry I never got to it. I'll definitely have a look over the next week, but I can't promise it'll be a full review. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Great! Anything you do will be helpful. :) BenLinus1214talk 23:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Anushka Sharma

J Milburn, I've done my best to clean this up after it showed up on the GAN error report. The GA1 review was closed as not listed on July 8; you put a new page=1 GAN on this page with a version of one of the nominator's names, and that editor had done a bit of editing on the article that same day. Please take a look and make sure my edits were correct; it is considered an error by StatisticianBot if the GAN nominator field does not have user and talk page links. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Nana's Party at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America1000 13:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your significant expansion of Nana's Party, and for all you do to improve Wikipedia. North America1000 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Thanks! And thanks for the review. If it can't go on the MP now, I'll nominate again if/when it hits GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on A Quiet Night In. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Sardines (Inside No. 9). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cas! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Talkback

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Jclemens's talk page.
Message added 04:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Norm Sartorius GA Review

Thanks so much for your detailed review. It is very educational for a newbie like me. I am working on all of the improvements you indicated.

  • I will change tone throughout.
  • I have permissions for all images from both the artist and the photographer. How do I provide them to Wikipedia? They are just emails to me that list the images by name, then each person states that they agree to the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license. Is that sufficient?
  • I will just delete the media list.
  • For several statements, I was closely reflecting what was said in the reference. So for example, "He places pieces within sight...[38]," "He acts quickly...[39]," "He reacts to the virtues of each piece..., " followed by the quote [37], etc. Should I reflect these statements more, like "He has stated that...," "It has been noted that he...," or such?
  • I am not sure what "why move the contents list like that means," sorry. The table of contents looks like it is in the normal location to me, left side below the first paragraph or so...
  • I will review for more internal wikilinks and reduce external links.
  • I wish I could find examples of good pages for contemporary atists and craftspeople, most pages are stubs and starters, few have been assessed. Even many of the most important artists and craftspeople have rudimentary pages and, yes, they often sound promotional unfortunately. I want to write good articles that meet Wikipedia's highest standards.
  • From what I have seen, the fairly good pages for contemporary artists and craftspeople that are more that start pages often have sections of "Exhibits," "Permanent Collections," and image galleries of works. I think, for these type of artists, this is what they do and how their careers are evaluated. I suppose it is analagous to discographies, or lists of films or awards for actors or directors, etc.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I will work asap toward improving this article. Please advise when you can about the questions above. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Craig Craiger19 (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for the GA on Hoodening! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Simpsons Guy plot

Here in this transcript (conveniently naming no characters), it is implied by speech that Moleman took the car by mistake. But then again, it is a very trivial detail to the story. Looking forward to the review '''tAD''' (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.

The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.

After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.

Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.

16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Invalid use of CSD #f7

While I'm not disagreeing that the non-free image at File:Fringe_Bishop_Revival.jpg (an unremarkable screenshot that wasn't necessary for the episode in question) should have been deleted, tagging that as CSD F7 is an invalid use of the CSD process. There are very specific cases that F7 applies to, and none of them fit that shot; it's failure purely was on an NFCC#8 basis, and that means its removal/deletion should be discussed at FFD. The CSD F7 only applies to clear, no-questions-asked issues of bad rationals, like the use of commercial images without the image being the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And just checking, you've tagged several TV screenshots as CSD F7, which is not appropriate use of CSD, around that same time (July 24-ish). --MASEM (t) 05:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Where are you getting this from? While the use of commercial images is grounds for an immediate deletion on F7 grounds, the longer F7 deletion is surely appropriate for any invalid rationale- "Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {subst:Dfu} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.". (And, of course, as with any "long" deletion process, there's the opportunity for discussion on the image talk page.) People have been regularly tagging clear NFCC#8 cases using F7 for years. Is there some discussion I've missed? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if it involves several deficiencies.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Josh,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Papageitaucher Fratercula arctica.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 20, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-08-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your FAC

Do you want to respond to my comments at your Last Gasp FAC? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thanks so much for the message- I'd missed them. I'll get to it this afternoon. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

DYK nomination of Leonard Redshaw

Hello! Your submission of Leonard Redshaw at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Leonard Redshaw

Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

BDC

Thanks for your edits to the page. Any suggestions on what I should do now? :) BenLinus1214talk 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus: Five things to have a think on: 1) Go through your reference list with a fine-toothed comb, checking for formatting/linking/reliability isssues. 2) Do what you can with regards to moving the reception section away from the "list of quotes" which is how it could come across at the moment to some readers. 3) You quote a lot of academic literature, but do you think you've gotten across the key ideas and debates that are thrown up in academic analyses of the film? (I couldn't say- I've not read the academic analyses.) 4) There are going to be more academic sources out there, too; look again to see if anything has been missed, especially if its a source that the other analyses are citing but which you've not yet looked at. doi:10.1080/08873630509478233 seems to be an article analysing the film relative to its setting, and there are chapters about the film in both Sugar, Spice, and Everything Nice: Cinemas of Girlhood and Contemporary American Independent Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream. There might be something interesting in doi:10.1080/08989575.2000.10815235 and other articles like it; perhaps how the film compares to other biographical accounts of transgender people is something missing from the article. 5) An independent copyedit could be valuable. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! There was already a pretty recent copyedit--do you think there should be another one? BenLinus1214talk 02:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@BenLinus1214: I'll leave that up to you- I'm just aware that, especially for longer articles, imperfect prose can sink FAC nominations. I don't pretend that my writing is perfect, but, for example, I was noticing the repetition while I read through the article last time. The article's looking very good, but the jump from "strong GA" to "FAC ready" can sometimes be a long one. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've done a good amount on this smaller stuff:

1) I think I've done this. One reference I removed, and there was a bunch of template stuff that really needed improvement. 2) To this end, I've sort of divided the reception section into broader subtypes of praise and criticism. It should be a lot more organized now. 3) I definitely think I have gotten across the key ideas and debates in the academic analyses. In order to illustrate this, I divided the "themes and analysis" sections into several subsections based on the various themes that were discussed. 4) Could you be so kind to send me a few more PDFs? That would be great. :) 5) What I've decided to do is take a middle ground and, instead of braving the backlog at GOCE, seek the advice of someone knowledgeable in real life. I started to do this myself and reformatted the lead before deciding on this solution. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus1214: I've sent you the two articles I mentioned above, but I don't have any privileged access to the book chapters; Google Books, the hope of a PDF uploaded somewhere or directly contacting the chapter authors might be your best bet. There's also apparently a chapter in The Visual Culture Reader. A lot out there! If you can't access the articles, then sticking them in a further reading section would be good. I don't think anyone expects you to read everything, but acknowledging that more's out there can't be a bad thing! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@BenLinus1214: There's a copy of The Visual Culture Reader in my university's library- I can dig it out and send you a scanned copy if you like. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Sisters at Heart

Hi Josh,

Congratulations on getting Last Gasp (Inside No. 9) up to featured status! I have an article about a television episode up for featured status myself right now: Sisters at Heart. Might you be willing to participate in the FAC?

Neelix (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neelix- thanks for your review! I'll see what I can do regarding "Sisters at Heart"... Josh Milburn (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

FAC

You don't need to reply as you don't wish to debate, but him obstructing the article because it's not what he wants it to be, even though its like the other featured comic articles, because he feels that other interpretations should take precedence over the source material is deliberately derailing the discussion. He repeatedly ignored that there was a separate article dedicated to those interpretations that was linked in the appropriate media section in the nominated article and refused to budge unless I effectively dismantled the article. He was obstructive and unwilling to budge at all. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. You seem to just take it for granted that there is "the character" and some things that aren't "the character", and this is part of what was being disputed. You say that Curly's objection would require you to dismantle the article- even if that is true, it seems like it is completely unthinkable to you that this might actually be the right thing to do. I couldn't see that Curly was trying to derail the discussion, just that he had a pretty fundamental worry about the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Perijá tapaculo

Hi Josh. Thanks so much for your peer review of Perijá tapaculo. I have implemented all of your recommendations and fixed the problems you spotted, although in the end I decided against the change in image layout. It's great to see the article getting better and better. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Meteora

Hey Josh! I saw you recently took the issue of NFC for the article. Please put some light on it, because I actually didn't understand the problem. And if possible please review the page. Regards. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 09:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Cartoon network freak

Thank you for explaining me the non-free stuff. I will sort the images/ samples out as fast as I can. However, thank you for your supporting!!:-)

Cartoon network freak (talk) 30 August 2015, 11:29 (UTC)

I thought, It would be better if you would delete all the Inna-related music samples from the category "Inna audio samples", just because all of them have problems with the non-free stuff. If you would make this, I will upload only samples that meet the Wikipedia policy and are really needed.
Cartoon network freak (talk) 30 August 2015, 14:42 (UTC)
I just uploaded three new Inna-samples. They are all under 30 seconds and have a reduced quality. Thus, there are only three samples on Inna that are really significant regarding the change of her music style throughout her career. I will probably upload more samples that will be used for the articles about the Inna-songs. You may also delete "File:Alessia-Deja-Vu-Sample.ogg", which was not previously included in "Category:Inna audio samples", and the screenshots from "Category:Inna screenshots", so I can upload really needed stuff. If something turns bad, please let me know.
Cartoon network freak (talk) 31 August 2015, 08:02 (UTC)
I uploaded samples to all of Inna's music-related articles (They are all under 30 sec. and have a reduced quality). Her biography contains right now three samples and no non-free image anymore. Should I renominate Inna for the GA-status (The non-free stuff is now away and that's the only problem you listed in your review)? Let me know!
Cartoon network freak (talk) 31 August 2015, 17:29 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Josh,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Benoit Peeters 20100329 Salon du livre de Paris 3.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 21, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-09-21. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Meteora

I removed the song samples as they weren't meeting the criteria. But I'm still not getting the problem with the album cover. I'm sorry to disturb you so much, but please, help me on this. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 07:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The second cover is for the live EP, "Meteora-Live around the world". The same is the case with all other albums by Linkin Park. But anyways, if it is a concern for the article, I am ready to remove it.Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 08:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ride the Lightning bibliography

Hey Josh, can you check the bibliography of Ride the Lightning, to see if I got right the author and editor fields? Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead: As far as I can tell, the author/editor issue is absent; I do note that Google Books doesn't recognise the ISBN you have given for Winwood and Brannigan. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I used the second one from here.--Retrohead (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.

Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.

For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!

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

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

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Advice on sourcing image from a video clip

Hi J Milburn. You've set me straight in the past on the (mis)use of a non-free image in the song article Run of the Mill and on the issue of LP face labels in song articles. I wonder if I could ask your advice on including a non-free image from the film Magical Mystery Tour in the song article Blue Jay Way. I'm confident there's sufficient commentary about the sequence to support its inclusion in the relevant section of the song article, but what I'm not sure of is whether I can upload an image from a source such as this blog, or whether I have to take a screenshot of my own from a more reputable source (the DVD itself, for instance). I don't currently have access to the Magical Mystery Tour DVD; and, although there is a publicity photo from the "Blue Jay Way" shoot at the official Beatles site, it doesn't really reflect either of the two points I've been able to highlight in the commentary in our text (misty/foggy atmosphere; swirling, refracting image, as if viewed through a fly's eye). If you had some advice to offer on the correct way to proceed, I'd be grateful to hear it. I'm also hoping to add a video-clip image at Hello, Goodbye, based on the reviewer's support at GAR, and in fact the Blue Jay Way sheet-music cover included at the blog mentioned above might be preferable to the Parlophone face label that's currently in the BJW infobox – in other words, your advice would be useful in one or two other instances. Thanks in advance, JG66 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@JG66: Sorry about the delay- if I haven't got to this in the next few days, please ping me again... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@JG66: Ok, concerning the screenshot on the "Blue Jay Way" article: You are right that a screenshot would be potentially be useful, as long as a good rationale is written. The article contains some very nice analysis of the visual style of the video which is difficult to envisage (in particular, an image would be very helpful to display what was described in the NME). You do not need to take the screenshot yourself- there is no harm from taking the screenshot from elsewhere, such as a blog, as long as you credit the source of the file. (The ultimate source, of course, is the video in both cases- equally, you can take album covers from the record label, you can scan them yourself, you can take them from Amazon, etc.) Interestingly, if the publicity photos were published in the US, they may be in the public domain there (and so OK to upload on the English Wikipedia)- is this something you're aware of? I agree, too, that a screenshot would potentially be a good addition to the article on "Hello, Goodbye" with a good rationale- there's some nice commentary of the visual style of the video and an image would help us to understand the artistic style and impact of the clip. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
JM, a big thank-you, that's very useful. And I'd forgotten about the situation regarding publicity photos (if published before 1977, is that right?). I'll definitely explore that one, if there's a chance we can get the official image (and anything similar) uploaded at Commons. Best, JG66 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@JG66: The publicity photo thing is a tricky one. See Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart; the template in question is {{PD-US-no notice}}, but note that this is about first publication in the United States. So, if it was first published outside the US, it may not be PD in the source country, meaning that it can be uploaded on enwp (along with {{Do not move to Commons}}) but not Commons. You also need to provide compelling evidence that there was no copyright notice on first publication. Other users have more experience with this issue than me, but I note that Commons:Template:Publicity still has some nice info. Best of luck with your search! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, the distinction between the source country – in this case I think it's highly unlikely that first publication of the promo photo occurred in the US. Quite an education to be had in those links, I can see …
Just want to say thank you so much, again, for always being so helpful. Aside from our brief interactions over the years, I've seen your contributions addressing potential copyright violations in music articles, and you really handle these issues very well. I cited your approach on an admin's talk page, in fact, when two editors were in heated conflict over something to do with article content; I remember saying that one of them could do well to take a leaf out of your book instead of continually being so blinkered and heavy-handed in their implementation of particular guidelines. Meaning: the trick is in the delivery/communication, so that other users see that the interaction is still part of the collaboration here, rather than feeling they're being disciplined or "policed".
I didn't want to embarrass you at the time so I didn't ping, but it stuck in mind that I should mention it sometime. Heck, I'm probably embarrassing you now … (Oh go on, here's the link – the mention is towards the end of my long waffly addition.) Anyway, big thanks once again, it's much appreciated! JG66 (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"Call my cynical, but it seems that people find something to be upset about no matter who is winning and how."

Hi Josh. I do hope that the above isn't an indirect dig at me? I'm not "finding" things to be upset with, and I'm most certainly not upset. I'm simply looking at it from the outside peering in.  — Calvin999 09:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I don't think you're standing on the outside looking in; not at all. You're a finalist in this year's competition, and have competed in multiple previous competitions. As far as I can tell, you're unhappy with the current set-up quite explicitly because it means that you (as an insider) do not, in your own words, "have a chance". I think it's disingenuous to call yourself an outsider. Frankly, I think you're looking at this in completely the wrong way- it's very difficult for me to actually understand what your complaint is, beyond the fact that others consistently beat you in the competition. That's in the nature of competitions, surely- we can't all be winners. If that's not your objection, I'd appreciate it if you could spell it out in simple language (and please, let's be honest with each other- no ad hoc objections. That would be the epitome of "finding" something to be upset about.) Josh Milburn (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
My complaint is the reviewing system and the points system, in simple language, and how it seems to benefit some editors more than others/the same editors every round in every year. Yes, it's a competition, only one can win. I don't mind being beaten, it's a game. But I think the system is unfair in more than one area. My opinion on this issue would be the same if I was a finalist or not. My problem is not with you, and I don't have any form of problem with you, I just want a discussion on this. I'm not the only one this year who has these opinions, and clearly last year people had a problem with Godot, which I was unaware of until today.  — Calvin999 10:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Calvin999: Maybe I'm being dense, but I'm still not clear what the objection is. Some people score more than others? Some people get reviews faster than others? These are inevitable, and are a part of the competition. The same editors do well? Yes, these are editors producing large amounts of high-quality content. Of course they do well. In the same way, the teams that score goals tend to do well in football matches. (On a related note, I'll share my thoughts on getting reviews with you later- I really need to get some real-world work done.) Josh Milburn (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't make it any simpler than I did in my last comment. Some people manage to get multiple FAC's pushed through in a few weeks. Mine, for example, had 5 supports after several weeks then had a 10 day period where delegates chose to not promote it. I didn't get spot checks or media checks until 5 weeks in, and only because I asked for them It then got two opposes, of which all issues were fixed, and was closed within a matter of days. I still have my opinions on what happened there, but I won't waste them on anyone. Points wise, Cwmhiraeth has scored 1,195 purely in bonus points in this round already, and I don't think that's fair. That's probably two to three times more than what I could potentially get alone without any bonuses, and I do work hard as well. I made more than 1,500 edits in August, and worked on multiple articles for all different kinds of nominations. We all work hard here, there's no undermining that. We will have to agree to disagree on this.  — Calvin999 10:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Ursa Minor, with 2,500 words and 400 bonus points, had just 4 supports, and only one from an FAC reviewer, but was promoted within 21 days: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ursa Minor/archive1. RO(talk) 16:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Calvin999: (First, I really, really hate the phrase "agree to disagree". While you're continuing to make these kinds of claims, I'm going to continue pointing out what's wrong with them. If that's inconsistent with "agreeing to disagree", then so be it. If you don't want people to point out where you're going wrong, stop making such contentious claims.) It seems like there are several different things getting run together here. The mere fact that someone is scoring a lot more than you can't be sufficient to condemn the competition as unfair/broken. If you think it is, I don't think you're of the right mindset to be taking part in a competition. If you want to score bonus points, work on articles which are eligible for them; if you think the bonus point system needs fixing, you need to identify what's wrong with and, preferably, make some suggestions of how to fix it. (And, to reiterate, the mere fact that some people score a lot of points is not a bug in the system; it's a feature.) Another issue is the speed at which some people get content through FAC in contrast with the speed you get content through FAC. This is inevitable, and there are, as I said, a number of contributing factors. There is nothing that can be done about this, and it has to remain a part of the competition. Finally, there are concerns about particular nominations. There's the suggestion that Man Down (song) should have been promoted. I do not share this view- as I pointed out on Wikipedia:Peer review/Man Down (song)/archive3 (and, to tie to the broader issue- I offered a full review and got next to no response from you... this is not how you encourage reviewers to come back to your article), there were problems which meant it fell short of FA quality (including apostrophe abuse). I don't really know what you're trying to insinuate with "I still have my opinions on what happened there", but it all looks perfectly fair to me. There're also worries about the promotion of certain articles by others, such as Ursa Minor (specifically, from Rationalobserver). The delegates will be familiar with Cas's experience and track record with these kinds of articles. In addition, it received support from Tim riley and Jimfbleak (both respected and experenced FAC reviewers) and Praemontius and StringTheory (not editors I know well, but both very experienced with physics articles) and detailed source reviews from Cwmhiraeth and Evad. It seems like that promotion was perfectly legitimate. In any case, these concerns are surely not WikiCup related- if one or both of you disagree with me about the appropriateness of these FAC closures, your quarrel is with the FAC community. I don't see why you want the WikiCup to make changes. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I can see you're of the ilk that "don't fix it unless we all think it's broken", so I won't bother going back and forth with you, but can you show me another instance where an article passed FAC with only four supports? RO(talk) 18:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: I don't know what ilk I am of- my concern is that I honestly still can't see what you think the problem is, beyond the fact that some people are better at scoring points than others! And yes, passing with four supports is fairly common. My last FAC passed with only four supports, and one of them was yours! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
My last FAC had more than 10 supports, but it still sat for a full five weeks, and I'm still waiting for the reciprocation that you keep saying is inevitable when you do reviews. :) All I'm saying is that when two people have more bonus points than everybody else combined they are only helping a small portion of the participants, who only work on stuff that gets bonus points. I think that's lame. Is constellation Norma really three times as important as Chetro Ketl? I don't know why this has to get snarky and negative. Our opinions are valid, and we ought to be able to voice them without insulting replies, but I won't bother sharing them again if this is the climate. RO(talk) 18:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I wasn't trying to be sarcastic- apologies if I came across that way (if you were talking about me). You are of course welcome to air your views, but a corollary of this is that others are allowed to air theirs- including views critical of yours. If we're going to talk about negativity, though, I do feel obliged to point out that a lot of negativity (though I don't want to point the finger right now) is directed towards those who score highly- Godot, Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, etc. I think this is undeserved. Even if we're going to criticise elements of the game, we can and should do this without suggesting that others are cheating, gaming, abusing, etc. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
But Josh, the rules say that intentionally expanding a DYK enough that it gets bonus points is gaming, so maybe that ought to be removed. RO(talk) 19:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The negativity, as you are calling it, is not a personal hit at those editors. It just happens to be they are the ones who are benefiting from the scoring system the most, i.e. bonus points. No one is calling them out or being rude or aggressive to them. They are being used as examples. That's all. The same would go for whoever the editor was, not just those three. None of this can be discussed without giving examples, Josh, which I'm sure I would have been asked for if I had been vague about it. So, I can't really win with this.  — Calvin999 19:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

People are not listening to me or reading what I'm saying. I'm not against people scoring more than me, and please don't imply that you think this is the case and that I'm in the wrong mindset. Fair doo's to them if they do score more than me. I'm against the scoring system which makes it impossible for others to score decently. That is what I think is unfair. For example, Cwmhiraeth has already scored 1780, and of which 1195 are bonus points. That's more than what I have tallied in total for all rounds combined thus far.  — Calvin999 19:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am doing my best to understand what you are saying; I'm certainly not trying to misunderstand you. It surely is not the case that the scoring system "makes it impossible for others to score decently". Nothing in the rules prevents you from scoring highly, or working on whatever article you like. Exactly the same rules apply to you and Cwmhiraeth. You could say that there's a problem with the bonus system insofar as it gives high points to articles which do not deserve them or it does not award high points to articles which do deserve them (or both), but that's surely a different concern. Is that your concern? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It's all related to that concern, yes.  — Calvin999 19:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
How would you propose reworking the bonus system? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The bonus points system as it is now means that I got 260 points for writing an FA and a GA with a total of 16,500 words, but Casliber got 1,680 points for writing two FAs with a total of 4,300 words. That's six times as many points for one fourth the amount of writing. That's why the bonus system is broken. It doesn't need reworking so much as it should be abandoned. RO(talk) 19:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the bonus scoring has been and can be interesting and make it worthwhile, but with the kind of bonuses being garnered which end up totalling double or triple the basic scoring of some individuals, I would suggest abolishing it all together perhaps as a trial for next year and see how it goes, and tweak the basic scoring as a result. 200 is too much for an FA, I'd have it at 150 as a maximum. I think GAR/PR should be worth 5, not 4. GA should be upped from 30 to say 50.  — Calvin999 19:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to rework it, I'd say the bonus points ought to be prorated and phased in depending on word count. For example, you can't get bonus points for DYKs unless they are 800 words or so, but you can get triple points for an FA that's the same length. RO(talk) 19:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm nervous about tying bonus points to length. I think part of the worry is that concise writing is better than verbose writing; another is that long articles are not necessarily important articles. Another thought: the fact that the nominated article is long is not proof that the person claiming it wrote a lot. Someone could perfectly legitimately claim for a very long article they they have only been partially response for writing; meanwhile, shorter articles may well have been entirely written by the nominator. This is not to say that it's a terrible idea, just that it has its own problems. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
But nobody checks to see how much they wrote in it anyway, and DYKs get more points if the article is about 800 words than if it's 700 words. So why should FAs get full bonus points regardless of length if DYKs do not? That doesn't make sense. I'd say you can only get double bonus points if the article is at least 3,000 words and triple if it's at least 5,000 words, because it's nonsense to give triple points for an 1,800 word article. But that's the last you'll hear of this from me. I've wasted enough time. Thanks for listening. RO(talk) 21:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: I'm happy to disengage, but (at danger of "dragging you back" or playing "last word") I feel that you're still misunderstanding some key points. Nobody word counts because that's never been the rule. The rule is that someone must have done "significant work"- this is deliberately fuzzy. And I'm not sure that you fully understand the rules around DYK- as I said earlier, the rules don't work as you think. DYKs are worth five or ten base points, depending on length. Bonus points are then added based on age, and multipliers (another kind of bonus point) are applied based on interwiki links. There are no bonus points for length, and there never have been. Bonus points and length have nothing to do with each other under the present rules. I invite you to look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, where this is all explained. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right; I don't fully understand the rules, but longer DYKs get more points than shorter ones. You can call them base points or whatever (semantics), but the fact remains that a DYK on an article that's 500 words long will get fewer points than one that's 800 words long. I think the same should apply to FAs, because some editors are intentionally focusing on ones that get bonus points but are also very short. That's gaming the system, IMO. I worked my butt off to write 16,500 words for 260 points, and Casliber cranks out 1,500 to 2,500 word articles for maximum points and minimum effort. Like I said, I'm done with this crap because all you do is invalidate and redirect. I get it, you think 95% of all bonus points going to two people is good. I'm not going top waste my time explaining the other side of it. I suppose it doesn't matter who participates from year to year because you always have enough new people for the vets to defeat. I get it. RO(talk) 21:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
And, with that, I'm disengaging, too. I do not appreciate the way you are characterising my comments and views, and nor the dismissive attitude you have towards the work of others. I'm not sure much more good can come of this discussion. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Look, I'm not dismissing the work of others, but it's not a coincidence that Casliber's last two FAs were quite short but also eligible for triple points. He also works with a partner (Sasata) who helps him write the articles. I've seen you tell people over and over that the way to get reviews is to do reviews, but Calvin and I are among the most prolific reviewers in the damn cup. I dare say we've done as much or more reviewing this year than the other six finalists combined, and we are the ones saying that we can't get our stuff reviewed fast enough to keep up with the vets! Did I get any return reviews from you? I did a PR and supported you at FAC, and you've never reviewed any of my work. Don't you see that? Then add these absurd amounts of bonus points and it's beyond ridiculous. Like I said, I never had any delusions about winning; I just wanted to see how far I could get, but it's very disappointing that you can't just say, "perhaps we should revisit the bonus points system", or something else reassuring. When only two or three people are getting the benefits something is broken. RO(talk) 22:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: (This is me doing a terrible impression of disengaging, but, in my defence, this isn't directly about the WikiCup.) I would be happy to return the review you offered to me, which I thoroughly appreciated. Please let me know if/when you have an article at PR or FAC, and I will make an effort to drop by. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikicup 2015

Hi Josh- I have a proposal for next year's rules: any active participant in the Cup who proposes changes in the scoring rules (or qualifications for participation) prior to October 31 will be immediately disqualified. Too harsh? This sort of reminds me of watching vintage John McEnroe games and how he would spend a significant portion of the game arguing with the umpires. At least he never tried to propose changing the rules... --Godot13 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godot13: It's funny- when people have kicked up a fuss in the past, I've sometimes had some sympathy for their concerns, sometimes not, but I have nonetheless typically found them to be very difficult people. This time, despite the fact that I'm struggling to understand what precisely the objection is, I see that it's coming from people with whom I've had perfectly cordial interactions in the past. I fear that people are talking at cross-purposes; there doesn't seem to be much mutual understanding. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not complicated, Josh: It's disheartening to work this hard to make the final round only to be out of the running in the first week over ludicrous bonus points. That's all I'm saying. Vets can get stuff through the processes easier than newer editors, so they would dominate even without the bonus points that make it all but impossible to compete with them. RO(talk) 18:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It's funny- when the bonus point system was "streamlined" at the start of this year (meaning that fewer bonus points were on offer) there was a lot of upset about the fact that this had been done without consensus. I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about doing away with bonus points; I wouldn't be in support of it at this time, but I'd be open to convincing! Also, I'm not sure that's Calvin's objection, but he's welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the point of valuing one FA higher than another based on how many wikis it's in. I think all articles are important. I also think Calvin was shocked/dismayed that someone could have 1,200 bonus points in the first week of the last round, making his efforts virtually pointless from here on out, at least if he's trying to win. I never had any delusions about winning, but I still think the bonus points are a bad idea. I mean, DYKs have to be a certain length to get bonus points, but FAs do not. I don't know who writes the newsletter, but they minimized my advance saying it was all PRs, but I wrote a 8,500 FA that got zero bonus points and a 8,000 word GA that got 30 bonus points. RO(talk) 19:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Interwiki links were originally proposed and supported as a quick and dirty way to judge the importance of articles. The concern was that a featured article on some tiny village, obscure species or minor sportsperson was getting exactly the same number of points as a featured article on a core subject. This was perceived as misguided. (And as you know, this is not a self-serving opinion for me to hold- I generally work on pretty obscure topics.) Also, DYKs do not need to be a certain length to get bonus points. The length dictates the number of core points given to a DYK (5 or 10) but this is a separate issue to bonus points. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? I got 10 bonus points for my Perovskia DYK because of it's length. RO(talk) 19:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean Perovskia atriplicifolia? You got 10 (as opposed to 5) base points because it was over 5k (see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Did you know?) and 10 bonus points because it was created way back in 2004 (5 points for being created in 2009 or earlier, and then 1 point for each year before 2009- see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Bonus points). There are no bonus points for DYK length, and I don't think there ever have been. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn/archive41&oldid=1143365308"