User talk:J Milburn/archive30

DYK for The Force (Channel 4 television series)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Mimas (moon)
Hi. Will you clarify your comment/vote at this nomination? You said "almost certainly a support from me" but did not comment again to say whether you were satisfied. If you wish to remain a comment and not a vote, just leave a note there or here or on my talk or anywhere I'll figure it out! Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

nasty?
You are a native English speaker. Doesn't this sound not civil? Maybe the guy is Russian or New York Jew, both of which can be blunt?

Do get a grip.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads

Do what you think is best...warn or let the person go. I trust your judgment. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

From that person's user talk page, many complaints...

Why are you saying things like this? [6] I've never said anything like that as you well know. What is this about? What is the purpose of this? Why can't we just have a civil and serious discussion on List of wars between democracies? Is that really to much to ask for? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so disturbed??? Why are you insisting that .......Be sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.43.183 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

For now, I will stick next to you and away from that person. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So I am not alone. Anyway, I wished the person and best and said it would probably be better to avoid one another. Now, back to Wikicup. One DYK and another in a few hours. I don't want to be in last place but I'm too far behind to make it to the last round. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

writing comp
Greetings. I see you are rather experienced with writing competitions! I´m boldly looking at having a 24 hour writing competition. You can see my beginnings at User:Shabidoo/Fall_writing_competition_2010 and I have also submitted this as a proposal in the village pump. I can´t begin to ask you for questions and advice. The competition is different to yours in scope (I really think I should limit contestants the first time round), length (only one day) and idea (its about creating articles and expanding stubs). Again, if you have time I would love some basic ideas and input. Regards. Shabidoo | Talk 01:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bollinger
I've also got it nominated at Commons - I agree, it's a great portrait. I did get a bit lucky with getting the rights holder to release it, though, so I'm pretty happy about that. Thanks.  Connormah  talk 16:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free tag Mega Drive article
Hello there,

I'd like to ask you a question regarding the non-free tag for the Mega Drive article: Are the logos the only problem ? I am asking because of the many screenshots that user SexyKick added and which I think could be removed as well. DCEvoCE (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Donation of points
Sometimes, people withdraw. Upon request, can you attach a footnote to the withdrawn candidate like this. Naturally, a person who passed away cannot add the points to their Wikicup total so that isn't a problem. Besides, you could review all requests so that there would not be any inappropriate requests. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned above that you could review all requests, which would mean that you could and would deny requests from live competitors from combining points. However, how about a reworded footnote, like "withdrawn in remembrance of Karen Woo, surgeon and humanitarian in Afghanistan."?

Rather than make a final push and flurry of activity to try to accumulate points in Wikicup, I would like to pause in the memory of this tragedy for a few days. Can you imagine being lined up and seeing your colleagues shot in the head one by one? All for doing humanitarian work in a hot country? :( Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Le Moyne College photos
Hi, after a lot of work I obtained a copyright statement from Le Moyne College to use two photos of the campus and one of the President, as additions to the wikipedia site. I sent the copyright form to the permissions email that is given on the various pages describing how to proceed. I referred to that copyright form in all three of my photo uploads. Sure enough, two are now 'flagged for speedy deletion,' one by you and one by some other zealot. Can you please tell me: what does it take to satisfy you people? Even when someone follows the rules, you still attack them? Is this some kind of geekfest run amok? Mitchell.166 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

File concerns
Hey J, thanks for your notes. For Melville, I've left you a question on my talk page; for Pete the Cat (really a funny book, though there are no fungi in it--but Litwin himself is kind of a fun guy), I left a remark on File talk:Petecover.jpg. Please let me know of your response. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael of Romania
Recently, I've had success in getting the rights owner of this image (File:King Michael I of Romania by Emanuel Stoica.jpg) to release it under CC. Given that, I think it's an excellent portrait, and I think we're very privileged to have it. Do you think it could be a good FP candidate here? I would like to nom it on Commons, but IIRC there's a rule of 2 FP noms from one user at a time, and I've got 2 up already. We really don't come by these photos of historical figures like this quite often, and I think it would make a good FP. Connormah 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and give it a stab - if not - it's definitely a quality/valued image. Connormah 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, how can I withdraw the nomination? Obviously not suited for FP here, but it's a good photo. Connormah 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw in a sec - this should pass valued images/quality photos on Commons, though, hopefully. Connormah 22:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem @ Commons
I have an issue with an overzealous admin that just blindly deleted a bunch of pharmaceutical images because someone tagged them all for speedy claiming they was commons:COM:DW. The user who tagged them didn't notify anyone that I can tell on their talk page so the uploaders didn't notice until they just got deleted. The pictures in question are of packaging of boxes with trademarks on them. The trademarks, at least in my case, are not unique enough to be copyrighted, just plain text and geometric shapes, or foreign generics where it is just plain text and no logos what so ever. I'm not sure what the next step here is, since it was a fairly large batch of images he deleted, and I can't see them to determine if they are copyright violations or not. Apparently this admin isn't knowledgeable enough about how to determine if a logo is copyright-able or not, that or he was having a serious brain-fart day. He didn't seem to own up too his mistake on his talk page yet. — raeky  T  12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * commons:User_talk:Abigor is the discussion I'm having with the admin, links to the images he deleted of mine are there. But it wasn't just my images, apparently an IP that has never done anything at Commons before tagged a bunch of similar images like this for speedy deletion under commons:COM:DW and Abigor deleted them. The tagger didn't notify anyone on their talk page, so it went unnoticed by me until I saw they was deleted. These images have nothing copyrighted in them, just trademarks, which as far as I know isn't against Commons's rule to have pictures of trademarks... — raeky  T  19:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Fallschirmjäger  &#9993; 11:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gif
I am so puzzled why you removed File:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gif from both Ground zero and Hiroshima Peace Memorial that I have reverted your edits. That particular images is an iconic historical image of the dome shortly after the atomic bomb exploded above Hiroshima. As such, a free alternative is not available (unless you have a time machine and fancy going back to 1945 to take your own free image). Feel free to point me in the direction of the policy or guideline that says iconic, historical but non-free images cannot be used under claims fair-use in either article's lead section/infobox. Astronaut (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Files Deletion Request
Hi, could you please delete and  for me? I am the author of these files, and only want a copy on Wikipedia, not Commons, but I've had them on Speedy Deletion request for a while now. Editor182 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brian Urlacher
Please comment on new crop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
This may be a rather silly thing to ask but I just want to know if you (and the other judges) still plan on putting me in as the fourth Judge for next year's Cup. I'm only asking this so I know not to sign up! All the best,-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know :)-- White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 20:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

May I pick your brain...
on fair-use tags and appropriate circumstances and such? I have a specific question, and you are the guy in the know.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the images at Graphic Lab/Photography workshop are appropriate fair use, what do you suggest is the best tag for them?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Based on earlier ScoutProject discussions about country-specific or age-precise rather than generic Scout emblem tagging, I created Category:Scout and Guide emblems in the public domain here and at Commons. To the best of my research, all is correct, however you're the best devil's advocate, can you help predict minefields? Please tweak if you need.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your input on this. Some like the EU are cut and dried, the others will take me some sifting. I just don't want good images to get deleted.
 * Speaking of which, I am now trying to find a good tag for a reclusive Burmese dictator that was just undeleted for me.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I just make it better or worse? I fumble until I get it right, some days.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC
Whats your opinion on the uninvolved admin just slapping on a couple templates on VPC and declaring the discussion closed and the project marked historical? He seems to think hes absolutely right and won't let me restore the conversation. (see User_talk:SilkTork). I tried to explain to him that this isn't a simple closure, it involves hundreds of pages potentially, and how to handle the existing VPC's, archives, all the nomination pages, etc.. No procedure has been discussed how we want to mark it historical and shut it down, and as far as I'm concerned the discussion on the talk page wasn't official enough to make that decision to shut it down. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. — raeky  T  19:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Sahelanthropus tchadensis skull cast

 * Thank you very much for your attention. I try to contribute as much as possible in the encyclopedia in any language, for bringing us together. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:ClydeFitch.jpg
Gday, this file has been deleted as no fair use rationale. I am not sure whether that is appropriate for the photo of a person who died more than one hundred years ago; such it would seem unlikely that the photo would now be covered by copyright. Thoughts? billinghurst  sDrewth  10:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Dwyane Wade
Given your comments at Featured picture candidates/Dwyane Wade, I thought you might consider commenting at Valued picture candidates/Dwyane Wade.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Given your participation at Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr., I thought you might consider taking the time to comment at Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr..--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Given your participation at Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr., I thought you might consider taking the time to comment at Valued picture candidates/Jesse Jackson, Jr..--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

congrats

 * Thanks, I really appreciate that :) J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You deserve it! I thought of giving 3 barnstars to 3 nice people and quickly thought of 3 nice Wikipedians.  One of them is nice but not uniformly liked because he writes hundreds of articles of obscure historical figures from the American state of Louisiana, a couple dozen which have been deleted. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cry Cry Cry photos
Howdy, I just logged in for the first time in months and found some notices you sent me regarding photos in the Cry Cry Cry article. Both were tagged as lacking a fair use rational and have since been deleted. I do believe such rational had at one time been included. It is possible that someone at one time removed the rational (maybe for a reason, maybe not), but there is no way for me to check the history since they've been deleted. Is it possible to have this reviewed, or perhaps undeleted so that the rational may be added or restored.

Thanks for any help. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Crinipellis zonata
Courcelles 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Image galleries
Hi J Milburn, I want to clarify something. I removed an extensive image gallery in Sinhala article of Dambulla cave temple yesterday. Then si:User:Srimalpunchi has undone my edit. Since Sinhala wikipedia doesn't have its own policies and guidelines, I explained him it doesn't comply with WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:Galleries. Although he gave a bizarre interpretation of these two, I humbly believe my edit is quite legitimate. Here is the link to the discussion. In the English article we have had removed the image gallery twice. The first time and second time by myself. I just wanted to check my policy knowledge and hope you would tell me whether my edit is alright or not. Be your answer endorsing my view, however I will not quote it as a reference back in SIWIKI. Just wanna feel alright about it. Thanks in advance and regards-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 06:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the clarification. Sinhala Wikipedia doesn't have a policy or a guideline saying that its Wikipedians should follow the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia. Sinhala Wikipedians just quote enwiki because siwiki doesn't have any policies. It's just a common practice because there should be something to arbitrate the disputes in siwiki. Seems like it doesn't cause any harm in continuing the way I've used to do with the image gallerias in here. As I told above I won't use this as a reference, and sincerely thanks for your thoughts.-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 02:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Battle at La Hogue
Thankfully,t hey fixed the thumbnailer, making the whole issue moot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

House of the People - Fair Use
Is it your understanding that there is not a fair use for this image for any of the articles in which it is used? It is a unique image of an historic event, specifically the anticlerical expropriation of a church in Spain during the civil war. Even if the building existed today, a photograph of it would be inadequate because it would not have the moniker which it has in the image. Mamalujo (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment
You are entitled to your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See the nomination
I chalk this one up to my ignorance, but I'll be less destruction in the future in the form of comment only. Sorry, but I agree that it's really deserving. Good luck. Gut Monk (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Lee Bollinger

 * Okay, what did I do that the image isn't showing up in this template or on the article page? I did the same thing I do every time! Help? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Move didnt work
I tried to move Ethnic discrimination in Israel to Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel as described in WP:Move but I got the error message:

''The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.''

The new name is already a REDIRECT link to the original name. That is why I did a manual re-name. I just tried it again, and the same error message appears.

Do you have any suggestions? Would you mind doing the move? See discussion on Talk page for rationale for the move. --Noleander (talk)

DYK nomination of Benthoctopus levis
Hello! Your submission of Benthoctopus levis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Smartse (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at your FPC things above, do you think that File:Translation.gif could be worthy of being an FP? Smartse (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for your advice, I'll get round to nominating it some day. I've agfticked the DYK now. Smartse (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

!decurrent
Hi JM, I noticed your addition to the lamella (mycology) page (which I agree is a stubby mess). Lactarius subdulcis, however, has adnate, not decurrent gills. Go for Cantharellus if you want an example of prominently decurrent gills :) I'm working in the background on the stipe article, which is in a similar state. It's been quite challenging actually, as I'm preparing a table to list all the terms mycologists use to describe stipes, and trying to find a representative photo for each. If I'm lucky, I might get it finished this year... Sasata (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Royal Knights
Someone removed most of the images that had consensus on the talk page, and replaced them with images from the anime, with improper names and rationale, and which were redundant to the lead image. As a result of the agreed upon images being removed, they were soon deleted. I've reverted the edit, retaining as much valid additions as possible, but I can't reupload the images due to their deletion. Could you, please? All of the deleted images (which were agreed upon by you and me) are linked to on the main article. You can also see the new, non fair use images by looking a few revisions back. Thanks!208.249.136.187 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We hardly agreed upon them... The article needs considerable work, maybe even merging somewhere. What it doesn't need is a slew of non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained on the talk page why the images there were needed, and you said it was good. If the images are not okay, I'd like you to continue the discussion with what is lacking. Regardless, the images that were recently there were entirely redundant to the lead image.208.249.136.187 (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "if nothing else, it's a good start". If you want to help this article, there are much more productive things that can be done than fighting for the return of non-free images. Specifically what did you want restoring? J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The images that are red-linked on the article - File:Gallantmon X b.gif, File:Examon b.jpg, File:Magnamon X b.jpg, File:Kentaurosmon b.jpg, and File:Leopardmon Leopard Mode b.jpg. Thanks!24.13.125.86 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored them. I do appreciate that you made an effort to reduce the amount of non-free content, and are taking that seriously (by keeping unwarranted NFC out of the article.) J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about "no consensus" result at FFD
Hi, J Milburn. I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process about a snippet of text you added to Files for deletion/heading about a year ago. If you can help to shed some light on the issue I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Bkell (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You did not notify until nomination was nearly closed
I've undone your edit. I think the case is quite clear - you failed to notify until the nomination was almost closing in spite of an early reminder, in full knowledge that, having announced his retirement, the creator wasn't likely to respond within a short time. In short, you gave him no chance to respond. Your reverting of the edit makes your action look even more under-handed than it did already, and you've made no secret of the fact that you were reluctant to notify at all. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not your place to decide if he wants to comment on it or not. You have an obligation to give reasonable notice, and you failed to do so. If you deliberately disregard the rules, you shouldn't be surprised if others step in to fix your mistakes. Rather than trying to argue your way out of it, it would be far better to resolve to comply in future. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Image Permissions
Thanks for your patience with me while I am learning the copyright rules for images. I finally got the copyright holder to release the rights to Spiral Jetty USU.jpg and USU Honors Hiking.jpg via emailing Permissions. If you need me to do anything else, please let me know. Hydrobrain (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
About your editions in List of cryptids, I don´t understand: we cannot use the images in the list but we can in each article? --Againme (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. --Againme (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:GAN
Pleases respond in the GAN page of Road to Europe. -- Pedro J. the rookie 17:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again respond. -- Pedro J. the rookie 23:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons image question
Hi. :) There's a question about PD images on Commons at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. I think I've answered it correctly, but I'm not that confident of my footing. Would you mind taking a look and making plain if I've muffed it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you much, as always. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cryptozoology
Are you going to be involved with the article at all? I've just removed a fact tag - I thought it was a pov edit on a basically non-controversial issue - by an editor whoa agreed that there is a pov problem but is trying to get a statement that cryptozoology is not recognised as a branch of zooloogy removed (usually you don't find cites for a negative like this, and pardon me for not AGFing, but he has enough experience that he should know that). Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

FP noms
Thanks for all your recent nominations at FPC. I was not able to respond earlier as I was in Africa without internet access for almost 5 weeks. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye, Wikicup
At 7 p.m. on 29 August, the GBU-53/B article will appear on DYK, 5 hours before the deadline to the current semi-finals round of Wikicup. With that, I will be entitled to another 10 points or 30 points total. There was another ITN that I could arguably get 10 points but did not submit it because I only wanted to submit solid entries, not debatable ones. (I created an article which someone re-directed to an article created the next day, which appeared on ITN).

Anyway 30-40 points is not enough to proceed to the finals round. Goodbye, Wikicup. Thank you J. for being a Wikicup moderator. Being one of the last people to enter and entering so late that no strategy was planned, I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition. 🇫🇮 Finland made it to the semi-finals round! And 🇫🇮 was not in last place of the semi-finals round, passing some withdrawn candidates and 🇳🇴 Norway! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured sound candidates/Pulse of the Earth

 * x10 :)  Jujutacular  talk 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

pulse of the Earth
Was it you who arranged for the album to be put on Commons? Is there a story behind this? Tony  (talk)  00:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the post above suggests that only the first file is a FS. Tony   (talk)  00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting permission, love it. Hekerui (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Need your Administrative help with Kaki King
I revisited the article on Kaki King, and found her "editorial" fans had driven it in the wrong direction. The photo in the infobox I'd placed there a year ago was switched instead to a photo "found on somebody's MySpace page", and they'd even put the copyright sign in the caption for that person. Here is how the article looked: I explained the problems I found on the talk page, mentioning how to do it properly. As I removed it, along with other redundancies in the text, POV and links to the Wikipedia itself as a reference, I found the photo had been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a ORTS pending note-from over a month ago so I looked in Flickr on a hunch, and found the photo just now here:  by a Sarah Bastin. It doesn't appear anyone has had any intention of removing the copyright! I've removed the photo and am trying to change the text as it's also misleading. Will you please deal with that photo in Commons? I really doubt it is pending ORTS at all! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, I pulled the photo (I mean, really!) Thanks, you are my Savior when it comes to the issues with Commons, especially! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Move
Hi JM, I'd appreciate your adminly assistance to move Morganella pyriformis to Lycoperdon pyriforme over the redirect. I'll be expanding the article soon for another GA, but there should be sufficient explanation in the article already to justify the move. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tales From The Emerald Sword Saga (limited edition).jpg
The file is this one. File:Tales From The Emerald Sword Saga (limited edition).jpg. on Tales from the Emerald Sword Saga article. I don't know whats the wiki policy about having two album covers in 1 article. Some albums like Christ Illusion from Slayer have two. I just put the two to make the article niciest. If you think it does not belong you can delete it now. Neo139 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for clarify ^^ Neo139 (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Good music
Mom and I like Ego Likeness. I also suggest | Lacuna Coil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gut Monk (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

thx
Your edits to the F and A page are much appreciated. It's a big job—fiddly, too. Tony  (talk)  10:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletions
I do not appreciate the way you just deleted masses of Transformers articles for "lack of notability". There was no proper nomination for deletion, and the redirects you put in their places were VERY sloppy. Articles like Big Convoy could have been redirected to the page for the TV series Beast Wars Neo, not a list of Maximals. If you don't know anything about a subject, you should have asked for help before making a big mess of things. Mathewignash (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles had been tagged for notability for some time, no editor had made any effort to fix them. If you believe you can fix them so that they meet our notability guidelines, and other editors agree, then of course they can be spun out again. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They were tagged for two weeks. You see tags that have been on other articles for three years, no one paying attention to them.  If there is a debate over a redirect, then it should be undone, and if you don't think its notable send it to the AFD through proper process.   D r e a m Focus  22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one's paying attention to the notability tags, they really haven't got a leg to stand on when someone assumes the content isn't notable. If it was notable, evidence should have been provided, and the notability tag should have been removed. If it is notable, evidence can be provided and the article can be restored. There's no "right to AfD" if you don't like the fact that someone's turned a useless article into a redirect- this isn't a court of law... If you edit war to keep an article that should not exist, you'll end up blocked. That's not exactly a revelation. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you don't like an article, you can eliminate it, without getting consensus in an AFD? And you sound like you are threatening to block me if I dare disagree with you.   D r e a m Focus  22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If an article has been written about a non-notable subject, turning it to a redirect to an article that legitimately covers the subject is perfectly reasonable. Edit warring to keep an article on a non-notable subject would be unacceptable, obviously, and unacceptable behaviour will lead to you being blocked. Nothing here should be surprising to you, and nothing here is exactly controversial- trying to make this personal and paint me as some kind of madman deleting articles on a mere whim hardly makes you look like a reasonable person. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is determined by consensus, that why we have the AFD process. I'll see how those other character articles AFDs end, before deciding if I should bother reverting you are not.  I think the end result might be the same, the Wikipedia changing for the worse over the years.   D r e a m Focus  23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD is one place that can determine notability, but, like I said, articles do not have a "right to AfD". If you are going to revert me, at least make an effort to demonstrate the notability of the character- cite some decent sources or something. Don't just revert me because you feel you can. If you can't find any sources, can you honestly revert in good faith? J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Eugen Simion 14
See User_talk:Eugen_Simion_14. All them images he upload lack source. Link to uploads. — Mike moral  ♪♫  21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Sorry..."
I'm glad to hear that. I'm also glad that we were able to have a civil, albeit distended and sometimes redundant, discussion. These kinds of discourses when made in good faith can only improve Wikipedia. So rest assured, I only think more of you as a result of our run-ins.

PS. I'm not sure what Talk page etiquette is, so I've left this reply on both our pages. Sorry if you've had to read it twice. Cowtowner (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC
Thanks for your image help at the Armero tragedy FAC; I believe I've resolved your comments.  ceran  thor 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

bombing etc
talkback Sandman888 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * would you be okay if we close it now? I have used the picture in a FAC so I'd like to say it's closed. I doubt we'll get input from more people by now anyway. Sandman888 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Christy Mathewson
Regarding this nom, I'm wondering if you missed the year on the previous nom? "A few months ago" is really "a year and a few months ago", :-) Didn't want to fix in case your idea of "few" is just vastly different to mine!   Mae din\ talk 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cup summary
I designed it with the final eight in mind thinking that people will want to know what people have done and such. It might be something you want to move into WP space and make official. You might even include it in the template and do one each year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Surprise FA fail
Judging by your message at User talk:Karanacs, it looks like one of your FACs was failed without explanation too. If our FACs get reopened, I'd gladly take a look at yours and offer some comments/criticism/support. I honestly don't have any idea how to draw enough attention to a particular FAC to get people to actually comment on it and get it finally promoted. What has your experience been? Axem Titanium (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully this turns out for the better, but overall I've found the process lacking in transparency. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Sandi Jackson
With the extensive discussion at Featured picture candidates/Sandi Jackson, I think it would only be fair to make sure this got adequate consideration at Valued picture candidates/Sandi Jackson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brian Urlacher
Given the extensive discussion at Featured picture candidates/Brian Urlacher, can we get a fair consideration at Valued picture candidates/Brian Urlacher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Cato June
Given all the discussion at Featured picture candidates/Cato June, I would like a fair consideration of Valued picture candidates/Cato June.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Flags
Can you point me to the discussion of that issue? I agree that there are a few flags that shouldn't be use, but frankly, other than flags associated with murderous regimes (Nazi Germany and Soviet Union), few come to mind. And even then, what if one wanted to use a flag of a current murderous regime (North Korea)? What if somebody has finds a flag of some other modern country offensive? I can change my flag, sure, but 99% historical flags are not controversial (such as the one I chose). I would rather see the few, specific flags that can be proven controversial banned, rather then some general categories. PS. I can also see how some flags of proposed countries can be controversial, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. So only flags of current political entities are allowed, right? Question: how will you deal with the North Korean flag or Al-Quaida when if they pop up? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: a reversion happy editor:
I do not appreciate having my sources removed by Radiopathy. Would you please check our recent edits to Hollie (album). If I am ruled incorrect it will cause me to wonder whether I want to continue spending as much time as I have been spending as an editor. I feel that the improvement I made to the track listing section with my sources removed by Radiopathy is an insult to me and the integrity of the article.1archie99 (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "sources" you added are called "linkspam" in Wikispeak. You were directed to WP:ELNO #5 not once, but twice, but decided to edit war instead. Stop your forum shopping.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  10:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Radiopathy in my opinion had assumed ownership of the article. One of the pages that I used as a source for my edits to the tracklisting as it was captioned before my edits is from a website that is used elsewhere in the article as a reference. You can see the state of mind of this editor; before I was able to reply to you he restated his flimsy excuse for iniating this edit war. The last straw was the vandalistic removal of my request to furnish a citation.1archie99 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we please discuss the appropriateness of the links on the article talk page? The conduct here was not ideal, yes, I can see that, but hopefully we can get the issue resolved without the need for any further fighting. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stated the facts on the section you created on the talk page; added a third link which I think is preferable to both that were deleted and invited any interested person to weigh in. I suggest extending the time of the edit block to give sufficient time for other editors to weigh in.1archie99 (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be obvious by his comment to you that Radiopathy holds little respect for anything other than his own desires. I withdraw my request to extend the time of the edit block. If no one comes up with a better source; It is my intention to cite the page on the Amazon site as tha source for the track listing when the block is lifted.1archie99 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Benthoctopus levis
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

GAN
Please respond to t¡my comments in the GAN. -- Pedro J. the rookie 01:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Eisenhower Expressway (2nd nomination)
Can you comment at Valued picture candidates/Eisenhower Expressway (2nd nomination) on your request to have license plates removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I was referring to this comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi JM, thanks much for your comments at the FAC, I've responded to all of your suggestions now. I had a question you might be able to answer for me in your capacity as image expert: this weekend I will be involved in organizing and directing a chess tournament which has two very strong players who already have articles here (see Hikaru Nakamura and Pascal Charbonneau). I'm pretty sure I'll be able to convince them to pose for some pictures, and if there's photographic magic in the air, a FPC might be forthcoming. Do you know if I have to obtain some sort of "model release" or similar documentation to use their images on Wikipedia (and go through the FPC process)? Sasata (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii
I fixed up the image, have a look (though someone else says the red boxed areas are fires, not sure if that should or shouldn't deter us from favoring). If it's up to your taste will you support? I would like for us to feature Hawaii. =) -- I'ḏ ♥  One  17:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology
Water off a ducks back. Hey still wondering about the license plate thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought ther might be an official policy that needed to be pointed out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification
Hey there, regarding your vote at Featured picture candidates/Hawaii, you said you would support if the red line was not there. An edit was added to the nomination, could you indicate there if you support it?  Jujutacular  talk 03:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring old versions on pedobear
I made numerous improvements in between the IP reversion of your edit and your recent edits, but you restored it back to your version so that those were lost. I wonder if in future you would care to manually implement any reversions you would like to do so that others' edits are not loss. Thank you. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS
I forwarded an e-mail to OTRS that gave permission for File:Preacher_Gene.jpg. Could you take a look at this? Thanks in advance. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on September 5 (I don't have the exact time), and the title was "Permission to Use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Preacher_Gene.jpg". --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Road to Europe Second Opinion
You asked for a seconded opinion but no one in the review has responded to my comments, i copy edited the production section and fixed a bit of the plot and CRs, the recption as well it been fixed in grammer, so please respond in the review page and fail it or pass it since the review has gone way to long. -- Pedro J. the rookie 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture for speedy deletion
In this edit you have nominated an image for speedy deletion. Your rationale is that it is unclear what the image adds to the article. As evident from the article, the film in question was released on VHS with one cover, and later on DVD with the completely different cover you have nominated. I therefore think the image fits the article well. Unless you would prefer two articles? One for the video, and one for the DVD? Cheers, --HJensen, talk 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers AfDs
Some Transformers AfDs you may be interested in:

NotARealWord (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Manterror
 * Articles for deletion/Crumplezone
 * Articles for deletion/Mutant (Transformers)
 * Articles for deletion/Axer (Transformers)
 * Articles for deletion/Carbombya
 * Articles for deletion/Greatshot

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some more Transformers AfDs
Some more Transformers-related AfDs you may be interested in. -NotARealWord (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sideways (Transformers)
 * Multiple articles on human characters in Transformers
 * Zeta Prime
 * Primacron
 * Primal Prime

fungi
Hi, Could you please help in id'ing the following 2 and ? --Muhammad (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Even more Transformers AfDs
You may be interested in these delete nominations: -NotARealWord (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heatwave (Transformers)
 * Flamewar (Transformers)
 * Skullgrin
 * Cannonball (Transformers)
 * Brushguard


 * There's also Articles for deletion/Tripredacus.NotARealWord (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup
I want to use File:US Chula-Vista flag.svg as my flag but it says its not in public domain but someone says it is by the template i put on it. Can i use it? Spongie555 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, the hell?
Can you explain the edit on the dbase mac cover, and the associated checkin note? I added a rationale. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand your reply. What do you mean by "hardly"? And why is "weird" a problem? As you clearly know more about this topic than I (and you own thoughts) perhaps you can just take a moment and clearly explain what you would like me to do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Life would be easier if there was some sort of scripted question-n-answer for these tasks, rather than the entirely nasty process of using templates. No matter how hard I try, I never get the right one, never know how to fill them out if I stumble upon it, and invariably end up breaking the page while I try it. Perhaps the new "usability makeover" will improve things... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please consider summarizing and closing this RFC
JM. As a fellow Admin, I selected you at random to reguest the following. Would you consider reviewing, concluding and thus closing this RFC: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists which has extensive discussion on the talk page. I am deeply involved in the discussion but as there have been cries for an uninvolved Admin to step in and close, I solicit your support. As an unknown as far as your position on lists go, I am confident you are uninvolved and can speed this RFC to a logical conclusion. Regards--Mike Cline (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo that call for you to close the discussion. There's not going to be a final consensus that solves the whole issue. But you would be helpful if you could identify a few "consensus-in-principle" issues, even if they seem trivial. (For example, "most people agree that you need third-party sources for lists, but we're just not sure to what extent". Or "most people agree that it's not appropriate to create a "list of X" for every article "X", even if we don't know how".) Really, just ANY agreement that can serve as a stepping stone to a more focused discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Child Warsaw Ghetto
I'm the one who put File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg in Warsaw Ghetto last July. It gives an emotional sense of the Holocaust like few other pictures of that terrible time. There is very much rationale for using this image. It is disturbing picture of a disturbing part of history but as long as it doesn't humilate the subject or violate copyright it shouldn't be censored out. Slightsmile (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really know a lot about non-free content criteria. What you're saying is it doesn't meet Wikipedia's copyright rules? Also I would dispute that it violates Neutral point of view. The event in the picture is presented as it happened, no more and no less. Tech question - when I start a new section in a talk page, how do I make it show in the "My watchlist" as a N New section? Slightsmile (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I went through WP:RATIONALE but I'm not getting it. Even if Steven J. Anderson cut and pasted his rationals ... A child dying in the the streets of the Warsaw Ghetto - is that not relevent to the article? Could you suggest a rational that would be satifactory?
 * Good point about "emotional sense" but to clarify, I wasn't out to impose any POV. It's true that I was taken by the image when I saw in The Holocaust article. I like how Wikipedia discusses the Holocaust, Nazis, Nazi organizations etc in a factual and non-emotional way. Is it necessarily imposing a POV to illustrate the human side of a historical event? Slightsmile (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't get it. I see lots lot's of pics in Warsaw Ghetto and Holocaust with no FU at all. Instead of trying to kill that file, why not help find an acceptable rational or point me in the right direction. I don't agree with the comparison to Princess Diana, Childwarsawghetto is informative in many ways -
 * Notice how skinny the girl's legs are, it's a wonder she's walking. Death was so common that the dying kid seemed to have little significance to passers by. When I showed it to someone who lived in Occupied Europe she stared at it for a long time. She remembered the (knickerbockers?) the boy on the right is wearing and it brought her back in time. That it shows a human side to a historical event doesn't mean that it's a POV. Slightsmile (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, still don't get it. I go into the links that you've provided but I seem to be going round in circles. Maybe this approach will help me -
 * I like File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg in the Great Depression article. If you explain to me in Wikipedia words the rationale why it has to be in the article it might help me find the right wording for Warsaw Child.
 * Also File:Encyclopaedia Britannica 15 with 2002.jpg in Encyclopædia Britannica, File:The Untouchables Cast.jpg in The Untouchables (1959 TV series) and File:The White Slave statue.jpg in Sexual slavery. Slightsmile (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I finally understand and agree with Wikipedia's strict policy on non free images - took long enough, didn't it. I tried to ask around what might be good rationales and it looks like the picture is a goner. Too bad, I found it unique in that gave a sense of being there like no other images. Just a final clarification for my knowledge about PD and non free. I've read or been told that images owned by the Nazi government and seized by the allies used to be PD the US. However images owned by the modern German government are under copyright in Germany and images that belonged to the Nuremberg Tribunal fall under copyright in the US. What is the status of File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg that makes it non free? In one part of the file I see US government archive, in another I see German government. I appreciate it how you took the time to explain things to me. Slightsmile (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor DYK issue
Hi. Regarding your triple-nom at DYK, have reviewed it and it's fine, but all three articles only barely just meet the 1,500 character requirement. A bit more expansion wouldn't hurt, I think. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and promoted the articles, it's now in the preparation queue. Strange Passerby (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers AfDs
I see that you've been involved with tagging both of these articles for notability; I've gone ahead and put them forward for AfD, considering the multiple issues present and the unlikely nature that either of them will accumulate enough coverage to stand on their own. — Chromancer  talk/cont 02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Portrait
Re this, sizes of art & museum pictures are always given with height then width (then depth if appropriate); actually I think most objects are normally so described. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Parodia tenuicylindrica
-- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Parodia arnostiana
-- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Parodia buiningii
-- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait
I'll try and contact him and see if I can work anything out (the author of the Palila pic, I mean). Also, try to chill – the aggression is uncalled for. Res Mar 01:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Slipknot FAC
Hi, you recently commented on the FA nomination for Slipknot (band) and I have responded to your comments and made edits accordingly. I would appreciate your opinion once again and any further comments you may have, thank you. -- REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  14:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust images
Sorry that you are getting shat on in the FFD nomination. The sad truth is that any discussion on a Holocaust-related image will result in anyone supporting deletion having their character slandered.  howcheng  {chat} 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That happened from the very first comment posted after J Milburn nominated the image. But that poster taken to task? Oh hell no. Reflexive response syndrome. For some topics, it's ok to suspend rationale debate. You knew that, didn't you? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That absolutely seems to be the case. I'm not looking at the debate again, but what really got me was a post a few hours ago, accusing me of nominating the image based on IDONTLIKEIT grounds, when so much of the keep brigade seemed to be entirely based on ILIKEIT. Defending articles like that is indeed necessary, but I didn't realise it was me who was the potential problem there. I thought it was, y'know, Nazis. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok. There's plenty about the world that isn't ugly. Music to make you feel better :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted a response/question there.

If I mis-assessed your intent, I'll happliy apologise. but at the very least, beeblebrox's comment directly below mine seems to come across: "but this nomination and the arguments to delete strike me as process for the sake of process as opposed to a legitimate attempt to either improve Wikipedia or protect it from lawsuits."

I've typically a huge fan of AGF. And I have been on the wrong side of accusations like being called a deletionist, or people presuming what I might be saying without reading the actual nom or proposal.

I actually thought about that before posting, and re-read the entire discussion again, just to make sure.

Anyway, like i said, if I'm misinterpreting your meaning/intent, you'll have my glad/relieved apology.

In the meantime, rather than two forums, I'll leave the discussion there rather than here. - jc37 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My intentions have nothing to do with that nom, really- if there's an issue with them, here would be the place. In any case, I've no intention of looking at the discussion again. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll copy/paste the minithread here for discussion then. you can hide it, remove it, whatever. And even ignore, of course. - jc37 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this conversation or really noticed it until now, but I've turned to J Milburn more times than I could easily count to help me with tricky image issues and he is therefor on my watchlist. I know he takes WP:NFC seriously, and his extensive work on images around the project certainly suggest to me an even hand. He may not share the standards you do, but I'm shocked at what does look like an implication of bad faith. Do you presume that those who have agreed with him have also presented evidence of bad faith? User:Rockfang, User:PhilKnight, User:Seraphimblade, User:Pieter Kuiper, User:Howcheng, User:Hammersoft, and User:Masem: are they all intentionally attempting to deprive the project of an obviously necessary picture just because they secretly don't like it? I would not weigh in on that thread myself because I find our non-free content guidelines often confusing and difficult to interpret in terms of imagery, but there is ample room for contributors to disagree on interpretation without reading such disagreement as in some way subversive or personalizing it. Please reconsider your conclusions about J's motivations. I fear you do him misjustice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It may have not been the best of ideas to copy this here, out of context of the discussion itself. I mostly did it upon his request, and because I'm honestly trying to ascertain whether I've fallen afar the field based upon what I've read, both in that discussion, and a cursory glance at his comments in other deletion discussions.


 * And it does still look like IDONTLIKEIT. but it occurs to me that perhaps my usage of that is being misunderstood. I'm not necessarily saying that it's specifically because he doesn't merely like the content in question. I'm saying that there is something about this he seems to not like, similar to how someone who is out to delete all of anything annoying to them.


 * I don't know if deletion based upon NFCC applies here or not, my attempt at reading what others' said is that it's a keeper, falling within fair use. But if it's just nominated because someone wants all photos to be free (for example), then that would be an IDONTLIKEIT, because Wikipedia policy obviously allows for fair use under certain restrictions. (I'm not saying that the example is necessarily directly applicable to JM, I'm just using this as one illustration.)


 * Who knows, maybe this all could have been avoided if the nom had been longer/clearer as to his concerns about its fair use and/or its necessity for being on or not on Wikipedia. Though we at times forget (I know I have), or aren't as diplomatic or explanatory as we might have intended (been there too), most of us tend to try to handle "batteground" topics with kid gloves. And for that reason alone, this nom may likely end up being a train wreck. (We already have the beginnings of it.)


 * Anyway, while I am still unconvinced, I'm going to strike the IDONTLIKEIT comment - if for no other reason than Wikilove. - jc37 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a great amount of non-free content myself- some of the articles I display with pride on my userpage contain non-free content. I nominated the image because I feel it fails our non-free content criteria, and I have explained enough times that that is the case, and argued from that position repeatedly. I said I was stepping out of the discussion, and that doesn't mean I want the discussion moved here. I think your insinuations are badly thought out, and bordering on the offensive/ridiculous. You said yourself that "I don't know if deletion based upon NFCC applies here or not", so what you were doing at the debate in the first place is beyond me. Moonriddengirl, thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as IANAL, I felt it fair to say that while I've been in some of the discussions involving NFCC etc, I won't call myself an expert. The point of the discussion is to bring out facts (if they exist) to determine if it does indeed meet fair use, else remove. If that's the point of a FU discussion on the FFD page, then if such does meet fair use, discussion over. Else, discussion over in that case as well.
 * Anyway, it's clear (if not from here, at least from your initial an/i post) that you're upset atm, so I'll hold off trying to learn from you what your continued grievance is with the file in question. (And since you're now saying you don't wish to discuss it, I'll remove the mini thread paste at least.)
 * Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, I hope you have a better day. - jc37 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you've actually missed the point here. Something being "fair use" is not the same as something meeting our non-free content criteria, which are deliberately far stricter than law. I'm not a lawyer either- I'm not even American- so I don't want to start guessing about the law. However, I do know a bit about our policies and guidelines. That really tells me in one that you need to understand the underlying issues a little better. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned at my talk, there is a line at IDONTLIKEIT that says "This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images...", which is perhaps why Jc37 invoked that page. – xeno talk 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear God... Who the hell writes these pages? If only they had some kind of outlet for their creativity. I wonder if there's any project they could join where they could write and publish articles on just about anything? J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My major concern with the note I saw here (and note it was not directed to me) was "And before you accuse me of presuming bad faith, please remember that we're not directed to AGF when evidence to the contrary is presented to us." Perhaps Jc37 didn't intend it that way, but this seems to suggest he has been presented with evidence of bad faith. I wouldn't much like being told I was nominating something for deletion because I didn't like it, either, but being told I have given evidence contrary to good faith would be even more distressing to me. I feel quite sure that J does what he does for the good of the project. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)
 * "It's your fault", "no it's yours."
 * "You don't understand" "No you don't"
 * I've always claimed to not be an expert. But that aside, you used NFCC in your initial response to me. At the time, I was thinking that that was odd, but whatever. Let's pass on that...
 * If you really want I'll go try to find the quotes about fair use (one of the wikimedia lawyers commented about a different situation a few years back) in that we don't have to worry a whole lot about it per se (and yes I'm paraphrasing and taking it WAY out of context), though personally, imho we should be concerned about it.
 * The question at hand should simply be whether the image meets Wikipedia's fair use criteria or not. Is it because you don't like the rationale? the image? the use of the image? There are others who seem to agree and those who disagree. So it's about assessing Wikipedia policy on something that seems slightly mired in quicksand.
 * Anyway, I mentioned to someone else that this is likely not a productive discussion, and that likely all we're doing now is stressing nerves, so let's just drop it. After all, you've already decided to not go back to the discussion, so I suppose there is little further to be gained discussing not discussing. - jc37 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And MRG, someone can act based upon not liking something and still think they are acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. Typically, that's handled by attempting to discuss with the person. And trying to come to a consensus (As I know you know well from past discussions where we've agreed and disagreed.) And in the case of FU images, this is a murky area of Wikipedia, so I'm not hopeful that such a discussion in this case would be productive at this time.
 * And just so it's said: I have nothing against JM personally. To my recollection I don't recall ever noticing his name in discussions I've been in before, but then, not everyone has such a memorable name as moonriddengirl : ) - jc37 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith" in its nutshell is very clear: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." You said, "And before you accuse me of presuming bad faith, please remember that we're not directed to AGF when evidence to the contrary is presented to us. And it would seem to me that there is indeed such here." When you say you feel you have been presented with evidence of bad faith, you are saying you have reason to believe somebody is trying to hurt the project. AGF goes beyond the bit you quote to add that "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Disagreements are one thing; saying you have "evidence to the contrary" of good faith really is something beyond that. It draws assumptions about his motivations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Again, this isn't directed at me, but I nevertheless appreciate your striking this. You may not have intended to accuse J Milburn of deliberately undermining the project, but as an uninvolved bystander I felt that the impact of your words. It was, again, that which I found shocking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC))
 * (dedent) - Now here's where I am being misunderstood.
 * But I'll accept the blame due to a lengthy sentence.
 * I was saying a.) don't accuse me of bad faith, because b.) I feel I see apparent evidence of IDONTLIKEIT.
 * My apologies if anything else was interpreted from my comments. - jc37 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to know you didn't intend it like it sounded. But I'm still glad you struck it, because I suspect that other readers might interpret it as I did. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS
He's interested, so the question becomes, what the hell is the email? It's nowhere on the OTRS page. What? Res Mar 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting a failure notice - adress does not exist. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Messier 82
In case you didn't notice, I closed this nomination as not promoted. I left a comment there on my decision to do so. I hope the result is satisfactory. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Zino's Petrel illustration
Again you have said FAC is the wrong venue, went on to say we should not draw up battle lines, but then continued to make another post doing just that. So let me repeat my offer, lets both of us strike all our comments on this at the FAC and go discuss it somewhere else.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  02:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's just drop it altogether. I am not against rolling up the discussion but don't feel I can do that as we were not the only contributers.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  11:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS request
I submitted an OTRS request for File:KatyMixonMike&Molly2010.jpg after getting permission from the publicist of the actress. Just to be sure, can you look it over and make sure the permission is sufficient? I'm currently using IMDBPro to contact various publicists for assorted celebrities and want to ensure I get the proper permission to prevent deletion later. If we have the publicist say that on behalf of the subject the image can be released under a free license (since they represent them and have permission for the image), is that sufficient for our permission? I've got several other images lined up for other celebrities and want to make sure how the current wording is set up is going to work for future ones. This is definitely different directly contacting the subject instead of pursuing fans' images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Two questions.

 * 1) I looked through Russian State Archive and found there some photos which are identical to those in Commons. These photos have been provided by German State Archive under a share alike license. On your opinion, what is the actual status of there photos can these photos be used in WP?
 * 2) Many photographs which are found in the Russian archive are made by some unknown authors, and have no information about their first publication. Can it be considered as an official recognition of the fact that the author's name cannot be established, and to whom the copyright belong in this situation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Image nightmares
As you suggested, I uploaded a scaled-down version of File:Manchester Mark2.jpg, but the original upload is of course still there, which seems to make the exercise a little pointless. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fomes fomentarius
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Anomalous edit
You mentioned this anomalous edit on irc - a similar one happened when I was editing a section a while back. This is my explanation. Also, I've noticed that after waiting too long before saving (hours?), the message "Loss of session data, try again" appears when attempting to save: but it always saves the edit correctly, in my experience. --Lexein (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul is dead - Editing problems
User:Radiopathy and User:Black Kite have consistently reverted my constructive edits on Paul is dead. First, because the article deals mostly with a US phenomenon, which was carried in US papers, on US radio and US TV, I think US usage should prevail. This was such a small matter that it is not covered in the expansive article on The Beatles). The editors appear to believe they have ownership of any articles remotely dealing with The Beatles, and think that British spelling and forms should be used. Second, they also reverted all my other extensive copy edits, which improved sentences (for instance, by using active voice and deleting OPED language, per WIKI MOS), corrected incorrect grammar (such as the use of two different verb tenses in the same sentence), replaced incorrect cite format, indicated a dead link, etc. Black Kite claims in his editing comment that I "introduced errors" but never pointed them out on the Talk page. After four reversions, Radiopathy said I could keep my version if I replaced British spelling. This is hardly collaborative.Parkwells (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, J Milburn - Thanks for your note on my Talk page. The reason there were inconsistencies in spelling is because the editors above kept reverting all of the changes while I was working on the article. What you suggest sounds reasonable, and I will restore the British spelling, but believe I have other substantive copy edits that should be kept. Radiopathy stopped reverting after suggesting just the use of British spelling, but Black Kite continued wholesale reversion, including restoring incorrect grammar. While reviewed for FA some time ago, the article was not approved, in part, so the comments say, because of the quality of its writing. Parkwells (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking leave
I am suddenly busy in life and, if it were the proper way in WP, I would apply for leave. However, WP is not a bureaucracy and requires no such planning. Furthermore, I am a nice person so vandals do not visit my page and watching it is unnecessary. I remain interested in Wikicup 2011 and will return no later than December, possibly as early as late October. Therefore, feel free to continue to send me Wikicup newsletters! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Limbo (again)
When you get a chance, could I just ask you to check (not copyedit) if the dev section of Limbo (video game) makes sense? IGN just posted a detailed history-of article in the last week that has to be added, and necessitated some movement to create a better flow with all the new info. --M ASEM (t) 06:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I've still got the article tagged at the League of CEs for a review before I FA it again, but that article needed to be included, chock full of details that tie much of it together. --M ASEM (t) 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Auricularia auricula-judae
... looks great so far, and is much more interesting than your average fungus species article-it will make a splendid FA! I will continue working on it here and there over the next while; I've got a lot of material to add, but have to balance this work with keeping pace with TTT :) Sasata (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Importance of Being Earnest GA Review
Hi Milburn,

The Review of the Importance of Being Earnest is still open, and the article has recieved significant attention since your comments. I think it is a substantial, well sourced and sufficiently broad, though not comprehensive, article. One remaining issue is the clarification the status of the lead photograph, if neccessary if could be removed from the article pending further research offline to establish its pedigree. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

File:1938 Interior of Berlin synagogue after Kristallnacht.jpg
Please stop trying to delete this image via the back-door, by orphaning it and then speedy deleting it. It's clear that your views on deletion of images of this nature are not in accord with the consensus of most Wikipedians. If you want it deleted you'll have to do a proper FFD. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. However, we're not going to tell you about it because we have nothing better to do with our time. Spot on :) Keep the faith, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say; I didn't start the thread to 'report' you. Rather, I saw some seriously heated discussions that was spinning multiple discussions off their tracks, combined with following going on. A LOT of heat was being added all over the place with little in the way of constructive movement. Sometimes, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Sometimes what makes the most beneficial difference is for the two parties to put down the knives and walk away. I recall Michael Jackson made a heck of a lot of money singing and performing on the very subject :) You and I work in areas that strongly overlap, and I frequently see you in discussions I am in. I don't look for your approval or disapproval in anything I do, nor am I asking it from you. I just wanted to be clear that what I did in starting the WP:AN/I thread wasn't for or against you, but rather to just get the situation to end. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just now realized this isn't the notice I posted yesterday, but one I posted some days ago. You removed the notice I posted yesterday. Some days, I just can't keep up :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FP points
You had previously said that for images that you hunt down licensing consent for you can claim them for CUP. In this case, I had to do more work than I do getting licenses because I had to contact the original photographer to get him to restitch the image. This entailed attempting to contact him on WP, through WP email and flickrmail. Then, I had to contact him several times to remind him to do the restitch. Finally, when I was told that I either had to allow this to close or get a new restitch, I had to contact him one last time to get him to restitch. Then I had to go through a bit of an ordeal to get the discussion restarted as no one would respond at FPC on proper procedure even after I pointed out that someone attempted to stop me from restarting the discussion by undoing my edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
About this edit, did you know that you just restarted a talk page discussion (even though that page was deleted some time back by another Admin) for User:JarlaxleArtemis (aka GRAWP) who has been BANNED indifinitely, simply because he was the original creator of an article you've nominated on AfD. Shouldn't WP:DENY apply in this case? What gives? --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, here's something for you to cook for dinner... --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Grimlock, WD cite now there.
Hi, Just noting that the White Dwarf cite has been added to the article... Hobit (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Easley High School Auditorium south and east elevations.jpg
Thanks for your message about adding fair use rationale for this image. I've added that to the file description page but haven't deleted your tag. Please check to see if the rationale meets the requirements and, if so, delete the tag on the file description page.

Contributingfactor ( talk) 12:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing the need for it. We already have a picture of the building as it is now- non-free content should be used as an absolute last resort, and the article is quite short, it already contains multiple images. Also, while I'm here, File:Easley High School 1925.jpg is listed as published before 1923, but it was apparently taken in 1925? Could that be fixed? J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article's current length isn't really germane to whether or not the photo should be included. The photo meets fair use rationale and clearly illustrates a section of the article about the historic site's restoration by showing how the building fell into disrepair. There's a photo of the building around the time of its construction while serving its original purpose and then one showing its present-day restored state, having been adapted for residential use (thus saving the building and site); this photo clearly shows the contrast and is, therefore, important to include.  This is a very common issue in the world of historic preservation, particularly for NRHP properties.  Use of this photo doesn't appear to be controversial or out of line with the scope of this article or other articles on historic structures, particularly those that have undergone adaptive reuse and restoration.  Contributingfactor (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact the image doesn't actually illustrate any section, as it's found off below the references. The only thing this seems to serve to illustrate is the line "The building had fallen into disrepair". That does not warrant the use of a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's times like this when I wish Wikipedians could get on the telephone rather than do back and forth on talk pages! It would seem so much faster and clearer to resolve questions!  But here we are...  On my screen, the picture appears with the "Recent Restoration" section and not below the references as you state.  That's where it's meant to be, at least, to illustrate that section.  Perhaps it is not correctly anchored to that section and it would be helpful if you could provide information on how to do that.  In any event, as a copyright holder myself in other venues, I fully appreciate the need for copyright protection and for fair use rationale.  The text clearly states that this was one of South Carolina's most-endangered structures (that would be at the time of the photograph).  Am I correct that your contention seems to be around the amount of text in the "Recent Restoration" section versus the image?  Would expanding that section help or would altering the photo caption to strengthen that help?   I do think it's vital to show the life-cycle of historic properties (as I stated above), particularly those that have been saved from ruin, and, in this case, since this was such an endangered building.  Would you seek feedback on this from the NRHP WikiProject about this?    Contributingfactor (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Easley High School 1925.jpg
Photo source, Easley High School Archives, lists this as "c. 1920". Can this picture be renamed accordingly? "1925" date appears to be an error. Contributingfactor (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing fault with featured sound
Hi, a 'featured sound' file seemed to be not working; I've tried to replace it. I've posted Wikipedia talk:Featured sounds but not sure anyone looks there much; can you take a look please? Ta.  Chzz  ► 00:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

New essay
Following the recent debate over the non-free policy, I've started a new essay - Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions - to have something as a rebuttal to the most common misunderstandings. At the moment it's in quote form, however at some point, I'll convert it to prose. Anyway, I've quoted you, hope that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Palm Springs through mountains.JPG
Hi J Milburn, I see you're an administrator. Could you please delete File:Palm Springs through mountains.JPG for me? I've moved it to Commons and it's now under the "NowCommons" template. Thanks, Jsayre64   (talk)  15:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind now. Another admin deleted it for me. Jsayre64   (talk)  00:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments
I noticed Ed's commentary on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Regarding your GA concerns: it is my opinion that a reviewer was reviewing a topic outside of his expertise and have requested reconsideration of his quickfail prior to going to WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Regarding Cato June: Ed noted that the original nom was up for deletion, but did not note that the reason it was promoted was that I removed the copyrighted logo that made deletion appropriate. You also seem to be ignoring that the only reason the image passed was because I removed the logo. How can you not give me points for an image that only passed because of my work (Raeky also helped clean up my cloning and if he were in the cup would rightly be eligible for points).  Does either of you understand that the image would not have passed if I had not removed the logo.  Yes there was a subsequently cropped version that passed, but that contained cloned pixels that I produced to eliminate the logo.  I should note that this was the second image I ever cloned so it took many trial versions to get it right enough to post in the discussion although that is irrelevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Regarding Eisenhower Expressway (2nd nomination): Ed rejected this because it was not uploaded by me, but look at the page. Again, he looked at the original and not the version that passed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Regarding Buildings along Chicago River: Ed noted that "consensus in the past has been to only claim credit for images you have taken or restored, and you did neither" However, you noted previously much earlier in the cup that you would consider licensing consent for points because there was no precedent. This was more work than a licensing request.
 * Um..in order

1. Why do you care?
 * Because I did the work that enabled it to be promoted making me worthy of the points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Why do you care?


 * Because I did the editing on the promoted versions making me worthy of the points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

and...

3. Why do you care? E-mails are not to be mentioned as "more work than a licensing request". If that's the case, I'll upload hundreds of photos right now and begin e-mailing their creators so I can get points on them.


 * Good attempt to act like you are too stupid to understand the difference between random emails and emails that secure a promotable FP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not acting like I am "too stupid" for anything E-mailing people is not a legit justification for claiming these points. Without you, the FP's and VP's could have been nominated and passed. That's the thing, take another article, like one of your GA's and remove all the contribution that you put into it and nothing or very little remains. That is the signs of true content improvement, when not much remains when you take yourself out of the equation. With these images, the only thing that is mussing from them if you were removed from the equation would be the noms.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given your response how can you say I do not deserve credit for an image that had a logo causing it to be put up for deletion when no one else was going to remove it and I did for #1 above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding #3 above, without my extensive effort to contact, cajole, remind and beg the creator to restitch, do you think this would have passed at WP:FP? Keep in mind that I the nomination was about to be closed as lacking support until I did my final grovelling. Where would this nom have gone with me removed from the equation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, with all due respect, you are making it appear that you are a greedy trophy collector who will not sit still until he has his way rather than someone working for the benefit of the project. Give it a rest. Enough with the "sandbagging" comments, the paranoia, and the gaming the system strategies and start actually doing some content improvement.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I was talking to you, I would ping you. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't give 2 cents if you were talking to me or not. Stop trying to change the rulings by the judges. You wiki-lost; get over it and stop complaining.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Padronkavskiy zhargon
You can find sources in Russian and Ukrainian interwiki. And I am Ukrainian and I know that BBC wrote nonsense about this. They even misspelled the name.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Coconut octopus nomination
There's another version of the image available at. I'd appreciate it if you could offer comment or state a preference. Thank you. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Duke and Duchess of Windsor meet Adolf Hitler 1937.jpg
Okay, you are the go-to guy, I've seen enough similar images at Commons that I think this is an mtc candidate rather than fair-use, please have a look.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tate03ShowGallacio2small.jpg and File:Tate03ShowGallacio1small.jpg
I've replied at User_talk:Tyrenius. It will be easier to keep this conversation in one place.  Ty  06:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've replied on my talk page.  Ty  20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thrud
Hi. I believe SandyGeorgia was a bit premature in closing the Thurd the Barbarian FAC. I have provided a detailed response to the sourcing queries at the FAC as discussed at User_talk:SandyGeorgia and hope that you will agree that there is enough there to at least re-open it and continue the discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 12:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm in no rush! Been sitting on the article for a year. GDallimore (Talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Email... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent another one, sorry for the bother Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

File:E-tripartite-pact.jpg
It was deleted because you said that there are free images available. If that's true, why is this one still in use? Replaceable images should be replaced if the free images are already on WMF servers. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please replace all uses of this image; it's obviously not replaceable with newly-created images, and I'm not aware of any free ones on WMF servers. Your rationale for deletion actually surprised me, because I didn't expect there to be any such images.  With those images in place, this will be deletable, but I don't think it reasonable to delete first.  Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So where are these supposed free images? You told me that there were free images of the event; I was about to delete it before I realised that you'd not provided such an image.  Historically significant events may be illustrated by non-free images; they significantly increase readers' understandings of the events.  Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your words made it sound as if there were free images of the same event. I've declined the speedy because I don't see any way that the image fails the NFCC; please take it to FFD if you continue to disagree.  Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I told you, it shows the establishment of the alliance and helps the reader thereby. How is this any less crucial in its place than File:Declaration independence.jpg is in articles such as American Revolution?  Would you seriously consider removing that painting if it were non-free?  Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I told you, it helps us visualise. No different from a photo in an infobox of a dead individual being used for that person's identification.  Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you try to get nonfree images of dead people deleted for this same reason? Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

PING
I've emailed you. Tony  (talk)  04:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nansen photo
Hi! Per your request at the Photography workshop, a cleaned version of Fridtjof Nansen LOC 03377u.jpg has been uploaded at Fridtjof Nansen LOC 03377u-2.jpg. If you are happy with the result, please mark the request as resolved. Thanks —S MALL  JIM   09:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Red-and-yellow Barbet
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Topic credit
A few weeks ago, in anticipation of Millennium Park regaining its featured topic status, I broached the idea of CUP credit after the last article was promoted and you indicated that credit would not be granted. It is my belief that I misrepresented the work done to regain Featured Topic status at a time when one last article was needed. It is also my belief that you rendered a decision that getting credit for getting one last article promoted was gaming the system. You noted that this type of credit was dangerous territory for the cup. Clearly, just having articles added to a topic or repromoting a deleted topic could be gaming the system, but when a rule change requires taking a 17-article topic from 1/3rd to 1/2 Featured content, it is not a matter of gaming the system.

The winner of this contest could come down to whether you grant me Featured Topic points for Featured topics/Millennium Park. I earned FT points for this topic when it was first promoted. At that time the topic was 15 articles and the requirement was that 1/3 of the articles be WP:FC and all be at least WP:GA. Thus, I was acknowledged for bringing 5 of 15 topics to featured status. However, during the year two articles (Park Grill and Grant Park Music Festival) were added to the topic and the requirement was increased to 1/2 of the articles needing to be featured. Thus, I had to ensure that the two new articles be promoted to good article (which I did without a lapse in topic status) and that a total of 9 of the 17 articles reached featured. Thus, I helped raise McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink (March 23), Harris Theater (Chicago) (June 12), Millennium Park (August 31) and Exelon Pavilions (September 25) to featured. Promoting two GAs and 4 FAs is more work than most people have to do to get a new FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. you can see my multi-year effort on this topic at WP:CHIFTD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Story of Miss Moppet
Hello. I placed this article in the FAC queue and look forward to your comments if you would share. Thank you! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted, but trail unclear
Hi. In this edit you noted on my page that an image didn't have a proper fair use justification. I'm not necessarily questioning that, but there doesn't seem to be a way, now, to check on the justification. The file has been deleted, along with the justification. All that appears in your comment is several links to general information resources -- which, as it happens -- I read years ago.

The Wiki process of deleting an image in such a way that I have no obvious method of checking or correcting the issues ... is problematic. What's changed? The image? The use of the image? The rules for fair use? Effectively it's saying: I deleted your stuff, for my own reasons, without explicit justification, because I felt it was contrary to this handful of general guidelines. Read them, case closed. But ... I already know what the guidelines say. There doesn't seem to be anything concrete to go on.

My guess is that the book cover was deleted because the article topic is the author, not a specific book she wrote. But I can't tell whether you, or Explicit understood that the author illustrated the cover. The situation seems similar to the The Beatles article including the cover of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" -- which they designed.

Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See my talk page. I am not a new or casual Wiki editor. I want to know why an image was deleted without proper justification, and with no apparent way suggested to correct the perceived fault. I am questioning your process, not particularly arguing for the image. Explain. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "You were given a week to deal with the issues before the image was deleted, that's generally more than enough time" Also, your language here is unacceptable. "I was given"? By whom? I have 10,000s of Wiki edits. Is what you are saying is that I have one week to notice and defend every one of them? I not only act in good faith, but now also have to protect myself from people who pull vague Wiki guildlines out of their hat, and give me a week to defend myself? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Inocybe maculata
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Idea for you.
I read in a mainstream (not right of centre) newspaper today that there are paid bloggers that are trained and paid to steer discussion to one political side. The AC and all editors and administrators should be mindful of this. In fact, everyone should be mindful of this. So perceived concensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia should make a new effort to strive for the neutral perspective and even get it into the Wikipedia lexicon and culture. Consensus should remain a goal but neutral perspective should be a higher goal. Neutral perspective cannot be manipulated by paid bloggers but consensus can be manipulated. Wikipedia must not be manipulated!

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free pics of people
Hi there. I thought I had a fair understanding of non-free use; either I'm wrong, or these files are.

I was explaining to a user that, in almost all circumstances, we cannot claim 'fair use' for photographs of people.

They pointed out these examples, and I'd appreciate your comments;


 * File:Bharath Gopi.jpg (Bharath Gopi)
 * File:Murali_(actor).jpg (Murali (actor))

Those are quite new, so I pointed out they might simply have not yet been checked - so, the user mentioned some older ones;


 * File:Silk_Smitha.jpg Silk Smitha
 * File:A_K_Lohithadas.jpg

All four of those are deceased, and that seems to be the core of the justification. I suppose this is a question of NFC#1; I have previously thought that "we cannot find a free picture, so we'll use a non-free one" was not a valid justification. Am I wrong?

I'd really appreciate your opinion on their (c)-status, and validity, to improve my own knowledge.

If I should bugger off to MCQ or something instead, just let me know. Many thanks,  Chzz  ► 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture PR
Since you commented at Featured picture candidates/M-15 centerline 1917, you might want to comment at Picture peer review/M-15 centerline 1917.  Imzadi  1979   →  22:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

German-Japanese relations
Hey there. I can see your point, however I disagree. The Tripartite Pact is an integral part of German-Japanese relations and its signing was a significantstep towards each other (and if only for publicity reasons). As such, it clearly deserves proper illustration, especially since this picture enhances the overall appearance of the article (historic articles often employ secondary/indirect illustration). --Gliese876 (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. However, we should re-check the picture's usage in the article German-Soviet Axis talks. --Gliese876 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mega Drive box art
Hm, I am wondering why you waited a couple months to do anything about that picture if you didn't think it should be there. I am also wondering why this came up right after I removed the two logos you had issue with? Also, I don't suppose you'd be able to give me some advice on keeping this picture here.-- Sexy Kick  13:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I think it shows a few things that can't be simply mentioned in the article, like the box art of the Mega Drive, and to an extent, how it was marketed to give a really good deal over competing consoles by coming with an extra controller, and the most popular game for the system. What would you use this picture for in the article? I think it shows something I can't otherwise read (and that's what I uploaded it for.) That's my opinion, and not yours. So I want to see if you can think of another reason for it to be here, from your opinion.-- Sexy Kick  14:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review at FAC (Pedro II of Brazil)
Hi! Editor Karanacs suggested to me your name as a possible image reviewer of Pedro II of Brazil article. It has been nominated a featured article candidate. If you have some time to spare, could do it (Here: Featured article candidates/Pedro II of Brazil/archive1)? Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Milburn. The issue you raised on Pedro II's family picture dated 1889 has been resolved. --Lecen (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey license guy!
Please take a look-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_October_5#File:Bob_Farrell.jpg. I have tried to contact the uploader, no response, however I am convinced this image is clean. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Inocybe cookei
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10/10/10
I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into 	"ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ► 08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Help
Would you mind having a look at my image review comment at Featured_article_candidates? I don't really know if there is a problem (I never do Flickr uploads]], or how to fix it. Thanks <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)