User talk:J Milburn/archive40

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

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

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

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

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

Meta puppets must be deleted.

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

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

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Red Lipstick
The result was redirect, so why have you deleted it? — ₳aron  17:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Calvin999}{ I have now merged the histories, meaning it has been restored. This was explained my deletion comment. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cognitive Dissonance (The Art of Lying to Yourself).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cognitive Dissonance (The Art of Lying to Yourself).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Barnstar appreciation

 * Thank you, it's appreciated. I agree that this was a real team effort- it was a pleasure working with you, and I'm very happy to see the article promoted to FA. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I never got around to commenting on the FAC, by the way- I've had a lot going on... J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of ant subfamilies/archive1
Thanks again for your comments on Featured list candidates/List of ant subfamilies/archive1. I have now fixed or responded to your concerns and I would appreciate any further comments or suggestions. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely forgot about this- I've had a lot on my plate. I'll do my best to take another look at this in the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this file
How many seconds of the sample needs to be reduce? Best, jona  talk to me  13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi J.,

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

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup -Round 1 Newsletter
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup Newsletter Correction
Hi everyone,

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

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

Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers from, , and.

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

GA Cup - Round 1 Newsletter #2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi J,

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

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello J Milburn: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  Hafspajen (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Query on WikiCup withdrawal
Hey J! I was wondering whether or not a Cup contestant can continue to add points even after he/she has withdrawn from the comp. Adam Cuerden had withdrawn himself from the Cup on October 3, but since then he has added points to his submissions page while continuing to be listed as withdrawn. Given that this issue has not been answered in the Cup FAQ, is this permissible? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!
Cheers! &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup awards
Hi J, I know there is a lot of negativity going around the straw polls and discussions at the moment but maybe there might be a way to calm things down. I've noticed there were no awards or award newsletters given out this year and I think a way to distract people from bickering might be if this year's wikicup awards start doing the rounds. Just a suggestion  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There will be awards and a newsletter- they've just not been sent out yet! J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

A full list of our prize-winners follows:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
 * wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
 * wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
 * wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media-specific policy. Check.

One-article minimum. Check.

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

Restrictions on location. Check.

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

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

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Question...
Just curious: if I strongly allude to someone's ignorance (or call them ignorant), is that considered an "attack"? - Godot13 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - I'm not sure I'd want to commit either way in the abstract, and I don't like the idea that any words are banned. In certain contexts, I think calling someone ignorant could be construed as an attack; even calling them ignorant of something could be seen as a little strong, as I think the word has judgmental undertones (along with negligent or lazy, for instance). It seems entirely reasonable, though, to say that someone is not aware of x, or does not understand y, if you have reason to make that claim and follow it up with an explanation of x or y. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Question...
Hey there Josh. Since you work with visual media, may I ask which non-free images are appropriate for uploading on Master of Puppets? I'm thinking about the recording studio Sweet Silence or the band touring with Ozzy Osbourne? Commons doesn't have a single image of the band from this period, so some advice would be beneficial.--Retrohead (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't see how either could be justified. The fact that we don't have any free images from that era is regrettable, but unless how they looked at the time is in some way relevant (I know they weren't, but imagine if they were touring in corpse paint and this led to a boycott of the album for some reason) this couldn't be a reason to upload a non-free image. Something similar is true of the recording studio- while the fact it was recorded at the studio is no doubt important, I can't see how seeing a picture of the studio would help readers understand the topic. If you're concerned about adding more images to the article, you could use images of people/the band but specify in the caption when the image was taken so as not to mislead readers (see what I've done on A Quiet Night In, for example). The other thing to do would be to contact the copyright holders of images which do show the band at the time and ask them to release the images under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed explanation. It's a pity we don't have some photos, but there's not much I can do about it. In any case, can you formally do the image review at the FAC, so I can put that duty aside? Appreciate it.--Retrohead (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Psylliodes luridipennis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Psylliodes luridipennis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psylliodes luridipennis
The article Psylliodes luridipennis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Psylliodes luridipennis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note
I'm still annoyed at you, but "annoyed" is not the same as hate, and I just want to say that I strongly disagree with how Bloom is using my words. I think you handled a situation very badly, particularly when you started hurling abuse at me on my talk page, which is not a good way to calm someone down who's feeling attacked on all sides at the time. But that hardly justifies Bloom's comments. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider this a rather grudging vote of support. If he wasn't such a giant ass, I'm pretty sure I could have continued to avoid you a while longer, but, I can't hold grudges forever, and I'm not willing to be used in random attacks just because I disagree with you on another point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (And, in all honesty, that's all I had planned to do ignore you for a couple months until I felt able to act civilly to you again. But this here...
 * You know, I hate to ask but... you know you can just ban people from the cup, right?) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever Bloom might tell you, we have removed users from the competition (and refused to welcome users into the competition) in the past. For obvious reasons, we don't advertise this. It will always remain an option, but it's a last resort. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

WikiCup
Having just received the news, I feel I ought to say thank you for all your hard work as the senior judge of the wikicup. I have always found you to be fair and even handed when it came to making judgments. Although I didn't always agree with them (that Arsenal-Stoke rivalry DYK, 10 points I could have used!) I know you always did put the integrity of the cup first. With that, I thank you and wish you an enjoyable retirement.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can believe it, but I can't believe it. I want to say "thank you" for taking over back in 2010? 11? and keeping the Cup running over the past few years. You did an outstanding job and should be proud of yourself.  G loss  02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014



 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury
Hi.

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

Ike Altgens
I've brought this article to GAN. The review was begun on 10 December by, a longtime contributor to the fringe theories noticeboard who caught some issues I'd missed. I am asking for more eyes to get this article over the hump. Care to weigh in? TIA. :) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Curve-billed Thrasher nominated for DYK!
—Cerabot (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year J Milburn!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! J Milburn, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!
<div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

My GANs
I feel bad nominating Malagasy civet and Royals (song) for GA prematurely, I didn't mean to waste your time. I'm sort of new at getting articles to GA. Sometimes it's just hard to find sources. I'm afraid that Caracal isn't ready either? You don't have to review it, but do you think it has enough content to pass? I'm much better at verifying unreferenced statements than adding to an article. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't feel bad about it- it's the kind of thing you'll get better at with practice; it's a constant learning experience for all of us, which is part of what makes contributing to Wikipedia so interesting. I hadn't made the connection that you were the person who nominated "Royals" as well, so my apologies for failing two of yours in a short timeframe! The two articles are quite different, and the expectations for the two vary quite significantly; I think you would have a better shot with "Royals" than with the civet, as it's a good bit closer and the sources are more accessible (both in terms of paywalls and expertise). Caracal is a big topic, but the article certainly doesn't look poor; a little restructuring would perhaps help. I suspect (though I am by no means an expert on the topic) that there would be a lot more to say about caracals. It would be a worthy topic to take on, but it'd take a good bit of work. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to feel bad about failing those, you were doing what you do, reviewing. I'll try to work on all three, and try to look in other places for sources. It looks that UtherSRG will be able to assist me on the civet article. Thanks! :) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Caracal
Do you consider caracal a good article? The review didn't particularly seem adequate, but I don't specialize in mammalian articles either. Seattle (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look into this shortly. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the review is woefully inadequate, but the article is actually fairly good- certainly better than it was when I looked at it last week. While I think a better reviewer would have requested a few changes (for instance: a bit of a restructure/shift in focus in some places, some expansion of the taxonomy section, more information on the subspecies), I'm not sure a reassessment would be appropriate. However, someone should probably have a chat with the reviewer- all of their reviews seem to be rather poor. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Turn of the Screw (2009 film)
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi J,

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

The Signpost: 28 January 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup - The Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

As per Xinhua news organization, Mr Yuan said tertiary training organizations ought to “never let reading material advancing Western qualities show up in our classes”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raheemkhattak (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this have anything to do with me or Wikipedia? I'm not really sure why you are contacting me. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...
I seem to have dropped a hatchet into this hole. Want to help me throw dirt over it with these shovels? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this appears to be some kind of code I'm not privy to- perhaps you could enlighten me? J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I tend to use humour to lighten the mood a bit - was asking if you'd like to properly bury the hatchet, and move on as friends again? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. Trying to balance all the different views in the WikiCup was not something I found at all easy, and was a contributing reason (though not the main reason) I stepped down as a judge. While I was a little taken aback by the new judging team's decision right at the start of this year, things now seem to have settled well and I'm hoping the competition can move forward productively. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to take a year off the Wikicup and see how it goes. I don't think it's going to attract FP people with the current rules, but, y'know, that's for them to deal with. We'll see how it goes! Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

GA Cup Feedback Form
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons question
Hi J Milburn- Are you aware of any specific Commons copyright policy that states a scan (versus a photograph), of a 3D object (coin) is ineligible for copyright (i.e., requires no permission for use), because it is a scan (whereas a photograph would be eligible). Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The coin issue comes up a lot- my understanding is that, as far as the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, a coin is a 3D object as much as any other, and so even if the coin is out of copyright, a scan is still copyrightable. Mike Godwin, who was the WMF lawyer, confirmed this- see this thread. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I had seen that thread and wanted to make sure there was no other policies I was missing.--Godot13 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There may be something else I'm unaware of, but, given that we do have some "official" word on this, I suspect it could only be overridden by some contrary advice from a Foundation representative. Commons:COM:COINS says that "a photograph of a coin has two requirements before it can be included. The first is that the design of the coin itself is not copyrighted, or permission has been obtained. The second is that the photographer agrees to license it under a free licence. A picture of a 3D-object creates in most jurisdictions a new copyright on the picture, something that is not the case when photographing pure 2D-objects", which coheres with what I know, so I reckon that the requirement is still in place (even if it might not always be evenly enforced...). Of course, this means that we'd be happy to receive your scans of coins, provided the coins' designs were PD, and that you'd even be able to retain copyright on them and only release them under a CC license. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Young Jay Gould and Hamilton Burhans.jpg
Do you really think this is in copyright? I ask, because I often see clearly free-use images presented as if they were fair use, because people don't know better. This looks like a likely PD-Art. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gould lived 1836-1892, figure this is from the 1850s. While it might still have some protection if it was never published before 1923, that's much less likely for a famous person than, say, some random person's great-grandmother. But I was serious with my opening question: what's the reasons for thinking it's in copyright? Non-publication? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Hirticlavula
Hello - first thanks for the great work you are doing here, especially on the Fungi pages. However, the MOS is clear of preferred citation style, see Template:Citation. There is no need for discussion on the Hirticlavula talk page as this is the MOS across the whole of en wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you wish cite the individual pages this can be done with the citation templates by changing pages= item to page=. Keep up the good work. <font color="#21610B" style="text-shadow: #5FB404 0 3px 3px;">Simuliid <font color="#013ADF">talk  14:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

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

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

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

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

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

The Signpost: 04 March 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible GAN for you
Hi Josh, if you are not too disinclined to reviewing another GAN, I have one in the queue that needs a good eye: Little Annie Fanny. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will certainly consider taking up the article, but I can't commit right now. The one thing I will say is that File:Will Elder and Harvey Kurtzman, 1962.jpg should really be removed- the use of non-free content to show what someone (even two someones) looked like in an article of this sort really isn't appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for considering it, I know you are busy, and thanks for your advice. I honestly don't understand; really? How is it inappropriate? It's history, I thought, and the section extensively discusses these two people. Same advice for the other historic photo in this section (who is also extensively discussed)? (BTW, between you and me, I have a few doubts that that other photo is a free image.) Some other editor commented that the photo of one of the notable people who provided Critical analysis in that section was inappropriate, same advice there too? I'm not arguing, I am earnestly trying to understand images on Wikipedia; I still don't have the hang of it like I do writing, researching, copy editing, etc.; I seem to get conflicting information about it, and I'd really like to get a handle on understanding it like you do. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, a non-free image of x is only acceptable when readers could not reasonably/fully understand the article without seeing what x looks like. So, the question is not whether x is important, it's whether what x looks like is important. This means that, for example, non-free images of people just to show what they look like are very rarely going to be acceptable outside of articles about those people. Non-free comics images, for example, are going to be acceptable when the article discusses particular visual elements of the comic- so, (just for example) if the art style, unusual use of colours or potentially racist imagery in a comic is discussed, a non-free image may be a good addition. If, however, a comic artist's style is discussed, even if there are plenty of details about the artist's life, a non-free image of the artist almost certainly won't be required. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I get it now! So the comics panel in this article and the one on Tintin in Tibet is appropriate. And the other two images of men in this article are fine because they are free images. The sad part is I can hardy see how the pic of Hef is a free image. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim about the Heffner image is that it is free due to a particular rule (loophole?) concerning the fact that it appears to have been published without a copyright notice. I am not a lawyer, but this is a rule we take advantage of on Wikipedia quite a lot, though not one I profess to be an expert concerning. or  may be able to offer some guidance concerning that particular rule, or you could contact the image's uploader. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Heffner image is, to the best of my understanding, free. The US had some really complicated copyright laws before the 1970s, and a lot of things made it through either on accident (Romero's original Night of the Living Dead being a famous example) or because nobody thought/wanted to copyright an image (like this Heffner image, and a lot of our free posters). Even a typo in the year could invalidate certain copyright notices. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you, gentlemen. I've heard of the Romero example. Now, J Milburn and, since I have the ear of experts, may I ask a "thought experiment" question about the image File:Will Elder and Harvey Kurtzman, 1962.jpg that Josh brought up, namely: This image was scanned from a book; there is no copyright notice on the page of that book nor on any nearby page; the title page of the book states that the book's title is published by the publisher and that the book's fictional characters in the book are copyrighted and that the "stories and characters are fictional"; it states that the logos are copyrighted, and finishes with "All rights reserved." I am wondering about the copyright of this photo of the book's authors, which is not explicitly mentioned. Thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Anything published in the US after (checks) 1989 definitely does not need a copyright notice to be considered copyrighted. Anything before 1976 needed one. Works published between 1976 and 1989 are special cases, but since that doesn't seem to apply we don't need to worry. For that image, if the image was first published in 2000, it is almost certainly copyrighted. If it was published elsewhere (which would need to be shown) before 1976, the issue of a copyright notice would be important. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is good information and completes my understanding; finally, after years of not understanding, I think I get it now. thank-you, Crisco 1492 and J Milburn. (P.S.: I think you meant "before 1978".) I have removed the image from the article. BTW: Perhaps both of you can pass on this GAN but drop by someday for its FAC. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Josh (and Crisco 1492 if you want), I am honing my understanding of non-free images, so may I ask this one interesting question: In a new article I just created, I wrote three paragraphs of prose describing a single non-free image in detail. I literally described the image in words alone. Now that it is finished, I am thinking it sure would be nice to actually see the image next to the text. What do you think, would it fly? The article is here (search for the words "meticulous design") and the image is here. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that this could meet the NFCC, but I wonder if someone might ask why we would need two images. Note that you would need to write a detailed rationale and that a significantly lower resolution than the one on the source page would need to be uploaded. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Brilliant answer, this gives me some hope, thank-you. Although yes, from the beginning I assumed I would not get away with more than one image of the same non-free object. But you answered my main question in the affirmative, that's interesting and good to know. So then the question becomes, are there such a thing as featured articles about non-free subjects in which two images of the subject appear in the article? Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I just found numerous examples of a "Yes" answer to that last question, from Batman to Nancy Drew to If (magazine). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There will be; we are required to minimise the extent to which we use non-free content, but if we cannot fully understand a topic without seeing multiple images of the subject, and free images cannot be found/created, then multiple images are acceptable. It's plausible that this might be a case when multiple non-free images are justified. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Turn of the Screw (2009 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015
<div class="hlist" 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 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

Obscure topics should not have red links
Hi,

I enjoyed your Red links opinion piece recently. When creating a red link about a notable topic (which I'd also had the time to create a draft article for), I recently came across the attitude that an article on the topic was 'unlikely' to be created, and therefore the red link should not exist. While I had a draft article to back up my assertion that the topic was encyclopedia-worthy and furthermore that an article was imminent, this won't always be the case for everyone. If you revisit red link-phobia again, could you please include a discussion of the 'likelihood' and perceived obscurity of an article not being an obstacle to redlinking? In fact, de-redlinking reduces the likelihood of an article being created, because the red link is an invitation to all to make an article, and plain text is not. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. While I can't comment on the specific case, I am very strongly against removing red links to notable topics just because someone feels the article is unlikely to be created. This just perpetuates the status quo in terms of well-covered topics, and quite clearly works against underrepresented topics- this is exactly the opposite of what we should be trying to do. You're quite right that de-redlinking reduces the likelihood of article being created, but, even if this doesn't convince a user that a redlink is helpful, there are actually a number of other reasons to support redlink retention. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't get pings because I edit under an IP, but thanks for the thought. :) Perhaps 'what is unlikely' needs to be included in the discussions on 'when to redlink and when to retain redlinks'?  That could help dispel the assumption that because 'obscure topics' are unlikely to get articles written for them, these topics should not have red links pointing to them.  --110.20.234.69 (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the guideline starts with the very sensible "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject" and "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article" but then, further down, it says "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". I think the latter quote may give the mistaken impression that we have to ask whether we think it's likely that an article will be created, when, in fact, it's a slightly broader question of whether an article should be created. I'd rather not change my Signpost piece at this time, but perhaps a clarification of this point in the appropriate guidelines would be useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, my attempt to clarify the guideline lasted about 20 minutes. :(  --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly surprised by that reversion- while it certainly isn't the case that "a topic is notable" is equivalent to "a topic should have an article", it doesn't seem like that's what you claimed. I'll have a further look at the guideline over the next few days. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A second opinion
Perhaps this article I just wrote is not notable after all: Carreidas 160. Please skim through it and let me know your opinion. Thanks, Josh. Prhartcom (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I did wonder about that when I first looked; my reaction was similar to 's. Great to see a really well-sourced article about fictional technology, but an open question as to whether it warrants an article of its own. My inclination (I'll take a closer look in the coming days) is that the plane is notable in its own right, but that it would only need to have its own article if there was sufficient information to make the parent article (namely, Flight 714) unweildy if it was all included. The fact that something is technically notable doesn't mean that it has to have an article, of course- if the information can sensibly be included elsewhere, that's sometimes the best option. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks; let me know. I'm also wondering about this article I finished before that one: Unicorn (ship). I believe that they could of course exist in the parent article, but that only about one-tenth of their sourced information would fit before their subjects were given undue weight (they absolutely shouldn't have their own sections there). That was the whole reason I had thought of a separate article in the first place. Thanks again for your expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick read through, and I pretty much stand by what I said. If it was nominated at AfD, I would support retaining the article, but I do wonder if the topic could be appropriately covered in the article on the book. Perhaps if there was too much in the "finished" book article on the plane, it could be split off (in the manner we have split off articles like the FA Development of Grand Theft Auto V). The other option is this: you could possibly have an article called something like "Technology in Tintin" to which you could merge these various articles; however, unless you have some literature talking about technology in Tintin generally, you could be accused of synthesis. Just thinking aloud... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Just a quick thank you to offer my appreciation for your peer review of George Pickingill. It's definitely in a better state now and I hope to send the article to FAC later in the week. Best for now! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; I'll certainly try to find time to take part in the nomination. I think you should be ready to be questioned about the family history website, but, other than that, I can't foresee any particularly problematic challenges. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you; if you do get a chance, that would be good. I agree that someone will no doubt raise questions regarding the website, but I shall just have to defend its use as best as I can. It would be a shame to lose it, as so much of the article itself relies upon it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
<div class="hlist" 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 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Turn of the Screw (2009 film)
The article The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for La Couchette
<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Inside No. 9 Topic
I noticed that La Couchette has been created which means that it and the other upcoming episodes will have to be part of the Inside No. 9 topic. But I wanna make sure if there are plans to make separate series pages for the show or all the episodes are going to be part of the one topic. GamerPro64 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right now, I intend to create articles on all of the new episodes. I didn't have any thoughts about series lists; but I could. Hopefully, I'll be able to get all the new episodes up to GA over the next few months, creating a 13-article topic. I suppose the other way to do it would be one topic for the main article and the two series lists and two subtopics for the series. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England
Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in: If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!
 * Leeds on 12th April 2015
 * Manchester on 26th April 2015
 * Liverpool on 24th May 2015

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

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

The Signpost, 1 April 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

The Signpost: 01 April 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The Signpost: 08 April 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015
<div class="hlist" 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
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)