User talk:J Milburn/archive43

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

Samples
Not sure how familiar you are with audio sample usage, but two or three audio samples on an album isn't unusual. It's on other good articles like Nevermind and In Utero. I've had albums promoted to GA with four samples (Come to the Well) and three samples (Thrive, Lifesong) although I've not gotten a FA, on two good articles I nominated (Casting Crowns and Revelation) I had three samples and it was never raised as an issue in the nomination process. The album cover might be a concern. Is there a way to fix that?  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is what is at File:Bless Me Indeed.ogg now a better rationale?  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed- multiple samples on an album article aren't unheard of. That doesn't mean, of course, that one/two/many samples are justified in every case, or this case. The sample I removed lacked a rationale, so I stand by its removal. I've no strong opinion right now on whether the samples (either individually or together) are justified, but three does strike me as a little heavy. (As a side issue, I am concerned that non-free content issues are often only looked at in passing if at all in GA reviews. I'd like to see them get a little more attention, but I realise that this is unlikely to happen for a number of reasons.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Bizounce
Thank you for your comments for the article I am expanding and nominating for GAN. I have reduced the size of the image and removed the audio sample (I was on the fence about adding anyway as it did not add much to the actual article. I might add an audio sample of the rap portion of the song identified in a few of the reviews, but I will be more cautious with that).

I was wondering if you could look through the article again to see if there is any other instances of excessive or improper use of non-free material. Since you added the tag, I didn't want to remove it until you approved the changes. Thank you again. I always appreciate feedback. I apologize for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that solves the issue nicely. Best of luck with the GAR process. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your help! I make a lot of mistakes on here so I greatly appreciate the support. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments also on No Time for It. I didn't realize how large the image was and the screenshot was really not necessary so I removed it. This is probably a really stupid question but how do you reduce the size of an audio sample to an acceptable size? I would prefer to keep the audio sample as I think it is always informative to have the audio sample for a page devoted to a song, but I am not sure on how to go about correcting it. You can also let me know if you think the audio sample should just be removed completely. Aoba47 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I compressed the audio for No Time for It so if possible, can you let me know if this avoids any issues with non-free material? Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The rationales still seem incomplete; the "NA"s are not ideal. Non-free use rationale album cover may be helpful for the cover. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have completed the rationales for each section. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer review request for Eega
Hello, Josh Milburn. How are things with you? One of my fellow editors is planning to take the 2012 film Eega to FAC. He has opened up a PR here. Do feel free to leave comments there. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter


Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by and one by ), four Featured Lists (with three by ), and 53 Good Articles (six by  and five each by, , and ). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by and five by ). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. scored 265 base points, while and  each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, and, broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

FAC
Hey Josh! I just re-nominated Kalki Koechlin's article for FAC, since you have been a part of the previous discussions I would appreciate your comments. Thank you! Numerounovedant  Talk  10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted; I'll try to find some time to drop by, but I can't make any promises. I hope it's a valuable experience either way! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thanks!  Numerounovedant   Talk  16:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/May 27, 2016
Hi Josh, I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: series, I prefer not to use the same word in completely different senses in the same paragraph ... and that goes double when many readers understand the word in a different sense than you're using. In "anthology series", it's used to mean "programme", and in the last sentence, it means one year or season of the programme. Can you change one or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 23:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks- very reasonable. I'll be back for another look soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Séance Time
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Séance Time you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination for Serge-Simon Held
Hello! Your submission of Serge-Simon Held at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam PR
Hello, Josh Milburn. I've listed the article for PR here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 01:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. I will try to find time to drop by, but I'm afraid I can't make any promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Serge-Simon Held
— Maile (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Vermigli FAC
Hi J Milburn. Thanks again for your help with the article. I wanted to let you know that I did some digging on Vermigli's contemporary significance, but I wasn't able to find anything. I think it's safe to say that he's mostly of historical importance. I added some on to the legacy section to better explain this. Here's the FAC; let me know if you have any more suggestions.--JFH (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's great to hear; I'll make every effort to drop by the FAC. Best of luck with it; the topic would make for a great FA, I just hope you can pique the interests of the FAC regulars. What I find fascinating doesn't always synch-up with what the FAC crowd find fascinating! One user who came to mind as someone who may be interested appears to be inactive. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Séance Time
The article Séance Time you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Séance Time for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

expert alert....
Recently one has been https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Cortinarius_species&type=revision&diff=684153510&oldid=679179149 editing] on Cortinarius...so I think she'll be happy if we buff Cortinarius violaceus for FA/mainpage. There's some cool evolutionary stuff. Sadly I have kept missing purple corts while bushwalking despite others finding them around Sydney :(( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting; I do suspect that there'll be a good bit of material out there, but working on Meinhard Moser has left me pretty intimidated by Cortinarius! Definitely happy to collaborate on this; I'll find some time to take a look through the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting both image assistance and GA review assistance
Hi Josh, how are you? I hope you are well; it has been a while. Can you please offer your expert opinion of the two images placed at Kim Davis (county clerk), an article that I nominated for GA and which Midnightblueowl is reviewing at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)/GA1. She is not sure of the fair use of the two images. She also has placed a notice requesting a second opinion reviewer to offer their review suggestions of the article. Curly Turkey has also offered suggestions. If you could stop by, it would be nice reunion! Thanks, all the best, —Prhartcom ♥ 10:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

FAC
Hello, just would like to know what your current position on Nothomyrmecia is? I noticed you haven't responded to the pings so I thought I'd ask you here. I'm confident the article may pass at this time, it's racked in a few supports. Also thanks again for the review, very thorough and informative. Always have been massive help. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and sorry I haven't got back to you already. I'd want to go through the article again from scratch if re-reviewing, so please do not hold up the review on my account. I'll leave a quick note on the FAC page... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I noticed on your user page at the time you were quite busy with irl activities. I look forward to your comments if you review it again. Very pleased with how everything is shaping up though. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2016 May 26
I invite you to discuss the images that you previously discussed. I withdrew and then re-nominated the DVD cover and then nominated the other. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Séance Time
Hi, J Milburn. Could you respond to the reviewer's comments, please? This nominated DYK is close to being approved. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response, J Milburn. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Once again I must say thank you for taking the time to give the Victor Henry Anderson a read through and for conducting the review of it! All the best - Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; it was good to work with you, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I recently reviewed Peter Martyr Vermigli at GAC; it was a great article about a fascinating topic, and has now nominated it at FAC: Featured article candidates/Peter Martyr Vermigli/archive1. I know your interest in religion is more about NRMs than early modern theology, but if it catches your eye, I'm sure the nominator would appreciate some comments. No pressure- I know none of us have as much time as we would like... Josh Milburn (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can say that again! I'll definitely try and take a look in the next few days if I can. In general, however, I'm trying to seriously wind down the level of my Wikipedia work, as I fear that it was just taking over my life - where possible I'm trying to restrict myself to an hour a day. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. I'm forever expecting that I'm going to find myself without the time to contribute to Wikipedia, but it's not happened yet. I don't think its impacting my (dare I say) "real-world" work, but I hope I'd be able to step away if I realised that it was! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK
Hello! Your submission of John Hadley (philosopher) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Hadley (philosopher)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Hadley (philosopher) 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nana's Party
The article Nana's Party you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nana's Party for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Séance Time
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward
You had asked for me to ping or something similar a week or two ago on Jane Austen if things looked stable with the article. The two new sections have now been added and seem to have received some nice response on the Talk page there. If the Jane Austen article is ready to move forward in someway at this point in time then maybe let me know. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * During the last days I did list Jane Austen on GOCE as you suggested last month for final review prior to peer review nomination upgrade. It appears to have received a response from a young 13-19 year old editor interested in making subjective/objective edits to the article. Maybe you could look at their remark on the Austen Talk page. Is this what you had in mind when you suggested I list the article at GOCE? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally have no experience with GOCE, but I have heard that the process doesn't work as well as it might. I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective/objective edits", but I'm not sure there's any reason to be worried about Thisisnotcam contributing to the article; as usual, if any edits are problematic, they can of course be reverted. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My request for copy edits and GOCE review attention may or may not get some response for Jane Austen during the coming weeks and I was wondering if you could look in from time to time. I plan to be away for much of the coming month and possibly your interest in Austen could help. I have also added the two images you requested on the Talk page there for your review. By the way, congrats, you are now listed as one of the top ten editors at Jane Austen. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The page is on my watchlist, so I will keep an eye on tweaks being made. I do lean towards inclusion of the images; though I hear Tim's concerns, I think they can be appropriately guarded against through careful captioning. (They will also help break up the text.) As I'm sure you're aware, the article is now approaching the dreaded 100k mark, meaning it's getting very long. It may be worth thinking through how to trim it down; I appreciate that you prefer a historical approach to description (as used in the themes/reception) while I prefer a thematic approach, so I'm not sure how valuable my advice about trimming would be. I wonder what your plans are for the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's well thought through in what you state here. Actually my thoughts were somewhat similar in thinking that since there are now two full new sections in the article, that maybe one or the other might be enough on its own since the more "successful" new section can now be chosen on the basis of a side by side comparison. I did appreciate your previous comments on Mansfield Park, though I'm open to your views and preferences as they currently might stand. Since the bot is telling us that you are a top ten editor on Jane Austen now, you can tweak the captions on the Austen pictures as you suggest as being best. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Eega/archive1
Thanks for commenting at the now archived peer review for Eega. The article is currently at FAC and i look forward for constructive comments from you. Yours friendly, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: The Guardian
Your argument that The Guardian's website must be referred to in-text as theguardian.com because of the possibility that it is an online exclusive content degrades the quality of the article text by making the online branch of a major newspaper of record look like its at the same level as the average tabloid site. Additionally, due to today's market circumstances, all newspapers must be multi-platform operations in order to remain relevant, so the online component of a newspaper is just as important, if not the same level, as the print version.

Is there any consensus for this particular behaviour? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your claim that The Guardian's website must not be referred to in-text as theguardian.com because of the possibility that it is not an online exclusive content degrades the quality of the article text (potentially, and, based on my search, probably) by making it wrong. I would not object to referring to it as "the website of The Guardian"; do you have any objection to this alternative wording? (And I object to your disparaging reference to my "behaviour". This is a disagreement about wording; if you want to talk about "behaviour", we can talk about your refusal to follow the BRD cycle and then ignoring my message on your talk page. But I'd rather not.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant behaviour as in the behaviour of referring to websites of newspapers by their domain names. Not yours. ViperSnake151   Talk  17:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Séance Time
Made a section about the guardian edit on the talk page for discussion. Weegeerunner chat it up 16:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad someone who refers to The Guardian as "the guardian" has come to tell me how I don't know how to refer to The Guardian. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Uncalled for dude, let's keep it civil and not stoop to petty shit man. Weegeerunner chat it up 17:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You have changed an article I wrote to make it literally false. Dude. Maybe that's why I'm pissed. Man. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then let's discuss it in a civil fashion. Weegeerunner chat it up 17:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Assistance at Platinum (Miranda Lambert album)
A difficult editor continues to revert my improvements to this article (without rhyme or reason) while refusing to engage in any discussion I opened at the article's talk page or at their talk page, instead calling me a troll in response to my attempt to get them to explain themselves there or at the RfC I opened Dan56 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I recently opened an SPI involving the "difficult editor", and these recent edits seem to confirm it:, Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you've been having trouble. I'll take a look soon; SPI can sometimes neatly resolve these kinds of problems... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries anymore. The sock(s) have been confirmed and blocked. Happy editing! Dan56 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great stuff; sorry I wasn't quicker out of the blocks! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Transformers characters
You seem to have proposed several articles about characters in Transformers comics for deletion. Should they all just be redirected to List of Transformers comics characters? J I P &#124; Talk 19:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to that at all; feel free to go ahead and change them to redirects. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I went ahead and did it. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Broadcast magazine subscription
Hi J Milburn. I came across your articles on Inside No. 9 and noticed you referenced Broadcast magazine that requires subscription to retrieve U.K. viewers figures. I have started working on the article for another British dark comedy programme - A Young Doctor's Notebook - that is missing U.K. viewers figures. Could you please search "young doctor's notebook" on the Broadcast magazine website and save/print/publish all the returned articles as/to PDFs and send them to my email address alex.douglas92@gmail.com. Would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance. New9374 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for the message. I don't actually have a subscription to Broadcast, but I can access (at least some of) it through Nexis. There are a lot of hits for A Young Doctor's Notebook; give me a few minutes and I'll have a sift through them. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've listed some potentially valuable material on the article talk page. I hope this is helpful; I'm not watching the page, so leave any further messages for me here. Best of luck with the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Source review
Hey J, would you be interested in doing a source review for Featured article candidates/Blast Corps/archive1? You had looked at the sources during the peer review, so it wouldn't be too much extra, but let me know what you think? czar 22:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a fuller look through Nexis; it looks like the game received some lengthy reviews in a number of very respectable newspapers; I'd suggest that these should definitely be incorporated. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alasdair Cochrane
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alasdair Cochrane 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Hadley (philosopher)
The article John Hadley (philosopher) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Hadley (philosopher) 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for John Hadley (philosopher)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Nana's Party
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Eega/archive1
A gentle reminder ICYMI. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alasdair Cochrane
The article Alasdair Cochrane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alasdair Cochrane 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Queen's University, Belfast
Hello, Thank you for the message. My studying there was long ago in 1968/69 at the School of Librarianship and Information Science, a course leading to the qualification Dip.Lib.Stud. The course was for both graduates (1 year) and non-graduates (2 years). The school was in College Gardens near the Methodist College.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not panic
Hi, J Milburn. Do not panic. I will restore your edits. I just needed to rollback to mine because mine took a lot more work. Yours will be easy to fold back in.

I have to go to the eye doctor right now but will attend to this as soon as I get back. I apologize for startling you.

I have not changed your citation style.

I have not marked any citations as being dead.

I will explain it all when I get back and all my cleaning is helpful, justified, and supported by MOS, policy, and guidelines.

We are on the same page. Please trust me on this. Cheers! 16:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to trust you and await your explanation. However, I think it's going to take a lot of explaining to show that changing (to use just the first reference as an example):


 * Ahlhaus, Svenja and Peter Niesen (2015). "What is Animal Politics? Outline of a new research agenda". Historical Social Research 40 (4): 7–31..


 * to


 * Ahlhaus, Svenja; Peter Niesen (2015). "What is Animal Politics? Outline of a new research agenda". Historical Social Research 40 (4): 7–31. doi:10.12759/hsr.40.2015.4.7-31 (inactive 2016-06-13).


 * neither changes my citation style nor (falsely!) marks a citation as dead. I think it's fairly clear that it does both. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Josh. I am not sure where that (inactive) appendage came from.


 * I went back and integrated your changes, added a OCLC to the infobox and deleted a couple of duplicate parameters.


 * Here is what the the first cite in the bibilbiograhy looks like:


 * which renders like this:
 * which renders like this:


 * I never changed any of your citation styles. You for the most part used citation templates and I left them that way. Except, you do need to change the 15th bullet pointed one to template style as right now it is plain text style.


 * The references section was indicating a CS1 error so I went in to fix that. Once fixed, I made sure all the other cites in that section were harmonious in format.
 * There is another aspect called COinS and in the current format more metadata can be harvested properly without the metadata being polluted. Cheers!  02:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "I never changed any of your citation styles." False. "Ahlhaus, Svenja and Peter Niesen" (my style) is different from "Ahlhaus, Svenja; Peter Niesen" (your style). To make matters worse, you have edit warred with me to keep your preferred style. I can't put that any more simply. If you don't see it, I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it. "[Y]ou do need to change the 15th bullet pointed one to template style as right now it is plain text style." Says who? I use citation templates to help me (consistently) format references. Anything else is secondary.
 * I do not know what a "CS1" error is, and I do not know (or care) what "metadata" you are referring to. You have not explained your actions, and you have not given me any reason not to simply revert you. Now, I'm going to ask you again: what are you doing? Why should I care? Why have you changed my citation style without discussion? Why should I not revert you? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me take a step back. I'm not particular attached to my citation style. However, what you have here done, what you can't do, and what you need to not do again is the following: turn up to a well-developed article and start using scripts and such to change citation templates and make demands about the kind of templates editors should and should not be using, apparently with no consideration for the fact that this changes the article's appearance for readers, solely on the basis of vague (and, to the non-initiated, meaningless) assurances about "errors" and "metadata". The changes you are making are not nearly as uncontroversial as you think. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Josh. Please insert the text from my Talk page here so we can continue this convo in one spot. Ping me back when you are ready and if I am up I will respond. Cheers!  13:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The following was copied from User talk:Checkingfax. 16:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, if you're not willing to engage with me, step away from the articles. Not only, now, are you changing my citation style (in some cases, but not others; compare Linzey and Linzey 2014), and declaring good DOIs as broken, but you're introducing silly errors. Note the link to O'Sullivan appearing on Cochrane's name and the link to Milligan appearing on Cooke's name, and the link to Political Animals and Animal Politics appearing in an article title (and thus breaking link). These changes, which I've no doubt are being made in good faith, are controversial, and are damaging the article. Your changes are now holding up the review, as I'm having to wait for an increasingly unlikely explanation as to why I shouldn't just revert you. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And you've added back a JSTOR link which I have removed; it's redundant to the DOI. I'm willing to bet that there are other issues I have missed. Again: the changes you are making are not nearly as uncontroversial as you think they are, and, due to the fact that others are having to clean up after you, you are creating work and causing bad feeling. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Please copy the above over to the thread on your talk page and we can pick it up there. Cheers!  13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The preceding was copied from User talk:Checkingfax. 16:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Josh. Let's try to get started here in an orderly fashion to keep the clutter and drama out of the FA review area. It will poison the well over there.

First off, the system throws hidden citation errors that I can see. I fix them when I see them. It is not fun. They show up in green text.

Other citation errors show up in red text at the top of the page when an edit preview is done. I fix those too. It is not fun.

I have gotten very good at fixing these errors.

You need to stop playing some old tapes. The inactive DOI tag was not placed by me but I removed it even before you made me aware of it. It is gone. There is no more need to harp up it.

JSTOR uses the same numbering system as DOI so it is not uncommon to see both in a citation. If you are not bound to JSTOR to leave them in then it is no big deal to omit the metadata portion. The parameter if left blank will not display.

Putting the word  between authors on a citation template pollutes the COinS metadata as does adding multiple authors to one citation parameter. That is why you want to use first1, last1, first2, last2, etc. if you want names to display L, F M or you can use author1, author2, etc. if you want names to display F M L.

Metadata is the information you put in a citation template after the equal sign.

There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout. The same goes for datestyle within the citation.

The 15th bibliography item is the only one using plain-text style. At a Featured Article review one of the expectations is to bring a page into compliance with what should have been going on all along. The 15th cite is the one that includes (upcoming) in parens.

I can convert that one for you, but I was giving you a chance to do it and learn from it. I did not expect a quarrel over it.

I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand that there are two basic ways to cite:


 * 1) By template
 * 2) By plain text

Pick one method, but do not intermingle in an article.

There is no your way and my way with citations. The documentation is fairly clear on how to use the parameters. You are not using them to protocol.

You put some wikilinks in citations and that will pollute the COinS too. Use authorlink1, authorlink2, etc.

I made a couple of errors when I folded your edits back in after the rollback but quickly and discretely fixed one and you fixed a couple. I would have fixed them in time.

Also, in bibliography, you should use first1, last1 style parameters but in the body of the article you should use author1, author2, editor1, editor2, etc. and output them to First Middle Last names. This is a global MoS in the real world.

This link is dead: http://www.shef.ac.uk/politics/staff/alasdaircochrane but I did not mark it dead. I archived it.

MOS:ACCESSIBILITY instructs us not to use semi-colons to create pseudo headers. We are to use wikicode instead as I did. You might consider converting them to a third level section heading since they run so far down the page. Your call or some future editors.

More later. Cheers! 17:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're now stretching my ability to assume good faith. You are either confused or lying. I will respond to your paragraphs one by one.


 * 1) Agreed. As I have now said on the FAC page, I'm willing to accept your preferred version for the sake of not edit warring. This does not mean that you were right to make the changes (you were not), or that your change of my citation style without discussion is not an issue (it is).
 * Ok.
 * Ok.
 * 1) "The inactive DOI tag was not placed by me" WRONG. Two inactive doi tags were added in this edit. Both were added back in this edit. So, are you lying, or are you confused? "I removed it even before you made me aware of it". WRONG. I "made you aware of it" here, which was before the second time you added them to the article. "There is no more need to harp up it". I disagree. You are still trying to argue that you did nothing wrong here. I see no reason to believe that you are going to be sure not to do this again.
 * 2) "JSTOR uses the same numbering system as DOI so it is not uncommon to see both in a citation." I don't care what is and is not common. I don't want redundant links in my citation. "If you are not bound to JSTOR to leave them in then it is no big deal to omit the metadata portion." I have no idea what this means. "The parameter if left blank will not display." I know. I left it blank, you repeatedly added it back. I added the hidden comment as a note to you.
 * 3) "Putting the word and between authors on a citation template pollutes the COinS metadata as does adding multiple authors to one citation parameter" I don't care. "That is why you want to use first1, last1, first2, last2, etc. if you want names to display L, F M or you can use author1, author2, etc. if you want names to display F M L." I understand how the template works. None of this explains why you think you're justified in edit warring to change my citation style to your preferred style.
 * 4) "Metadata is the information you put in a citation template after the equal sign." No it isn't. That's not what the word metadata means.
 * 5) "There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout. The same goes for datestyle within the citation." No, you're deeply confused. There are a great many citation styles. Please take a look at Citation. Our guideline on the topic notes that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." Note, however, the guideline at WP:CITEVAR, which your actions clearly go against.
 * 6) "The 15th bibliography item is the only one using plain-text style. At a Featured Article review one of the expectations is to bring a page into compliance with what should have been going on all along. The 15th cite is the one that includes (upcoming) in parens." It simply doesn't matter whether that citation is or is not in a template; what matters is that the citation is consistent with the others. The reason, in case you're interested, that it's not in a template is that the template throws up an error message when it sees the "forthcoming" date.
 * 7) "I can convert that one for you..." Please don't. "...but I was giving you a chance to do it and learn from it." Don't patronise me. "I did not expect a quarrel over it." I have explained why your actions are problematic; you have bent over backwards to ignore or deny the problems.
 * 8) "I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand that there are two basic ways to cite:" As above, you are wrong. You are deeply, deeply confused.
 * 9) "Pick one method, but do not intermingle in an article." Citation styles should not be mixed in an article. As established, you do not understand what is meant by "citation style" in this context.
 * 10) "There is no your way and my way with citations" Multiple times, I have shown how your preferred citation differs from mine see here and here. Forget templates for a second, and actually look at the output. Your citation looks different to mine. It's right there in front of you. "The documentation is fairly clear on how to use the parameters. You are not using them to protocol." I just don't care what the "protocol" is. I'm concerned with how the citations look to our readers.
 * 11) "You put some wikilinks in citations and that will pollute the COinS too" I don't care.
 * 12) "I made a couple of errors when I folded your edits back in after the rollback ... I would have fixed them in time." If you're going to make changes to a current featured article candidate, it's generally considered good form to make sure that your fixes are not introducing problems. Edit warring is also advised against.
 * 13) "Also, in bibliography, you should use first1, last1 style parameters but in the body of the article you should use author1, author2, editor1, editor2, etc. and output them to First Middle Last names. This is a global MoS in the real world." I can't decipher this, I'm afraid. I don't know what you are saying to me.
 * 14) Ok. I wasn't aware you'd even touched the link.
 * Ok, sure. I'm happy enough with that change; my dispute has been about the citations.


 * To summarise: You don't seem to know what the phrase "citation style" means. Repeating the word "metadata" does not change this. You still have not shown any understanding of the problematic nature of your edits. I again implore you to stop making edits of this type. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Josh. I guess we are done. You are too entrenched to be collaborative and civil. Enough with the belittling. Cheers!  19:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have tried to explain why you are mistaken. You have now chosen to disengage on the grounds that I am not being "collaborative" or "civil", and that I am "belittling" you. This, of course, is untrue; you are clearly very uncomfortable with being told that you are mistaken, and would rather make vague accusations of wrongdoing. I wish you had chosen to disengage earlier, but, instead, you have wasted many hours of my time as I tried (in vain) to explain to you that you are confused. I will put this very simply. Changing citation styles without discussion is against our guidelines. You did this. As I have explained many, many times. Edit warring to keep your preferred citation style is the kind of behaviour which gets people blocked. You have displayed that, on a very fundamental level, you simply do not understand what a citation style is, and, while you display such a fundamental misunderstanding of this, you should not be making large-scale changes of citations. You do not have to reply, but I am cross-posting this on your talk page so that there is a clear record that you have been made aware of these issues. The reason I am doing this is because if you continue with your disruptive editing (and no, that's not me being "uncivil" or "belittling", or refusing to collaborate), you may well face blocks. The following policies/guidelines are particularly relevant: WP:CITEVAR (which you have violated by repeatedly changing my citation style without any discussion) and WP:IDHT (which you have violated by failing to show any understanding of the problematic nature of your edits). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
Speaking as an incorrigible carnivore who happens to live with a vegan by the name of Josh, I found your article not only absorbing but downright subversive. I have gladly supported its promotion to FA but shall keep it hermetically from my resident vegan on the grounds that he doesn't need any more ammunition. Best wishes,  Tim riley  talk    13:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, good to see you back around; I know you've taken a few months off. Thanks a lot for the note! My real-world work revolves around animal rights, so I thought it was about time I started to write about it on Wikipedia. Hopefully there'll be a good few more articles to follow; I currently have an article at GAC on a similar theme which you'd be more than welcome to review if it catches your eye. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Animal Rights Without Liberation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_Rights_Without_Liberation&diff=725218867&oldid=725152892 This] edit revert is purely spiteful with no basis for a single bit of it.  22:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I made one revert. One. On an article you targeted with your problematic scripts while I was trying to explain how problematic the same kind of editing was on another article. On no planet would leaving this message have been a good idea. Templating the regulars is rarely a good move; in this situation, when you have declared that you will not engage me in further conversation, refused to recognise the problems with your edits and yet continued to edit war with me across multiple articles (ever heard of the bold, revert, discuss cycle?), it's bordering on harassment. If it was meant to be a joke, you have severely misjudged the situation. Please leave me alone. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What J said in full. WP:DTTR and WP:BRD, plus WP:CITEVAR. Operate within community norms, please. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Political Animals and Animal Politics
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Political Animals and Animal Politics 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for a copy of the deleted article
Hi, my name is Kate Maksimova and I work for Itransition – a software development company. I'm here to contribute information on my band. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will adhere strictly to them. In fact, my company had already tried to publish an article in 2007 and 2012, but in both cases it was deleted. The reason why [| Itransition’s page was deleted 9 March 2007] is absence of reliable sources, while the reason why it was deleted on 13 March 2012 is G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. However, since 2012 Itransition’s reference list has grown enough to correspond to Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines and I would like to write an article from scratch. My edits will be restricted to talk page and I am going ask for Wikipedians' help to create an informative, bias-free and clear article. Could you please share a copy of the deleted Itransiton article for my research?

I would also highly appreciate any recommendations and advice on the publishing process. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotsclefa (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Political Animals and Animal Politics
The article Political Animals and Animal Politics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Political Animals and Animal Politics 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. The work you put into the article is clear; I hope that you are happy with how the process as gone and pleased with the result! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I sure am, thank you again for the help. Numerounovedant   Talk  15:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Queen's University of Belfast
About the library school: if you look at the article on Peter Havard-Williams it looks as if he established the school. In the 1960s postgraduate courses in librarianship were very scarce, only UCL in London (the first in England), Sheffield, Aberystwyth and Strathclyde to my knowledge.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Update on the images you requested previously
The two images you had previously requested for the Jane Austen page I have since added to the Talk page there. The article recently received a full GOCE review, and further one by Rothorpe as well. If you could select whichever image of the two I placed on the Talk there and add it (them) to the article with a suitable caption then perhaps the article may be approaching a possible renomination before the end of summer. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this; I'll aim to find time for a proper look soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Josh,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Benny Trapp Epirusfrosch Pelophylax epeiroticus.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 13, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-07-13. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:GAC listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GAC. Since you had some involvement with the WP:GAC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 06:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Political Animals and Animal Politics
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Some image help?
Hey-- I began starting to ease myself into minor edits, as I am facing another operation, and never was good with Commons, and am hoping you can help with one photo, at least! I successfully uploaded a photo of Rory Gallagher which was placed on Rory Gallagher discography, about halfway down the page. It shows Gallagher playing with a lot of famed rock and blues musicians. However, in Commons, User:WeHope flipped it upside down and then retired from Wiki everything. Please, would you either turn the image so it isn't messed up like that, or find someone who would be willing and able? Thanks... --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there; I've reverted the image (if you can't see the change, try refreshing or purging your cache). This is something you could have done, too; the list of previous versions of the image (towards the bottom of the image page) has "revert"s, and clicking them will take the image back to the previous version. The change was nothing to do with WeHope, as far as I can see. As can be seen from the page history, it was requested by a user who has made no other edits, perhaps in error. Do let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! You're so kind, and there just isn't any better way to HUG you for all your assistance! I have a couple of other image and sound related questions, but it's late right now, and I must sleep.. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot
Need your advice. I need to set up a bot for the more routine work here on Wikipedia. Can you work me through it? I know there are manuals in here that I can read, but I need a proper first-hand walkthrough. Can I run a bot, first of all? Ignore if you have better things to do. Best, Nairspecht   Converse  16:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a bot, but it hasn't run for years and this certainly isn't my forté! My bot runs through AWB; once you've gotten the hang of that software, it's fairly easy to have it do particular mundane tasks. You can then create a bot account and request that it gets the bot tag, which means that you can leave it to do what it does without violating any policy and means that AWB will edit without needing any input from you. My bot, for example, changed "All Music Guide" to "Allmusic" across a few thousand articles and corrected a mistaken ISBN across a few hundred. What is it in particular you were wanting the bot to do? If it's simple, it may be doable through AWB. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Received a small follow-up on the images
This is a short second opinion on the two Austen images you had previously requested which I put on the Talk page there. Just thought you might like to read it here in case the extra opinion helps. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry this slipped my mind; I've boldly added the portrait in question; others are, of course, welcome to remove it, and we can discuss it if necessary. Given that the portrait is specifically mentioned in the article body, I suspect readers will appreciate seeing it. (Pinging .) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

LGF
I was doing research for an upgrade of psychology of eating meat, and found your fascinating (and ambitious!) paper. Out of curiosity, had you come across Piazza et al. before Talk:Carnism? FourViolas (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message; the LGF paper's due out any day, and I'm excited to see it in print. I had come across the Piazza's paper before. I'm an alumnus of Lancaster University, which is where Piazza is based, and the university came out with a press release when the paper was published. I think that's when I initially heard of it, though I generally have one eye on Appetite anyway given my research interest in food. Funny you mention this now, as I bumped into someone at a conference the weekend just gone who is a friend of Piazza's and offered to introduce me to him. It's one of the best papers I've come across in the area, but my knowledge of/familiarity with the psychological research must be taken with a pinch of salt, as I've no background in psychology. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Small world indeed. Congratulations on the publication!
 * As for pinches of salt: for my personal edification, I've spent enough time with the primary and secondary literature to have my own opinions; and for WP purposes, I don't make it a habit to source scientific information to incidental mentions in primary sources from another field :) FourViolas (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge
Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in participating in WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge in August. A chance to win £250 as well! If contests aren't your thing we welcome independent contributors too. If interested sign up at participants. Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Do advertise it at the WikiCup talk page if you haven't already. I am completely and utterly swamped right now, but I'll try to stick my head in. The Signpost might be willing to do a line or two in one of their reports, too. Do keep me on your list for these things, though, as I'm always happy to see them going on. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Cortinarius violaceus
has had some comments about Cortinarius violaceus - I am thinking of conominating it at FAC soonish if you are up for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and great to see that the article's still improving. I'm completely swamped at the moment, so might be mostly absent in the FAC review. This may or may let up (but I'm not holding my breath) so don't feel that you have to wait for me. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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

redirect from years ago not relevant
Te page was created with just a redirect elsewhere in 2008‎. It became an article in 2012‎, and has remained there since then, no one else trying to redirect it. When people say "Restore redirect" they usually mean restoring something someone just undid, back to what consensus said should be there. No consensus to ever make it a redirect was had, no even discussion for it. But whatever.  D r e a m Focus  01:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Relevant" or not, and whether people "usually" mean something else or not, the page was once a redirect, and you were incorrect about it never having been a redirect. (And, just a thought- if you tell someone they're wrong and then realise they weren't, perhaps you could consider apologising to them, rather than arguing semantics?) To the more important matter: do you have any evidence of the character being notable? Josh Milburn (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Weird Tales
Josh, I've put Weird Tales up at PR, and since you've done very helpful reviews of some of my other sf magazine articles I was hoping to ask you a favour. Of course it would be great if you commented at the PR, but I have a specific question: is the article too long? The only realistic split I can come up with is to divide it into the first version, and then an article called something like "Weird Tales (1954-present)" or something like that. That could be made to work; is it necessary? If you have time, I'd be glad of your opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and good to see you taking on the "big one" (or, at least, one I'd heard of before beginning to read your articles). I'm just about to head to bed, but, as an initial thought: while splitting is one option, trimming can be another. Perhaps there is some repetition or minor details somewhere in the article. While there's nothing necessarily wrong with an article of that length, it is into "[p]robably should be divided" territory, and certain sorts would be inclined to think that it's too long for a scifi magazine (Marilyn Monroe is a little shorter, but there are certainly plenty of longer FAs). I'd have to take a proper look at the article to make an informed judgement; I'll do my best to find some time (and I would definitely like to!), but I can't make any promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the next-to-last one of the sf/fantasy pulps to be brought to FA or GA; the only remaining one is Astounding Stories, which won't be quite as big because it doesn't have the byzantine publishing history that WT does. I've thought about trimming, but I think that works best with summary style, where you can leave a parent article in place and siphon off specialized content into sub-articles. Here I see no way to do sub-articles; the only thing that seems to make sense is the pre-post 1954 split, which is at least a clear dividing line.  I think that's still a bit ugly.
 * If you do find time to take a look, and see material that can be trimmed, let me know, and perhaps I can cut it sufficiently. Naturally, being an aficionado, I think all the information in the article is valuable and necessary -- but then that's why I asked for another opinion.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Some image question at the Austen page
Over the week-end I did put in a renomination of the Austen page now that the GOCE review was done for the article. Someone has made inquiry there concerning some of the images on the FA assessment page (version II) which I thought you might be able to look at. The images were selected by the late Wadewitz and although I could easy exchange them for other Austen related images, I did want to be respectful of the choices which the late Wadewitz made when she originally included those images now under question. Possibly you could let me know which images need to be updated and which one replaced. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I only have limited Internet access right now, but I'll try to take a look later in the week. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In case you have returned to a high-speed Internet connection, I think someone might have made a useful change to this images issue there at Austen . The new assessment seems to be off to a slow start, possibly the slow summer month of August, though you might check my wording in introducing the new assessment to see if its ok. Hope you are back to a good Internet connection soon. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The image situation is looking good to me. It's now just a question of finding suitably motivated and capable editors to take a look through. I'll do my best to find some time myself- as you may remember, I've focussed most of my previous reading on particular sections. I may have to read section-by-section, stealing a few minutes where I can! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That all sounds positive. By the way, one of the editors is showing a possible interest in the philosophy aspects of the part on Mansfield Park for which you had expressed some of your editing skills. It seems that the novel's article at Mansfield Park may need a short section on the philosophical background on England's slave trade debate in philosophy from the 18th and early 19th century. If this is possibly in your field of interest then maybe I could relate some of the related information. The Jane Austen assessment at the new FA is off to a slow start, possibly because of the slow month of August, and still in preliminaries before the supports and opposes start up. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Reviewer made a suggestion to save hook for October 31. North America1000 21:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Xylaria longipes
— Maile (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Tamara Horowitz at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

GAN on Reformed Eucharistic theology
Hi Josh. You asked me to keep you updated, so here it is: I nominated Lord's Supper in Reformed theology for GA. --JFH (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot; this sounds very interesting. I will definitely drop by for a look, but I can't promise I'll pick up the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest
Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 05:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Lisa Bortolotti
Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tamara Horowitz
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's  working.  But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has  every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Bael (Dungeons & Dragons)
Hello, J Milburn. If you believe that the article Bael (Dungeons & Dragons) is not about a notable subject, then I would encourage you to nominate it for deletion, as you have done with other Dungeons & Dragons articles. I would of course respect the outcome of an AfD. However, please do not continue to turn the article into a redirect without consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, J Milburn. If you are thinking of taking the issue to WP:ANI, as this suggests, then I suggest that that is an overreaction, and that better ways can be found to resolve the disagreement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't stalk my edits. Don't patronise me. If you have ideas for how to solve this issue, speak- right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My comment was not intended to be patronizing. It is simply that disagreements occur between editors all the time, and that taking them to ANI is seldom the correct response. I do have an idea on how to solve the issue: you could, as requested, nominate the article for deletion. Alternatively, you could take nearly any reasonable steps to establish a consensus, including, say, a discussion at the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I take this to AfD, you, or someone else, will just say that AfD is not for cleanup. I started a discussion in good faith- you refused to participate, and then chose to edit war with me further after I gave interested parties a chance to contribute. My willingness to assume good faith has been stretched considerably- you have provided no attempt to argue that my edit was inappropriate, only made increasingly silly demands for certain procedures to be carried out and increasingly vague claims about "consensus". I can see no reason that I should assume that you are acting in good faith, and no reason that I should not report you for edit warring. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, someone else might say that, but obviously I wouldn't say it, because I am the one who suggested AfD in the first place. Supposing someone did say that, what of it? An AfD would still resolve the issue. The only claim I made about consensus is that consensus is necessary for turning an article into a redirect; that's quite a specific claim, and it is correct so far as I know. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion. You did not contribute. What more can I do? You tell me to "wait for consensus"- what, precisely, am I supposed to be waiting for, here? You have crossed a line if you refuse to discuss something with me and instead just revert me if I make a change. The fact you have still not provided anything resembling a claim about the content of the article in question is telling. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I honestly don't know what discussion you are talking about. Could you please direct me to it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is here: Talk:Mammon (Dungeons & Dragons). As for "I don't know what you're talking about": I think that's regrettable, but I did make every effort: It's on both of the article's talk pages. I pinged you. I referred to it in an edit summary (of an edit you summarily reverted). Given that you did not participate in this discussion and that you are now aware of it, I must ask you to self-revert. We can discuss the issue in the appropriate place, but, if you're not turning up with third-party sources, you can guess what the answer is going to be. If you are not willing to self-revert, then I will escalate this. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You will escalate matters? By reporting me for "edit warring" on ANI, for making exactly two reverts at a Dungeons & Dragons article? Can you say "over-reaction"? I think I'll save your dignity for you by self-reverting, exactly as requested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to provoke me? I'm honestly at a loss as to what you're trying to achieve, here. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to suggest that you over-reacted to a minor issue. In any case, I have reverted myself at the article, as requested, so that should be the end of the matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think edit warring and refusing to engage in discussion is a minor issue. If you think the topic of our dispute is so minor, perhaps you could refrain from wasting my time in the future. It's encounters like this that prevent us from being able to deal with the problem of the huge volume of articles on exceedingly minor topics; I'm trying to do my bit to cut down on these articles in a way that doesn't involve mass deletions (something which leads to considerable bad feeling) and I face this kind of nonsense. It makes me wonder why I'm bothering to put the time into finding an amicable solution at all; if you're unwilling to budge, why should I? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may ask..
Who left over citation issues? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sasata retired. Some of his final edits were about a silly dispute concerning citation issues, which may have worn him down, but I couldn't say for sure if he retired because of that; he has not made any statement about why he retired. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jessica Pierce
Hello! Your submission of Jessica Pierce at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User uploading improperly licensed images
Josh, since you are an admin who has often patrolled files for proper licensing and use, perhaps you could do something about a user named "Mouauia rafii" who persistently uploads images with bad licensing and keeps reinserting them into articles after removal. Your help would be highly appreciated as he or she seems to be completely disregarding warnings on talk page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've left the user a note and deleted some of the more problematic-looking images. I don't think any harm was meant; let's see what happens next. Let me know if there are any further issues. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do, and thanks for the deletion. Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Rachel Cooper (philosopher)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016
<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) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/September 20, 2016
Hi Josh, here's another one of yours at TFA, I'll get to work on it tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I notified Brian about this, but there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page about (of all things) citations. I think it's all OK now, but something to be aware of. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Arg. Every day I'm hearing about trouble with citations on FAs. I don't know what's going on. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Clare Palmer at DYK
There's been a lot of debate recently on the DYK talk page about the problem of dull hooks. Can you provide a catchier hook for this one? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty interesting, but I did think when I got no response that it was probably dull. Give me a few days and I'll come up with something punchier! Josh Milburn (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Letting you know I quoted you
Hey there, Josh Milburn. Just wanted to let you know I quoted your post here on this page. Your comments seemed helpful to the Draft discussion, but I always make it a point to let editors know if I copy their posts on unrelated pages. Happy editing, and thanks once again for helping with the Gregor GA review. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Clare Palmer
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jessica Pierce
— Maile (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

 * Thanks! I'm only here for a year, but it's a year of research and teaching dedicated to animal ethics, so it's really a dream come true for me. After that, we'll see; I suppose it depends how productive I manage to be! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

TFA
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Animal rights article
Hi there! First of all I wanted to say I'm a big fan of your article An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. I first read through it when it was at FAC when I was still lurking and getting back into the swing of editing regularly, and I was happy to see it on the main page recently. I am using as a model for several book-related articles I am planning for the near future. It's a fascinating read, for which both the subject (academic textbook) and the topic (animal rights) are under-explored on Wikipedia.

Second: while reading this essay a while ago, I was surprised to see there is no Wikipedia article on "Should Trees Have Standing?", which if you're not familiar is an influential essay by legal scholar Christopher Stone. For that matter, there is no article on the concept of legal standing in the US for animals, plants, or other natural, non-human entities. It's similar but distinct to nonhuman personhood as a topic (looks like the main article here for that is Great ape personhood)—I'd just like to address nonhuman standing in United States law. The rule is that generally animals etc. don't have standing under current law, and that it may even impossible under the Constitution as it is, but that hasn't stopped people from trying to grant redressible legal rights to animals, sue on behalf of animals/other natural beings, or sue alongside co-plaintiff animals; courts have even taken cases with animal co-plaintiffs, without commenting on the standing of the animals involved. It's a niche but interesting topic in American environmental law, and though I see you're an Englishman in Canada it's something I thought there's an outside chance you would be interested in or have knowledge of, or maybe know someone else who would. It's also quite a big topic and not something I particularly want to tackle too soon, but I wanted to float it out to you for the time being. Maybe with collaborators, my work on it could also be part of a more general article on nonhuman standing in any jurisdiction, or at the broadest scope, nonhuman personhood. Cheers —BLZ · talk 17:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Category:Animal rights and welfare legislation in the United States exists, but is far from the fascinating article you're suggesting. There's a Legal personhood article, which only discusses entities which do sometimes currently have personality status, like humans, corporations, churches, etc.; Animal law and Commodity status of animals have bits of related info. Whanganui river, remarkably, barely mentions the legal situation and implications (see ). I agree a general article on nonhuman legal personhood is needed. FourViolas (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks so much for the note. I'm really pleasantly surprised with the positive response I've had to the article on the Cochrane textbook; I worried Wikipedians would think of it as tiresomely niche. On the basis of the success, I'm going to look at writing about more books; Animal Rights Without Liberation and Political Animals and Animal Politics are not too far from FAC-ready at the moment.


 * As for the other topic: Yes, I am familiar with Stone's essay, though it was years ago that I read it. (Funny connection: I remember Cochrane recommending it to me; I think he cites it in some of his work.) As it happens, questions about legal standing are very much part of the academic and popular literature I'm engaged with; I'm not a lawyer, but legal theory/philosophy of law are definitely of interest. I am familiar with quite a lot of work on animals in American law, as well as some of the real-world efforts you mention. I think an article on standing generally would be very tricky for the simple reason that people might criticise it for focussing on Western legal structures rather than engaging with analogous ideas outside of the Anglosphere/Europe, when I think finding literature on that latter topic would be difficult. An article on the standing of animals in the United States would be viable and interesting, though it too wouldn't be an easy undertaking! Nonhuman personhood would also be very viable. Keep me in the loop with what you're working on; I'd love to be involved.


 * PS: Are you familiar with the literature surrounding rights of nature? I've come across lawyers and environmentalists who are keen, but I'm not optimistic about it as an idea for helping animals. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * All of those are very close to what I'm talking about! I started with a very specific topic needing an article and it ballooned out in scope from there: "Should Trees Have Standing?" (just the essay and its influence) > Legal standing of nature in United States law (still have to develop the best title for this, I want it to encompass animals/trees/rivers) > Standing of nature internationally (which, as J Milburn points out, may be a difficult topic to adequately cover) > Nonhuman personhood (which encompasses the issue of international standing in ways that would make it easier to compartmentalize there). I'd like to tackle certainly the first two — the issue of standing rather than personhood is more my current interest, since personhood begins to implicate way more rights than the narrow one to bring a case to court — but I'll help with a nonhuman personhood article if there's interest. The Whanganui River example is new to me, and that is precisely the type of thing I'd like to cover within United States law.
 * My interest in the topic is somewhat at a novice level, I am interested in environmental law but it's a "professional" rather than fully invested "academic" pursuit so I am more fluent in the practical law in the United States and California than in the scholarly literature as a whole. I had not seen the Rights of Nature article, I'm familiar with a few examples cited there like the constitution of Ecuador. I'm curious about which areas of rights of nature you're "not optimistic" about, since it's a broad field. My main interest in the topic is through study of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which I think would benefit from providing a more direct statutory route to sue on behalf of a species itself (which I feel would be valid under the Case or Controversy Clause, but that is quite, er, Controversial), instead of relying on human plaintiffs tethered only by injuries more remote than those faced by the animals themselves. There are already cases with names like Northern Spotted Owl v. Lujan. Even my constitutional law professor didn't have an answer handy as to why the species name was the plaintiff in that case; turns out that courts have ignored the standing issue for named animal plaintiffs in such cases, while relying on the validity of the standing of human co-defendant, which is either an odd tacit quasi-acceptance of animal standing or merely a refusal to "go there"/touch the topic with a ten-foot pole. —BLZ · talk 19:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember that there's a difference between offering something to a species and offering it to individual animals. That's part of why I'm sceptical about rights of nature (that and the fact that it seems to entail that rivers and mountains and stuff can have rights, which I find, to put it mildly, philosophically questionable); as an animal rights theorist, I'm primarily concerned about individual animals rather than collectives like "species" or "ecosystems". Of course, environmentalist goals and animal rights goals often go neatly together, but they sometimes come apart in pretty disastrous ways. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I should say that I'd be very happy to work on an article addressing species/ecosystem/whatever conservation; my on-Wikipedia interests are much broader than my professional research interests! And, of course, my own views about the viability of different ideas are close to irrelevant when it comes to what goes in to a Wikipedia article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree! My own interests are more grounded in an environmentalist perspective, and in fact usually correspond more with "the human environment"—air, land, water, energy use, resource management, climate change, urban environments and environmental justice. Animal/natural standing is sort of a fringe interest for me, since its application remains mostly theoretical and largely untested, but despite my own lack of interest in working in the field of animal law I am fascinated by the efforts of lawyers and scholars in this area.
 * Anyway, I will certainly ping you (and ! thank you for chiming in btw, I've previously happened across and enjoyed your psychology of eating meat article) when I get closer to actually tackling the article. In the past I've preferred to hammer out and publish articles so that they're more-or-less complete at the first edit, but I'm happy to sandbox something so you both and others could contribute. —BLZ · talk 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to get involved at the review stage, if you're more comfortable writing "whole" articles; contributing at GAC and FAC (and occasionally PR) is actually something I typically spend more time doing than writing articles (at least, it feels that way). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! That may be the way to go. You would be an unusually well-suited reviewer in the sense that you would be able to identify valuable unused sources and other blind spots. —BLZ · talk 20:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Re:Animal Rights Article
I am not edit warring. Humans are not animals, they are humans, I don't know why you are taking it personal. It is unnessary to put in parenthesis (non-human)animals. I know that extreme animal rights activists try to degrade humanity down to animals to further their attempt to give animals the same rights.NapoleonX (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, after looking it up humans are technically classed with animals. That doesn't mean we are the same as them, and are animals. We are living creatures and classed with animals, but we are totally different from wild animals. I now realize that what I meant was that when saying animals, it is standard practice that is understood that you are talking about non-human animals. There is no need to put (non-human) animals. When somebody refers to Animal Rights, they are naturally understood to be talking about animals not humans.NapoleonX (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anna L. Peterson
Hello! Your submission of Anna L. Peterson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Monster/Clover (creature) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Monster/Clover (creature). Since you had some involvement with the The Monster/Clover (creature) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)