User talk:J Milburn

Thanks for dropping by! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Messages here will often be read by a number of people. If you would rather discuss an issue privately, you can email me. I typically reply here, and, if I do, I will typically tag you in the message. If I haven't gotten back to you in a week and/or haven't gotten to something I said would, feel free to leave a reminder.

Child Warsaw Ghetto

I'm the one who put File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg in Warsaw Ghetto last July. It gives an emotional sense of the Holocaust like few other pictures of that terrible time. There is very much rationale for using this image. It is disturbing picture of a disturbing part of history but as long as it doesn't humilate the subject or violate copyright it shouldn't be censored out. Slightsmile (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know a lot about non-free content criteria. What you're saying is it doesn't meet Wikipedia's copyright rules? Also I would dispute that it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The event in the picture is presented as it happened, no more and no less. Tech question - when I start a new section in a talk page, how do I make it show in the "My watchlist" as a N New section? Slightsmile (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I went through WP:RATIONALE but I'm not getting it. Even if Steven J. Anderson cut and pasted his rationals ... A child dying in the the streets of the Warsaw Ghetto - is that not relevent to the article? Could you suggest a rational that would be satifactory?

Good point about "emotional sense" but to clarify, I wasn't out to impose any POV. It's true that I was taken by the image when I saw in The Holocaust article. I like how Wikipedia discusses the Holocaust, Nazis, Nazi organizations etc in a factual and non-emotional way. Is it necessarily imposing a POV to illustrate the human side of a historical event? Slightsmile (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't get it. I see lots lot's of pics in Warsaw Ghetto and Holocaust with no FU at all. Instead of trying to kill that file, why not help find an acceptable rational or point me in the right direction. I don't agree with the comparison to Princess Diana, Childwarsawghetto is informative in many ways -

Notice how skinny the girl's legs are, it's a wonder she's walking. Death was so common that the dying kid seemed to have little significance to passers by. When I showed it to someone who lived in Occupied Europe she stared at it for a long time. She remembered the (knickerbockers?) the boy on the right is wearing and it brought her back in time. That it shows a human side to a historical event doesn't mean that it's a POV. Slightsmile (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still don't get it. I go into the links that you've provided but I seem to be going round in circles. Maybe this approach will help me -

I like File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg in the Great Depression article. If you explain to me in Wikipedia words the rationale why it has to be in the article it might help me find the right wording for Warsaw Child.

Also File:Encyclopaedia Britannica 15 with 2002.jpg in Encyclopædia Britannica, File:The Untouchables Cast.jpg in The Untouchables (1959 TV series) and File:The White Slave statue.jpg in Sexual slavery. Slightsmile (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I finally understand and agree with Wikipedia's strict policy on non free images - took long enough, didn't it. I tried to ask around what might be good rationales and it looks like the picture is a goner. Too bad, I found it unique in that gave a sense of being there like no other images. Just a final clarification for my knowledge about PD and non free. I've read or been told that images owned by the Nazi government and seized by the allies used to be PD the US. However images owned by the modern German government are under copyright in Germany and images that belonged to the Nuremberg Tribunal fall under copyright in the US. What is the status of File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg that makes it non free? In one part of the file I see US government archive, in another I see German government. I appreciate it how you took the time to explain things to me. Slightsmile (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers AfDs

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

Minor DYK issue

Hi. Regarding your triple-nom at DYK, have reviewed it and it's fine, but all three articles only barely just meet the 1,500 character requirement. A bit more expansion wouldn't hurt, I think. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and promoted the articles, it's now in the preparation queue. Strange Passerby (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Portrait

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

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lambis crocata

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lambis crocata 2010 G1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS request

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

Thanks for the confirmation, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Parodia tenuicylindrica

-- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Parodia arnostiana

-- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Parodia buiningii

-- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait

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

Slipknot FAC

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

WP:AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. However, we're not going to tell you about it because we have nothing better to do with our time. Spot on :) Keep the faith, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust images

Sorry that you are getting shat on in the FFD nomination. The sad truth is that any discussion on a Holocaust-related image will result in anyone supporting deletion having their character slandered. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. That happened from the very first comment posted after J Milburn nominated the image. But that poster taken to task? Oh hell no. Reflexive response syndrome. For some topics, it's ok to suspend rationale debate. You knew that, didn't you? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That absolutely seems to be the case. I'm not looking at the debate again, but what really got me was a post a few hours ago, accusing me of nominating the image based on IDONTLIKEIT grounds, when so much of the keep brigade seemed to be entirely based on ILIKEIT. Defending articles like that is indeed necessary, but I didn't realise it was me who was the potential problem there. I thought it was, y'know, Nazis. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It's ok. There's plenty about the world that isn't ugly. Music to make you feel better :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted a response/question there.

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, rather than two forums, I'll leave the discussion there rather than here. - jc37 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My intentions have nothing to do with that nom, really- if there's an issue with them, here would be the place. In any case, I've no intention of looking at the discussion again. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll copy/paste the minithread here for discussion then. you can hide it, remove it, whatever. And even ignore, of course. - jc37 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, while I am still unconvinced, I'm going to strike the IDONTLIKEIT comment - if for no other reason than Wikilove. - jc37 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a great amount of non-free content myself- some of the articles I display with pride on my userpage contain non-free content. I nominated the image because I feel it fails our non-free content criteria, and I have explained enough times that that is the case, and argued from that position repeatedly. I said I was stepping out of the discussion, and that doesn't mean I want the discussion moved here. I think your insinuations are badly thought out, and bordering on the offensive/ridiculous. You said yourself that "I don't know if deletion based upon NFCC applies here or not", so what you were doing at the debate in the first place is beyond me. Moonriddengirl, thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as IANAL, I felt it fair to say that while I've been in some of the discussions involving NFCC etc, I won't call myself an expert. The point of the discussion is to bring out facts (if they exist) to determine if it does indeed meet fair use, else remove. If that's the point of a FU discussion on the FFD page, then if such does meet fair use, discussion over. Else, discussion over in that case as well.

Anyway, it's clear (if not from here, at least from your initial an/i post) that you're upset atm, so I'll hold off trying to learn from you what your continued grievance is with the file in question. (And since you're now saying you don't wish to discuss it, I'll remove the mini thread paste at least.)

Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, I hope you have a better day. - jc37 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you've actually missed the point here. Something being "fair use" is not the same as something meeting our non-free content criteria, which are deliberately far stricter than law. I'm not a lawyer either- I'm not even American- so I don't want to start guessing about the law. However, I do know a bit about our policies and guidelines. That really tells me in one that you need to understand the underlying issues a little better. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned at my talk, there is a line at IDONTLIKEIT that says "This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images...", which is perhaps why Jc37 invoked that page. –xeno^talk 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear God... Who the hell writes these pages? If only they had some kind of outlet for their creativity. I wonder if there's any project they could join where they could write and publish articles on just about anything? J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My major concern with the note I saw here (and note it was not directed to me) was "And before you accuse me of presuming bad faith, please remember that we're not directed to AGF when evidence to the contrary is presented to us." Perhaps Jc37 didn't intend it that way, but this seems to suggest he has been presented with evidence of bad faith. I wouldn't much like being told I was nominating something for deletion because I didn't like it, either, but being told I have given evidence contrary to good faith would be even more distressing to me. I feel quite sure that J does what he does for the good of the project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

"It's your fault", "no it's yours."

"You don't understand" "No you don't"

I've always claimed to not be an expert. But that aside, you used NFCC in your initial response to me. At the time, I was thinking that that was odd, but whatever. Let's pass on that...

If you really want I'll go try to find the quotes about fair use (one of the wikimedia lawyers commented about a different situation a few years back) in that we don't have to worry a whole lot about it per se (and yes I'm paraphrasing and taking it WAY out of context), though personally, imho we should be concerned about it.

The question at hand should simply be whether the image meets Wikipedia's fair use criteria or not. Is it because you don't like the rationale? the image? the use of the image? There are others who seem to agree and those who disagree. So it's about assessing Wikipedia policy on something that seems slightly mired in quicksand.

Anyway, I mentioned to someone else that this is likely not a productive discussion, and that likely all we're doing now is stressing nerves, so let's just drop it. After all, you've already decided to not go back to the discussion, so I suppose there is little further to be gained discussing not discussing. - jc37 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And MRG, someone can act based upon not liking something and still think they are acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. Typically, that's handled by attempting to discuss with the person. And trying to come to a consensus (As I know you know well from past discussions where we've agreed and disagreed.) And in the case of FU images, this is a murky area of Wikipedia, so I'm not hopeful that such a discussion in this case would be productive at this time.

And just so it's said: I have nothing against JM personally. To my recollection I don't recall ever noticing his name in discussions I've been in before, but then, not everyone has such a memorable name as moonriddengirl : ) - jc37 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" in its nutshell is very clear: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." You said, "And before you accuse me of presuming bad faith, please remember that we're not directed to AGF when evidence to the contrary is presented to us. And it would seem to me that there is indeed such here." When you say you feel you have been presented with evidence of bad faith, you are saying you have reason to believe somebody is trying to hurt the project. AGF goes beyond the bit you quote to add that "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Disagreements are one thing; saying you have "evidence to the contrary" of good faith really is something beyond that. It draws assumptions about his motivations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Again, this isn't directed at me, but I nevertheless appreciate your striking this. You may not have intended to accuse J Milburn of deliberately undermining the project, but as an uninvolved bystander I felt that the impact of your words. It was, again, that which I found shocking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC))

(dedent) - Now here's where I am being misunderstood.

But I'll accept the blame due to a lengthy sentence.

I was saying a.) don't accuse me of bad faith, because b.) I feel I see apparent evidence of IDONTLIKEIT.

My apologies if anything else was interpreted from my comments. - jc37 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to know you didn't intend it like it sounded. But I'm still glad you struck it, because I suspect that other readers might interpret it as I did. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

He's interested, so the question becomes, what the hell is the email? It's nowhere on the OTRS page. What? ResMar 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting a failure notice - adress does not exist. ResMar 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Zino's Petrel illustration

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

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

Messier 82

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

Two featured picture nominations promoted

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Cymbiola imperialis 01.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. I'ḏ♥One 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Koppelpoort Amersfoort Cropped.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. I'ḏ♥One 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Two questions.

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

Image nightmares

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

DYK for Fomes fomentarius

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your featured picture nomination was promoted 9-19-10

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Wasserschloss Mespelbrunn, 6 edit01.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. I'ḏ♥One 14:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Anomalous edit

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

Paul is dead - Editing problems

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

Taking leave

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