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.

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)

• Just wanted to say; I didn't start the thread to 'report' you. Rather, I saw some seriously heated discussions that was spinning multiple discussions off their tracks, combined with following going on. A LOT of heat was being added all over the place with little in the way of constructive movement. Sometimes, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Sometimes what makes the most beneficial difference is for the two parties to put down the knives and walk away. I recall Michael Jackson made a heck of a lot of money singing and performing on the very subject :) You and I work in areas that strongly overlap, and I frequently see you in discussions I am in. I don't look for your approval or disapproval in anything I do, nor am I asking it from you. I just wanted to be clear that what I did in starting the WP:AN/I thread wasn't for or against you, but rather to just get the situation to end. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've just now realized this isn't the notice I posted yesterday, but one I posted some days ago. You removed the notice I posted yesterday. Some days, I just can't keep up :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Importance of Being Earnest GA Review

Hi Milburn,

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

File:1938 Interior of Berlin synagogue after Kristallnacht.jpg

Please stop trying to delete this image via the back-door, by orphaning it and then speedy deleting it. It's clear that your views on deletion of images of this nature are not in accord with the consensus of most Wikipedians. If you want it deleted you'll have to do a proper FFD. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FP points

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

Question

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

Plip!

• Well, here's something for you to cook for dinner... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Grimlock, WD cite now there.

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

Fair use rationale for File:Easley High School Auditorium south and east elevations.jpg

Thanks for your message about adding fair use rationale for this image. I've added that to the file description page but haven't deleted your tag. Please check to see if the rationale meets the requirements and, if so, delete the tag on the file description page.

Contributingfactor ( talk) 12:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Apart from the fact the image doesn't actually illustrate any section, as it's found off below the references. The only thing this seems to serve to illustrate is the line "The building had fallen into disrepair". That does not warrant the use of a non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

File:Easley High School 1925.jpg

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

Replacing fault with featured sound

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

Talk page comments

I noticed Ed's commentary on the Wikipedia talk:WikiCup.

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

Regarding your GA concerns: it is my opinion that a reviewer was reviewing a topic outside of his expertise and have requested reconsideration of his quickfail prior to going to WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Um..in order

1. Why do you care?

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

2. Why do you care?

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

and...

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

Good attempt to act like you are too stupid to understand the difference between random emails and emails that secure a promotable FP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not acting like I am "too stupid" for anything E-mailing people is not a legit justification for claiming these points. Without you, the FP's and VP's could have been nominated and passed. That's the thing, take another article, like one of your GA's and remove all the contribution that you put into it and nothing or very little remains. That is the signs of true content improvement, when not much remains when you take yourself out of the equation. With these images, the only thing that is mussing from them if you were removed from the equation would be the noms.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Given your response how can you say I do not deserve credit for an image that had a logo causing it to be put up for deletion when no one else was going to remove it and I did for #1 above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #3 above, without my extensive effort to contact, cajole, remind and beg the creator to restitch, do you think this would have passed at WP:FP? Keep in mind that I the nomination was about to be closed as lacking support until I did my final grovelling. Where would this nom have gone with me removed from the equation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony, with all due respect, you are making it appear that you are a greedy trophy collector who will not sit still until he has his way rather than someone working for the benefit of the project. Give it a rest. Enough with the "sandbagging" comments, the paranoia, and the gaming the system strategies and start actually doing some content improvement.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If I was talking to you, I would ping you. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't give 2 cents if you were talking to me or not. Stop trying to change the rulings by the judges. You wiki-lost; get over it and stop complaining.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Palm Springs through mountains.JPG

Hi J Milburn, I see you're an administrator. Could you please delete File:Palm Springs through mountains.JPG for me? I've moved it to Commons and it's now under the "NowCommons" template. Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind now. Another admin deleted it for me. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New essay

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

File:Tate03ShowGallacio2small.jpg and File:Tate03ShowGallacio1small.jpg

I've replied at User_talk:Tyrenius#Copyright. It will be easier to keep this conversation in one place. Ty 06:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've replied on my talk page. Ty 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Padronkavskiy zhargon

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

Ping

Email... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Coconut octopus nomination

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

File:Duke and Duchess of Windsor meet Adolf Hitler 1937.jpg

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

killer7 FAC

Hey, I finally reopened an FAC for killer7 (here). Were you planning on re-nominating Dustbin Baby anytime soon? If not, just let me know and I'd be glad to comb through it whenever you get around to doing that. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thrud

Hi. I believe SandyGeorgia was a bit premature in closing the Thurd the Barbarian FAC. I have provided a detailed response to the sourcing queries at the FAC as discussed at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Thrud and hope that you will agree that there is enough there to at least re-open it and continue the discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 12:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in no rush! Been sitting on the article for a year. GDallimore (Talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)