Jump to content

User talk:J Milburn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 2 October 2010 (→‎Idea for you.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Ping

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

Sent another one, sorry for the bother Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I went ahead and looked through Andrew Johnston (which is the FAC I'm assuming you were referring to) and made some comments. Look forward to working with you in the future. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I made some changes based on your comments at the FAC. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

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)[reply]

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

File:E-tripartite-pact.jpg

It was deleted because you said that there are free images available. If that's true, why is this one still in use? Replaceable images should be replaced if the free images are already on WMF servers. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-and-yellow Barbet
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lake Manyara Bartvogel.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. Jujutacular talk 01:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Hungary Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

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

PING

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

Nansen photo

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

DYK for Red-and-yellow Barbet

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Topic credit

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

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

The Story of Miss Moppet

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

Image deleted, but trail unclear

Hi. In this edit you noted on my page that an image didn't have a proper fair use justification.[1] I'm not necessarily questioning that, but there doesn't seem to be a way, now, to check on the justification. The file has been deleted, along with the justification. All that appears in your comment is several links to general information resources -- which, as it happens -- I read years ago.

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

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

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

See my talk page. I am not a new or casual Wiki editor. I want to know why an image was deleted without proper justification, and with no apparent way suggested to correct the perceived fault. I am questioning your process, not particularly arguing for the image. Explain. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You were given a week to deal with the issues before the image was deleted, that's generally more than enough time" Also, your language here is unacceptable. "I was given"? By whom? I have 10,000s of Wiki edits. Is what you are saying is that I have one week to notice and defend every one of them? I not only act in good faith, but now also have to protect myself from people who pull vague Wiki guildlines out of their hat, and give me a week to defend myself? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Alpha Ralpha Boulevard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Inocybe maculata

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for you.

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&oldid=388300482"