User talk:J Milburn

Archives

Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

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.

Is it your understanding that there is not a fair use for this image for any of the articles in which it is used? It is a unique image of an historic event, specifically the anticlerical expropriation of a church in Spain during the civil war. Even if the building existed today, a photograph of it would be inadequate because it would not have the moniker which it has in the image. Mamalujo (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Messier51 sRGB.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 21:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Australian blenny.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) 15:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I chalk this one up to my ignorance, but I'll be less destruction in the future in the form of comment only. Sorry, but I agree that it's really deserving. Good luck. Gut Monk (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lee Bollinger - Daniella Zalcman less noise.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) 01:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, what did I do that the image isn't showing up in this template or on the article page? I did the same thing I do every time! Help? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move Ethnic discrimination in Israel to Ethnic and racial discrimination in Israel as described in WP:Move but I got the error message:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

The new name is already a REDIRECT link to the original name. That is why I did a manual re-name. I just tried it again, and the same error message appears.

Do you have any suggestions? Would you mind doing the move? See discussion on Talk page for rationale for the move. --Noleander (talk)

Hello! Your submission of Benthoctopus levis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Smartse (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your FPC things above, do you think that File:Translation.gif could be worthy of being an FP? Smartse (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for your advice, I'll get round to nominating it some day. I've agfticked the DYK now. Smartse (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JM, I noticed your addition to the lamella (mycology) page (which I agree is a stubby mess). Lactarius subdulcis, however, has adnate, not decurrent gills. Go for Cantharellus if you want an example of prominently decurrent gills :) I'm working in the background on the stipe article, which is in a similar state. It's been quite challenging actually, as I'm preparing a table to list all the terms mycologists use to describe stipes, and trying to find a representative photo for each. If I'm lucky, I might get it finished this year... Sasata (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed most of the images that had consensus on the talk page, and replaced them with images from the anime, with improper names and rationale, and which were redundant to the lead image. As a result of the agreed upon images being removed, they were soon deleted. I've reverted the edit, retaining as much valid additions as possible, but I can't reupload the images due to their deletion. Could you, please? All of the deleted images (which were agreed upon by you and me) are linked to on the main article. You can also see the new, non fair use images by looking a few revisions back. Thanks!208.249.136.187 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We hardly agreed upon them... The article needs considerable work, maybe even merging somewhere. What it doesn't need is a slew of non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the talk page why the images there were needed, and you said it was good. If the images are not okay, I'd like you to continue the discussion with what is lacking. Regardless, the images that were recently there were entirely redundant to the lead image.208.249.136.187 (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if nothing else, it's a good start". If you want to help this article, there are much more productive things that can be done than fighting for the return of non-free images. Specifically what did you want restoring? J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images that are red-linked on the article - File:Gallantmon X b.gif, File:Examon b.jpg, File:Magnamon X b.jpg, File:Kentaurosmon b.jpg, and File:Leopardmon Leopard Mode b.jpg. Thanks!24.13.125.86 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored them. I do appreciate that you made an effort to reduce the amount of non-free content, and are taking that seriously (by keeping unwarranted NFC out of the article.) J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, J Milburn. I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Contradiction about "no consensus" result for FFD about a snippet of text you added to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/heading about a year ago. If you can help to shed some light on the issue I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Bkell (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit. I think the case is quite clear - you failed to notify until the nomination was almost closing in spite of an early reminder, in full knowledge that, having announced his retirement, the creator wasn't likely to respond within a short time. In short, you gave him no chance to respond. Your reverting of the edit makes your action look even more under-handed than it did already, and you've made no secret of the fact that you were reluctant to notify at all. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your place to decide if he wants to comment on it or not. You have an obligation to give reasonable notice, and you failed to do so. If you deliberately disregard the rules, you shouldn't be surprised if others step in to fix your mistakes. Rather than trying to argue your way out of it, it would be far better to resolve to comply in future. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience with me while I am learning the copyright rules for images. I finally got the copyright holder to release the rights to Spiral Jetty USU.jpg and USU Honors Hiking.jpg via emailing Permissions. If you need me to do anything else, please let me know. Hydrobrain (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About your editions in List of cryptids, I don´t understand: we cannot use the images in the list but we can in each article? --Againme (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining. --Againme (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleases respond in the GAN page of Road to Europe. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again respond. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) There's a question about PD images on Commons at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Country Life Magazine. I think I've answered it correctly, but I'm not that confident of my footing. Would you mind taking a look and making plain if I've muffed it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much, as always. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Nessie Barnstar
		For your excellent work in keeping the standards of Wikipedia enforced in Cryptozoology-related articles. Thanks for the review, it is a big help! Gniniv (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to be involved with the article at all? I've just removed a fact tag - I thought it was a pov edit on a basically non-controversial issue - by an editor whoa agreed that there is a pov problem but is trying to get a statement that cryptozoology is not recognised as a branch of zooloogy removed (usually you don't find cites for a negative like this, and pardon me for not AGFing, but he has enough experience that he should know that). Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your recent nominations at FPC. I was not able to respond earlier as I was in Africa without internet access for almost 5 weeks. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At 7 p.m. on 29 August, the GBU-53/B article will appear on DYK, 5 hours before the deadline to the current semi-finals round of Wikicup. With that, I will be entitled to another 10 points or 30 points total. There was another ITN that I could arguably get 10 points but did not submit it because I only wanted to submit solid entries, not debatable ones. (I created an article which someone re-directed to an article created the next day, which appeared on ITN).

Anyway 30-40 points is not enough to proceed to the finals round. Goodbye, Wikicup. Thank you J. for being a Wikicup moderator. Being one of the last people to enter and entering so late that no strategy was planned, I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition. Finland made it to the semi-finals round! And was not in last place of the semi-finals round, passing some withdrawn candidates and  Norway! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multi-listen item

Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, File:Hungry Lucy Pulse of the Earth 01 Just Imagine.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Jujutacular talk 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

x10 :) Jujutacular ^talk 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it you who arranged for the album to be put on Commons? Is there a story behind this? Tony (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the post above suggests that only the first file is a FS. Tony (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting permission, love it. Hekerui (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I revisited the article on Kaki King, and found her "editorial" fans had driven it in the wrong direction. The photo in the infobox I'd placed there a year ago was switched instead to a photo "found on somebody's MySpace page", and they'd even put the copyright sign in the caption for that person. Here is how the article looked: [1] I explained the problems I found on the talk page, mentioning how to do it properly. As I removed it, along with other redundancies in the text, POV and links to the Wikipedia itself as a reference, I found the photo had been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a ORTS pending note-from over a month ago [2] so I looked in Flickr on a hunch, and found the photo just now here: [3] by a Sarah Bastin. It doesn't appear anyone has had any intention of removing the copyright! I've removed the photo and am trying to change the text as it's also misleading. Will you please deal with that photo in Commons? I really doubt it is pending ORTS at all! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I pulled the photo (I mean, really!) Thanks, you are my Savior when it comes to the issues with Commons, especially! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JM, I'd appreciate your adminly assistance to move Morganella pyriformis to Lycoperdon pyriforme over the redirect. I'll be expanding the article soon for another GA, but there should be sufficient explanation in the article already to justify the move. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file is this one. File:Tales From The Emerald Sword Saga (limited edition).jpg. on Tales from the Emerald Sword Saga article. I don't know whats the wiki policy about having two album covers in 1 article. Some albums like Christ Illusion from Slayer have two. I just put the two to make the article niciest. If you think it does not belong you can delete it now. Neo139 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarify ^^ Neo139 (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mom and I like Ego Likeness. I also suggest Lacuna Coil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gut Monk (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the F and A page are much appreciated. It's a big job—fiddly, too. Tony (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate the way you just deleted masses of Transformers articles for "lack of notability". There was no proper nomination for deletion, and the redirects you put in their places were VERY sloppy. Articles like Big Convoy could have been redirected to the page for the TV series Beast Wars Neo, not a list of Maximals. If you don't know anything about a subject, you should have asked for help before making a big mess of things. Mathewignash (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles had been tagged for notability for some time, no editor had made any effort to fix them. If you believe you can fix them so that they meet our notability guidelines, and other editors agree, then of course they can be spun out again. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were tagged for two weeks. You see tags that have been on other articles for three years, no one paying attention to them. If there is a debate over a redirect, then it should be undone, and if you don't think its notable send it to the AFD through proper process. Dream Focus 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no one's paying attention to the notability tags, they really haven't got a leg to stand on when someone assumes the content isn't notable. If it was notable, evidence should have been provided, and the notability tag should have been removed. If it is notable, evidence can be provided and the article can be restored. There's no "right to AfD" if you don't like the fact that someone's turned a useless article into a redirect- this isn't a court of law... If you edit war to keep an article that should not exist, you'll end up blocked. That's not exactly a revelation. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if you don't like an article, you can eliminate it, without getting consensus in an AFD? And you sound like you are threatening to block me if I dare disagree with you. Dream Focus 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has been written about a non-notable subject, turning it to a redirect to an article that legitimately covers the subject is perfectly reasonable. Edit warring to keep an article on a non-notable subject would be unacceptable, obviously, and unacceptable behaviour will lead to you being blocked. Nothing here should be surprising to you, and nothing here is exactly controversial- trying to make this personal and paint me as some kind of madman deleting articles on a mere whim hardly makes you look like a reasonable person. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by consensus, that why we have the AFD process. I'll see how those other character articles AFDs end, before deciding if I should bother reverting you are not. I think the end result might be the same, the Wikipedia changing for the worse over the years. Dream Focus 23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is one place that can determine notability, but, like I said, articles do not have a "right to AfD". If you are going to revert me, at least make an effort to demonstrate the notability of the character- cite some decent sources or something. Don't just revert me because you feel you can. If you can't find any sources, can you honestly revert in good faith? J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Eugen_Simion_14#Image_uploads. All them images he upload lack source. Link to uploads. —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Tagged Closeup 3008px.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 23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that. I'm also glad that we were able to have a civil, albeit distended and sometimes redundant, discussion. These kinds of discourses when made in good faith can only improve Wikipedia. So rest assured, I only think more of you as a result of our run-ins.

PS. I'm not sure what Talk page etiquette is, so I've left this reply on both our pages. Sorry if you've had to read it twice. Cowtowner (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Calocoris affinis.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) 00:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your image help at the Armero tragedy FAC; I believe I've resolved your comments. ceranthor 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talkback here Sandman888 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would you be okay if we close it now? I have used the picture in a FAC so I'd like to say it's closed. I doubt we'll get input from more people by now anyway. Sandman888 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this nom, I'm wondering if you missed the year on the previous nom? "A few months ago" is really "a year and a few months ago", :-) Didn't want to fix in case your idea of "few" is just vastly different to mine! Maedin\^talk 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I designed it with the final eight in mind thinking that people will want to know what people have done and such. It might be something you want to move into WP space and make official. You might even include it in the template and do one each year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you 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.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 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Tibia insulaechorab .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) 00:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your message at User talk:Karanacs, it looks like one of your FACs was failed without explanation too. If our FACs get reopened, I'd gladly take a look at yours and offer some comments/criticism/support. I honestly don't have any idea how to draw enough attention to a particular FAC to get people to actually comment on it and get it finally promoted. What has your experience been? Axem Titanium (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully this turns out for the better, but overall I've found the process lacking in transparency. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sandi Jackson, I think it would only be fair to make sure this got adequate consideration at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Sandi Jackson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brian Urlacher, can we get a fair consideration at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brian Urlacher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cato June, I would like a fair consideration of Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Cato June.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the discussion of that issue? I agree that there are a few flags that shouldn't be use, but frankly, other than flags associated with murderous regimes (Nazi Germany and Soviet Union), few come to mind. And even then, what if one wanted to use a flag of a current murderous regime (North Korea)? What if somebody has finds a flag of some other modern country offensive? I can change my flag, sure, but 99% historical flags are not controversial (such as the one I chose). I would rather see the few, specific flags that can be proven controversial banned, rather then some general categories. PS. I can also see how some flags of proposed countries can be controversial, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. So only flags of current political entities are allowed, right? Question: how will you deal with the North Korean flag or Al-Quaida when if they pop up? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate having my sources removed by Radiopathy. Would you please check our recent edits to Hollie (album). If I am ruled incorrect it will cause me to wonder whether I want to continue spending as much time as I have been spending as an editor. I feel that the improvement I made to the track listing section with my sources removed by Radiopathy is an insult to me and the integrity of the article.1archie99 (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" you added are called "linkspam" in Wikispeak. You were directed to WP:ELNO #5 not once, but twice, but decided to edit war instead. Stop your forum shopping. Radiopathy •talk• 10:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radiopathy in my opinion had assumed ownership of the article. One of the pages that I used as a source for my edits to the tracklisting as it was captioned before my edits is from a website that is used elsewhere in the article as a reference. You can see the state of mind of this editor; before I was able to reply to you he restated his flimsy excuse for iniating this edit war. The last straw was the vandalistic removal of my request to furnish a citation.1archie99 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please discuss the appropriateness of the links on the article talk page? The conduct here was not ideal, yes, I can see that, but hopefully we can get the issue resolved without the need for any further fighting. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stated the facts on the section you created on the talk page; added a third link which I think is preferable to both that were deleted and invited any interested person to weigh in. I suggest extending the time of the edit block to give sufficient time for other editors to weigh in.1archie99 (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious by his comment to you that Radiopathy holds little respect for anything other than his own desires. I withdraw my request to extend the time of the edit block. If no one comes up with a better source; It is my intention to cite the page on the Amazon site as tha source for the track listing when the block is lifted.1archie99 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benthoctopus levis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to t¡my comments in the GAN. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Eisenhower Expressway (2nd nomination) on your request to have license plates removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I was referring to this comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JM, thanks much for your comments at the FAC, I've responded to all of your suggestions now. I had a question you might be able to answer for me in your capacity as image expert: this weekend I will be involved in organizing and directing a chess tournament which has two very strong players who already have articles here (see Hikaru Nakamura and Pascal Charbonneau). I'm pretty sure I'll be able to convince them to pose for some pictures, and if there's photographic magic in the air, a FPC might be forthcoming. Do you know if I have to obtain some sort of "model release" or similar documentation to use their images on Wikipedia (and go through the FPC process)? Sasata (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the image, have a look (though someone else says the red boxed areas are fires, not sure if that should or shouldn't deter us from favoring). If it's up to your taste will you support? I would like for us to feature Hawaii. =) --I'ḏ♥One 17:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water off a ducks back. Hey still wondering about the license plate thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought ther might be an official policy that needed to be pointed out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, regarding your vote at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hawaii, you said you would support if the red line was not there. An edit was added to the nomination, could you indicate there if you support it? Jujutacular ^talk 03:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Maggie Roswell.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 03:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made numerous improvements in between the IP reversion of your edit and your recent edits, but you restored it back to your version so that those were lost. I wonder if in future you would care to manually implement any reversions you would like to do so that others' edits are not loss. Thank you. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forwarded an e-mail to OTRS that gave permission for File:Preacher_Gene.jpg. Could you take a look at this? Thanks in advance. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on September 5 (I don't have the exact time), and the title was "Permission to Use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Preacher_Gene.jpg". --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Ego Likeness high res (Kyle Cassidy).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 13:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a seconded opinion but no one in the review has responded to my comments, i copy edited the production section and fixed a bit of the plot and CRs, the recption as well it been fixed in grammer, so please respond in the review page and fail it or pass it since the review has gone way to long. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]