User talk:J Milburn/archive27

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Rollosmokes

I see you just posted a notice on his page. He's been indef'd since last October. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuous restoring/deleting of links to images for Glen Campbell videos

In reply to your warning on my userpage, can I still ask you a question (although you may feel otherwise, i'm all doing this in good faith)? Why do you say I am ignoring our policies and guidelines? I assume you mean the non-free content policies and guidelines? We have obviously different opinions on how those should be applied to the Glen Campbell videos article, but I wouldn't call that "ignoring". Or do you mean other guidelines and policies about restoring deleted content or something? I haven't been able to find anything about that. In my view I have just as much the right to restore certain content as you have to delete it, as long as there is an unresolved difference of opinion.Lumdeloo (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You answered on my userpage:

If someone believes that calling someone else "a fucking nigger whore" (or whatever) is not a personal attack, does that mean that they have a right to restore it, "as long as there is an unresolved difference of opinion"? No. These images are in violation of policy at the moment, and you're going to have to demonstrate otherwise if you want them to stay. It's ok that you believe otherwise, but continually adding them back in the meantime is not acceptable. To give a real world example, I see no harm in prostitution (which is illegal where I am) per se, but that doesn't mean it's ok for me to go out and pick up young girls and pay them for sex as I see fit. Whether you like it or not, these guidelines are in place, and you're going to need to give specific reasons why these images are required in this article before we can even discuss adding them back. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, these comparisons are not good. I am not personally attacking someone (i really hope you don't feel that way). And the non-free content guideline and criteria is nowhere near as clear as a lawbook. That is why we have a difference of opinion, not because you follow the rules and I don't. You may think these images are in violation of policy, I think they're not.

And I have indicated why I think so. You however have not replied on that. Instead you started using coarse language and, in your role as administrator, threaten to block me. So please provide me a reply on the points I brought forward on your user page on 22:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC) and 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC). I have decided not to revert the changes again for now, you're right, eventually they can be put back (or not) if that's our conclusion. But then I would appreciate a decent reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumdeloo (talk • contribs)

• You've been explicitly told how and why this image use violates our policies. Edit warring to violate that policy is not conducive to your editing privileges. This use has been debated ad nauseum, and THE USE HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED. Knock it off. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, you must be aware that the non-free content guidelines are not clear at all on some points. I read on several discussion pages (indeed ad nauseum) which included contributions from you, that some people want to change them, but these changes have not made it into the guidelines (yet), apparantly because some other people have different opinions on it (like I do). Discussions are good, but they're not the same as guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumdeloo (talk • contribs)

• So what if there is discussion to change them? Discussion is all fine and good, but discussion is not guideline. Guideline states we don't permit this use. Read and understand Wikipedia:Non-free content. I just went through all 49 articles in Category:Videographies. Only two had fair use images on them (one each). One had a screen capture for a Britney Spears video that is already used on the song's page, and thus shouldn't be on a videography, and it also lacked a rationale for use on the videography page anyway. The other was a Lenny Kravitz non-free image that I replaced with a free image that serves the same purpose (WP:NFCC #1). Every other article (and now all of them) lack fair use images. Please explain to us all how it is that everyone here has it wrong, and you have it right; that fair use covers/screen captures should be permitted on videography articles. Why are we all supposed to stop what we're doing, acknowledge you are right and we were all sadly mistaken, and lockstep with you into a new age of putting covers on videographies and discographies? Why? Because you say everyone else is wrong and you are right? You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. I'm not going to keep debating this with you. If you attempt to restore the images to the article again, I'll report it as vandalism. You know what the policy is. You know what the guideline is. You know what current practice is. If you insist on violating it, the consequences will be your responsibility. Your move. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, I appreciate your response. Then my reply: i have taken a look at most of those videography pages you mention. The big difference between those pages and the Glen Campbell videos page is that those pages merely list the videos but they do not provide commentary on them. I totally agree those articles shouldn't have front cover images. We can find this in the guideline under Acceptable use for images: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." and under Unacceptable use for images: "An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." However, the Glen Campbell videos page does provide commentary on the releases and therefore, in my opinion, it's not against the guideline to include non-free images of the cover art. Indeed, the article becomes better with the images, just like an article about a single album/video/dvd is better off with an identifying image of the original cover art. So no, I'm not saying everybody is wrong and I am right. I'm just saying this kind of article is different than the other pages you mention. And no, I definitely don't want a new age of putting covers on all videographies and discographies. That would be against the guidelines and it's not what I'm after anyway.Lumdeloo (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've had this very same debate before with someone. They attempted to make a claim that their article was new, a different type of article, that the guideline didn't apply to because it was different. Ah, here is that discussion. There was a similar discussion about an unrelated article here. Guess what the resolution of both cases was? Elimination of fair use images on one, and reduction to one on the other. You've been told the principle this is done under; if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article. Are images useful? Sure. But, we are a FREE CONTENT encyclopedia, which means we accept non-free content on a very, very limited basis and only when we must. What are you after if not after covers being on all video/discographies? Special dispensation for this article being special and thus beyond the scope of our non-free content policies and guidelines? I assure you, that's impossible. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. That discussion was very enlightening. I think you're right when you say that the underlying principle there was: "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." My point however, is that this principle (which in my opinion is crucial to your point of view) cannot be found anywhere in the non-free content guidelines or policy. It can be found in certain discussions, but as you and I have said before: discussions are not the same as guidelines. I don't want special dispensation for this article. I just want this article to be treated within the context of the current policy and guidelines. In my opinion this means that the use of non-free images here is acceptable.Lumdeloo (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• <forehead slap> I give up. Restore the images at your own peril Lumdeloo. There's no point in discussing this anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• <sigh>If that's the only way to get to the bottom of this... Thanks for your replies anyway.Lumdeloo (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not reinstate the images. Your argument basically seems to boil down to "we disagree over the policy. My opinion is as valid as yours". Frankly, I don't care. I've demonstrated why that's a ridiculous argument, and you became rather snooty about it. If you want to start a centralised discussion about this, go for it, but you'll be wasting your time. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think I will start a more centralized discussion about this, thanks for the suggestion.Lumdeloo (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lumdeloo, we already HAVE gotten to the bottom of this. You simply choose to disagree with our WP:NFCC #8 policy. I'll re-iterate what I said above. If you persist in restoring the images, you will be blatantly violating policy and it will be treated as vandalism. Your call, sport. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, i don't agree. I have been searching all over wikipedia for guidelines which support your statement "if the album/video/whatever is not notable enough to be able to stand along as its own article, no case can be made that we have to have a fair use image on a grouped article." I have not been able to find anything. On the contrary, the notability guideline clearly states that there is no direct link between notability and content (WP:N#NCONTENT).

• Oh, so this is the "I can't find exactly this situation explained exactly in policy, so you're wrong and I'm right" approach? Right. Everything you need is in the non-free content criteria. If you want to demonstrate what those images are adding to that article, be my guest. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• <de-indent> Lumdeloo, there's no point in continuing this discussion with you. There's a zillion possible types of articles. Policy can not and will not anticipate every single possible type. Restore the images at your own peril. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  I took the discussion to Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Glen_Campbell_videos. Lumdeloo (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4

You are opposing based on changes made by and for our image reviewer Elcobbola (talk · contribs). Could you possibly speak directly since images are outside my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the single still image as the main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you still oppose?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have rearranged and reworded, but have further comment on the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the template. Does the article pass now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You made no comments today. I think the ar/pr folks are waiting for your final decision. I hope I am close to getting your support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you are back online. Could you commnet on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine

Fine, and thanks for the care to remove contents pertaining to policy violations. --Bhadani (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bratospoulosm

Great. I told him how to get them properly submitted and I am glad that everything turned out ok. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Susan Atkins photo

Regarding this edit, wouldn't that photo actually be in the public domain as Manson's booking photo is? See the "ownership" policy of the California Dept of Corrections. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

admin abuse

Stop abusing your position as an administrator to allow you to vandalize wikipedia to make a point. You've said you'd stop the removal of pictures from television articles, but in reality, you have increased the number of files deleted and pages altered. You have edited dozens of articles, but i'll just list the ones i can remember:

WDIV-TV, WMYD-TV, WXYZ-TV, CKCO-TV, USA Network, CHRO-TV, WJBK-TV, WKBD-TV, WWJ-TV, WJW-TV, WEWS-TV, WTOL-TV, WNWO-TV, WKYC-TV... this is blatant vandalism and abuse of power, and these articles MUST be restored to their pre-vandalism condition. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I take to offence that the images removed in the CKCO article were explained in great detail. I thought you wanted critical commentary for non-free images. Well there was critical commentary for the CKCO images. I would like to see you describe a television logo that you removed. File:Mctvbbs.svg would be a good start.

I'm not against having a solution to resolve this situation, but I feel the way everybody is acting right now is not the correct way to resolve this. I think that there should be a resolution so there wouldn't be edit wars every few days over this subject.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Creating critical discussion without sourcing the discussion in secondary sources external to Wikipedia is original research. We don't add logos everywhere we want to, and then describe them, in an attempt to keep them in articles. Was the logo notable for some reason? If so, cite sources showing that. Was the transition from one logo to another significant in history? If so, cite sources indicating that. If you can't do this, including the logos does nothing to improve the article, and actually makes it worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Emarsee, original research in image captions counts for nothing. Are the logos genuinely significant? Would they be discussed in the article if you weren't so keen to prove they are "necessary"? I think not. What a logo that the channel used years ago looks like is of pretty much no importance. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You may believe that the logos used by a local television station is of little importance, but there are people who disagree with that. I'm not saying that every single logo that a television station had should be on their articles, but what I am trying to do is to keep the most significant logos of the television stations. Independent sources with regarding with local television stations in Canada are very few, and and even fewer have anything regarding logos. I will gladly accept a limit of one non-free image outside the infobox on the articles if it would mean that the logos come with clear and critical commentary with some limited sources.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• No arbitrary "one logo" limits. We don't work that way. Look, you said it yourself, "even fewer have anything regarding logos". Then it is blatantly clear the logos aren't significant. If you can't discuss an historical logo without using any sources at all, then the discussion is original research an not encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Emarsee, to give a similar example, there are very few sources discussing villages local to me, and even fewer discussing specific roads (take Ireleth, my village, and High Duddon Close, a street near me). As such, though I write about the village best I can, I will not mention roads of no significance. Equally, I would not include pictures of said roads, even if they were free- this isn't a copyright issue, this is just common sense editorial decisions. The same is true here- write about the TV station as best you can, but do not just slip in random facts for which you have no reliable sources, and certainly do not slip in random non-free images of no importance. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you have a certain understanding of the dilemma I'm facing at the moment.

If the logos's only sources were press releases from their former owners, would it be considered to be a reliable source? I've found a few press releases regarding some non-free television logos. I've found one reliable source for a non-free logo which I've already added to the articles.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are sometimes permissable, and I do not deny using press releases in some of my articles. However, you have to ask yourself whether that really justifies the use of the logo. If the company made a big fuss about the new design, perhaps it would. However, if you are down to scrabbling through press releases, perhaps you are focussing too hard on trying to add the logos to the articles, when there are more important things to discuss. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've think I've found a good source from the Canadian Government describing many non-free logos. Take a look at the file on BBS. It shows when the logo was first registered (close enough to first being used) and how the logo looks like in a legal manner.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So? That doesn't suddenly make it significant. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

admin abuse

Stop abusing your position as an administrator to allow you to vandalize wikipedia to make a point. You've said you'd stop the removal of pictures from television articles, but in reality, you have increased the number of files deleted and pages altered. You have edited dozens of articles, but i'll just list the ones i can remember:

WDIV-TV, WMYD-TV, WXYZ-TV, CKCO-TV, USA Network, CHRO-TV, WJBK-TV, WKBD-TV, WWJ-TV, WJW-TV, WEWS-TV, WTOL-TV, WNWO-TV, WKYC-TV... this is blatant vandalism and abuse of power, and these articles MUST be restored to their pre-vandalism condition. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I take to offence that the images removed in the CKCO article were explained in great detail. I thought you wanted critical commentary for non-free images. Well there was critical commentary for the CKCO images. I would like to see you describe a television logo that you removed. File:Mctvbbs.svg would be a good start.

I'm not against having a solution to resolve this situation, but I feel the way everybody is acting right now is not the correct way to resolve this. I think that there should be a resolution so there wouldn't be edit wars every few days over this subject.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Creating critical discussion without sourcing the discussion in secondary sources external to Wikipedia is original research. We don't add logos everywhere we want to, and then describe them, in an attempt to keep them in articles. Was the logo notable for some reason? If so, cite sources showing that. Was the transition from one logo to another significant in history? If so, cite sources indicating that. If you can't do this, including the logos does nothing to improve the article, and actually makes it worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Emarsee, original research in image captions counts for nothing. Are the logos genuinely significant? Would they be discussed in the article if you weren't so keen to prove they are "necessary"? I think not. What a logo that the channel used years ago looks like is of pretty much no importance. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You may believe that the logos used by a local television station is of little importance, but there are people who disagree with that. I'm not saying that every single logo that a television station had should be on their articles, but what I am trying to do is to keep the most significant logos of the television stations. Independent sources with regarding with local television stations in Canada are very few, and and even fewer have anything regarding logos. I will gladly accept a limit of one non-free image outside the infobox on the articles if it would mean that the logos come with clear and critical commentary with some limited sources.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• No arbitrary "one logo" limits. We don't work that way. Look, you said it yourself, "even fewer have anything regarding logos". Then it is blatantly clear the logos aren't significant. If you can't discuss an historical logo without using any sources at all, then the discussion is original research an not encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Emarsee, to give a similar example, there are very few sources discussing villages local to me, and even fewer discussing specific roads (take Ireleth, my village, and High Duddon Close, a street near me). As such, though I write about the village best I can, I will not mention roads of no significance. Equally, I would not include pictures of said roads, even if they were free- this isn't a copyright issue, this is just common sense editorial decisions. The same is true here- write about the TV station as best you can, but do not just slip in random facts for which you have no reliable sources, and certainly do not slip in random non-free images of no importance. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you have a certain understanding of the dilemma I'm facing at the moment.

If the logos's only sources were press releases from their former owners, would it be considered to be a reliable source? I've found a few press releases regarding some non-free television logos. I've found one reliable source for a non-free logo which I've already added to the articles.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are sometimes permissable, and I do not deny using press releases in some of my articles. However, you have to ask yourself whether that really justifies the use of the logo. If the company made a big fuss about the new design, perhaps it would. However, if you are down to scrabbling through press releases, perhaps you are focussing too hard on trying to add the logos to the articles, when there are more important things to discuss. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've think I've found a good source from the Canadian Government describing many non-free logos. Take a look at the file on BBS. It shows when the logo was first registered (close enough to first being used) and how the logo looks like in a legal manner.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So? That doesn't suddenly make it significant. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Imagination and TFA/September 28, 2009

See this message to Angr (talk · contribs) regarding file:Imagination.jpg and it's impact on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 28, 2009. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I noted there, the magazine was scanned from a copy in my possession. Is it now possible to return the image to the front page? Mike Christie (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the issue has now been resolved. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

George Tupou V photo

Dear Sir, it's jazzfanatic here. I'm sure I set the image copyright status to free educational non commercial, but this hasn't worked. Can you please set it to this as I'm not sure how.

"not going to listen to my advice about your userpage?"

The reason it seems like I'm not listening is because I'm thinking of either putting my content to my userpage or make it a subpage. Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why on earth would you want to do that? You're history in the making. You've already set the record for the most overloaded-with-nothing-to-do-with-talk-page-stuff user talk page on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I deserve to be in the Guiness World Record book for this feat. :) Secret Saturdays (talk to me)

This DR

Admin Kanonkas told me about this DR by you on wikipedia. According to Admin Yann, the process is all automated...someone just turns on the camera on the stage and leaves. That's it. No one pressess the trigger for the pictures to appear, so there is no author. If you have a follow up, please contact Admin Yann here on WikiCommons as I am not a specialist here unlike Yann. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kostas Martakis

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:MARTAKIS1.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) 01:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NYC subway diagram

Is there some way to replace the Original version with Edit 2 on the Wikipedia pages that use it? CountZ (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CountZ (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

New page (biography) Robin French

Please please can you have a look at this page. I have received a lot of advice regarding the style/layout/citations, etc. I have followed all and am waiting to see if it can be confirmed as 'authorised' so the 'notability tag' can be removed. I have asked the main page many times to do this but I think people are not picking up the request. Please can you have a look at it. There is one reference which is not (The Times) online and I do not have the exact details for so I have put a reference in linking it to the agent's page of Robin French. If this isn't ok just take it out. Thank you very much! Felicity Waters (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this issue another time. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru

Thank you for your time with Sofia Rotaru related images!--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Magazine Covers on SKY Network Television

They are not random images. The SKY Sport magazine cover shows the reader what it looks like. Same thing with SKYWATCH. If these had seperate pages then there would be a picture on the page so why are they not allowed on the SKY Network Television page? The seperated articles are merged into the SKY Network Television page which is like having those aticles inside the main article. So I don't see why not that under their sections beside the text they should not have a cover showing the reader what they look like! Thanks! WWE Socks 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The magazines are notable for there own article but there would be hardly anything to write about them so they have been merged into SKY Network Television which I think is fair. WWE Socks 03:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion reasoning for File:Tokusatsu.jpg

I'm not really sure as to why you had tagged the file for deletion. I do not believe that your reasoning is sound. Merely because there images that are free (a series of film posters/promotional posters which have only been made free due to Japanese copyright law) does not mean an article can also have non-free images other examples given in the text.

I've removed the tag because I feel that the image helps illustrate the ongoing identity of the subject matter in a more modern medium, outside of the movie posters that are over 50 years old and are free (due to their existance on the commons), by showing members of the long standing franchises in a particular instance that the photo was taken (a similar photo exists for characters from the late 80s/early 90s, but omits the popular Ultraman character).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that there are public domain images of other subjects of the article. There are no public domain images of the subjects as depicted in File:Tokusatsu.jpg, which are more relevant to the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really saying it's not possible to have a free image as the lead? J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does a free image have to be used in the lead? The free images in the article are a series of film posters from the 50s. The current lead image, while unfree, depicts a more recent set of fictional characters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead images are meant to depict the article as a whole, and are generally considered more decorative than the body articles. A free image is preferable. Take, for instance, a BLP- we use a free image in the lead, while, if necessary, place non-free images in the body. Only when we are certain a free image is not possible do we use a non-free image in the lead. If anything, an older image in the lead is better, as it shows the origins of the genre, rather than falling prey to recentism. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But the recent works in the fiction are more well known internationally than the older works (other than perhaps Godzilla). I would still like the unfree image used in the article as it does have a place in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly not seeing why it does- what is that image adding that is so essential? J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The historical images may be free but they are not as informative as the unfree one for certain aspects of the subject material.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way? What is this image showing that so urgently needs to be shown? J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The image depicts subjects of current (although the photo is approximately 20 years old) and long-running instances of programs that are considered tokusatsu. Its placement in the article could be changed, and the lead image could be one of the free images in the article. However, it is still informative.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't personally identify the characters- are the franchises all mentioned in the article? Further, could the caption be changed to identify the characters and where they came from? J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though I have moved the image to a different section of the article, the caption already includes that information: Spider-Man, Kamen Rider Stronger, Kamen Rider V3, Battle Fever J, Ultraman Jonias, and Doraemon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are ten figures, and only six named in the caption? J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Battle Fever J" is a group. I've modified the caption again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy with this as a compromise. Thanks for working this out. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Blanking?

Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me what "section blanking" means exactly and the context in which it should be used? I found the "Tags" section that describes it but I still don't understand the usage. Thanks. jlcoving (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir it answers my question. I thought that is what it meant. That said, could you PLEASE admonish user Goodman1387? He has REPEATEDLY undid my revision's to an article I've done a LOT of work on, despite the fact it is SOURCED. It has to do with testimony given by someone which was used to convict others in the organization. I have a source cited which is the persons own testimony in court via his trial transcripts. Could you please tell him to stop? He claims I am "defaming" Daniel Corral (makes no claim against any of the rest though). Defamation would be the publication of UNTRUE statements that cast someone (or an organization, etc) in a negative light. I don't see how posting public record material of someone's own statements about himself and others is defamation?

The article is "Black Mafia Family"

jlcoving (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that works. I didn't know all of that existed, I'm still very new to wikipedia and doing articles. I have no problem undoing his revisions as he makes them though. Thanks. jlcoving (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight newsletter

Hi there. Just a really quick, short note. You're currently listed as a spotlight participant, here, but you are not on the list of people who want to get the newsletter. If you want to receive updates about spotlight, then please add your name on this page. If not, no further action required, and I won't bug you about it again. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Expo 67 photo

Hi there. I believe it was an honest mistake on your part, as well as a mistake on the copyright notice I used, which should have been changed to Public Domain (due to various people trying to delete these images in the past, I have had to change the notices several times to suit those concerns, until last year when SimonP sorted out the copyright issues for Expo 67 related materials from Canada's National Library and Archives). It is in the public domain, as are all photographic and graphic arts material from Expo 67 held at the National Archive. There are no restrictions for reproduction, as stated on the image's description page at the National Archives. It was one of the only images that I forgot to change the copyright notice to the currently accepted form for these images. I reverted your change to the Expo 67 page, and hope you will remove the deletion request for the image. As you are obviously not a Canadian, many of the people in the photo may not mean anything to you, but they were the most powerful people in Canada at that time. Cheers.Abebenjoe (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page conversations

The editor has removed your comments twice from his talk page. That is a good indication he no longer wants to talk to you about this on his talk page. I also notice the dialouge has become more and more heated, "mindlessly claiming" "stay off my talk page" etc. Best to discuss it on the image deletion page, to avoid any more conflict. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Neosurrealism images

Thanks for tagging other images linked from Neosurrealism. I think you are correct about the George Grie items, though it doesn't seem like the tagging on the images indicates the creator and instead links to the commercial site.--Larrybob (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I need your opinion.

I there. I have one question, will this picture have a chance at Value picture or featured Pciture

File:MET entrance.jpg

Please respond on my talkpage ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Wonderland (Faryl Smith album)

On October 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wonderland (Faryl Smith album), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kenyon Cox nude study

I've uploaded a version which has what I feel are more realistic colours for a graphite drawing. Can you review? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Battle of Churubusco

I've done an edit to this, which I'd also appreciate you looking at. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 214 FCs served} 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lucy Merriam.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. jjron (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Lucy Merriam

Yep, a case where consensus needed to be interpreted so didn't want to leave it to just 'anyone' to close. Hope no one regarded me as being involved either way due to that licensing discussion, but I believe I maintained neutrality on the image itself, so was in a legitimate position to close it. --jjron (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category Invite

Please add the category [[Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors]] to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks,   Nezzadar ☎   17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

5 non free newspaper pictures

Hi, I was going to nominate that picture, and I asked him to speedy it himself and he refused, Mick has replaced it and reverted your edit, I also feel it is a poor addition to Wiki and if it is allowed to stay that it will set a precedent and people will start to create other such pictures, let me know if you are going to nominate it at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion , if you don't then I will, but I am inexperienced in writing image deletion rationales. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ray Joseph Cormier

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ray Joseph Cormier. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier 3. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• J, as one of only three Wikipedia Editors who have seen all the original newspaper references on the subject BLP, I hope you will register an opinion. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• J, when I saw the Afd tag placed on the BLP, I checked Wikipedia Article Traffic statistics and there was a big spike in viewers. From 1 or 2 a day, it shot up to 53 for the day, but only one comment was posted. One out of fifty three seemed strange? I am being accused of canvassing because I notified 4 editors with the same permissible ´friendly notice¨ as generic as the automated bot above.

When you asked me to send you all the independent newspapers references, I was hopeful, finally, some one was actually going to look at them. With quiet resignation, I respected your opinion that this particular BLP did not fit in with your particular expertise and subject matter.

I´m disappointed the editors calling for delete are totally ignoring the fundamental Wikipedia requirement of numerous independent, reliable newspaper references that determine Notability, and voting on emotion because I attempted to exhort Editors to improve it before another Afd tag was placed on it. I couldn´t improve it because of COI. This is between a rock and a hard place. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)