User talk:J Milburn/archive21

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it, it is for reference purposes only. If you wish to continue a discussion here, please do so on my talk page.

Grant Wood

Thanks for your input on the talk page there. It is useful for the arts editors to have input on how this issue is being seen by others. I would certainly appreciate your drawing attention on the talk page of WP:WPVA if you come across any visual arts articles with FU problems, so that these can be resolved collegiately. Obviously time is needed to work through such things. Ty 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You may have watchlisted this, but in case you missed it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Grant_Wood. Ty 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

One Fair Use Image

Would it be more appropiate to use one fair use image in this article? I am able to create one image including all of the major characters. Would this be acceptable, or would it just be removed again? JayJ47 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:PKR-100px.png

I don't think the mentioned images has a sufficient non-free rationale, but it is used in an article. Did you mis-tag it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius volemus

On January 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius volemus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius glyciosmus

On January 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius glyciosmus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chaos in Flesh

Hey, I replied to you back on my user talk page. I am not sure if you get a notification on such a reply, or am I supposed to post on your talk page, so I am letting you know. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Crossing the line

I base my arguments on my experiences with those who haunt WP:NFC. I see a cabal of editors who interpret that policy in an overly restrictive manner and state that their interpretation is exempt from any consensus to the contrary. This condescension as to the inclusion of images is to what I am reacting. When editors make up rules that are not in the policy, such as minimal use refers to the entire encyclopedia, and that the image must be discussed with sources in the text, then yes it is a problem and I spoke out against it. It would be better if editors could spend their time doing more article creation instead of trying to defend their images.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was directly related to the issue of the alternate album covers. I gave specific directions on how the members of that project could address those who have an overly restrictive view of WP:NFC. You have no right to remove that.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Giggity Giggity!--2008Olympian^chitchat 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

album types

Please take a look at Template:Infobox Album. The template only handles very specific words, and all other words cause the album to land in Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. This is in the Category:Album articles needing attention, which means the members of the community have decided that albums with non-standard infobox types do need to be fixed. "Holiday album" isn't a "Type", it's a subject matter, and such subject matters haven't been given the coding in the infobox. If you have a desire to take about this further, a great place to take the discussion is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. I hope that helps, J.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. I'm fixing all the albums in that category, so if something changes, some of them can be put back.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use Teapot Dome scandal photos

Hi, Bill here: I need guidance. I was uncertain how to approach the download and under what terms I might claim fair use. These are historical photos of 35mm B&W photos taken by me from the journals Oil Weekly, March 22, 1924 and from Literary Digest Feb 9, 1924. Both were used by me in a college paper written in March 1969. If you believe, based on these descriptions, that these have fair use pls let me know how to proceed. Pls respond on my page. Thanks, BillWvbailey (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page of the Teapot Dome article I discuss how these came about. I just returned from Casper Wyo yesterday but didn't have time to go up there and find it (plus didn't have the maps, bad weather and time of year, other hazards, etc etc). Next time I get a chance I'll go out there in the pucker-brush and get a photo (given the damn rock is still there . . .). Is there anything we can do about the copyright? I have a shitload of other photos, but all are from 1924. Any other thoughts? I'll probably have to wait a year or so and then put them in, otherwise. If you feel they have to go, I respect your decision. BillWvbailey (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I go about removing the images? Otherwise, go ahead and remove them and I'll re-download when I've resolved the issue. Thanks . . . this is no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back like the bad penny. I've contacted both the owners of "Oil Weekly" (Gulf Publishing Company) and "Literary Digest" (Reader's Digest (!)) ; the Oil Weekly fellow said he'd send an e-mail giving me release of the images. I should have asked you first: what exactly constitutes a sufficient "proof of release" as far as wikipedia is concerned, and how/where do I submit it? Will the email be sufficient? But where/to whom should it go? Lemme know, thanks, Bill

ID images

While I'm sure that you feel impatient about this,[1] I'm also sure that you know better than to edit war to get your way rather than presenting detailed and persuasive discussion on the article talk page in relation to article consensus with regard to what is clearly a difference of opinion about inclusion rationale that has already been tested and subject to detailed consideration. Given that editors have limited time and disruption interferes with other commitments, a more measured approach to reaching agreement will be welcome. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave's advice is sage. Try discussing things instead of edit-warring. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Again - try discussion instead of edit-warring. There was a clear consensus to include them. Simply saying IDONTLIKEIT does not create an absence of consensus. Not to mention that you're obviously not an independent observer, and are in no way in a position to judge consensus or a lack thereof. Stop. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. You are edit-warring, even after you have been warned. I was simply undoing your disruption. In my opinion, undoing an edit by someone who is acting disruptively isn't edit-warring. You are free to disagree. But regardless of what you think of me as a messenger, you're still being disruptive. So stop. Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn, your response is, quite frankly, disappointing and a time-waster. At the least I'd hope that you'd reconsider your approach with the aim of acting in a more collegiate and less peremptory way. . . dave souza, talk 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am involved in the discussion, far more heavily than you are - please familiarise yourself with the way we do things here. Repeatedly saying IDONTLIKEIT does not allow you to be disruptive. Anyway, even if you just care about word count, I'm sure I'm far ahead of you. You have read the archives, right? You realise that this has been discussed and settled, right?
• I have not edited the main article since you did, so there was no need for any kind of additional warning. - You complained that you didn't have to listen to my warning because I had reverted your edits. I simply re-iterated that you're still bound by the rules, no matter what you think of the messenger.
• I am not saying that I don't like it- I am saying that there is no consensus to keep the images. Umm, no. Your argument for removing the images is IDONTLIKEIT. You are then using that argument as proof of a lack of consensus. You are so worked up about this issue that you are willing to edit war over it, instead of bothering to address the substantive issues, suggests that you do need additional warnings.
• If you believe there is, we have a very different definition of consensus. Obviously. I'm using the one we have developed here at Wikipedia over the last 4 years.
• In stating that the images appear to meet our policy, you are the one who is effectively ignoring the discussion and instead deciding what is best for the article - Nope. Sorry. Several reviews have concluded that the images meet our policy. That may change. But you really aren't in a position to decide that. You are far from neutral on the matter. Which is fine. But don't pretend otherwise.
• Do you honestly believe that there is a current consensus for the images to be retained? Yes.
• simply stating that I am being disruptive does not make it so. True. Edit-warring to short-circuit a discussion makes it so.
• Also, I do not appreciate this whole "warning" thing - then don't behave in a manner than warrants it.
• I have been an administrator for over a year; I know the ropes - If you're an admin, then your disruption is even more egregious. If you know the rope, then start acting like a member of a community. Your behaviour would be more acceptable in a newbie.
• If you are going to undo my edits, the least you can do is answer a few questions. Do you honestly believe there to be a consensus for retaining the images?

  Consensus is not achieved through voting. Consensus is not achieved through shouting matches. Consensus is not achieved through grandstanding. Nor is it undone by any of these. The issue of images in this article has been subject to discussion on more than one occasion. Discussion that was sometimes heated. But in the end, consensus was achieved.

  Consensus is not undone in a couple days simply because a few new people disagree. Most of the interested editors have not weighed in. I haven't seen anything that needed input. Dave and Kensosis seem to have addressed the issues. It looked pretty good when I weighed in with a comment, which was basically to say "there's no fire". What do you suggest has changed since then? What has changed that warrants this sort of "hair on fire" edit-warring?

  There's a discussion. Let it run its course. Trying to short-circuit a discussion is disruptive. It raises the temperature needlessly. Just don't do it. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't say my judgement was more or less objective than your own. I wouldn't want to be the one to judge a change, one way or the other. Anyway, I'm mentally exhausted. No more arguing for me for today...there's only so much I have energy for these days, and this is all I have to put into pointless wiki-fights about nothing. Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your input requested again

Your input is requested again, at User_talk:Hammersoft#Time_for_the_next_step. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mushrooms...

Good work on all the lactarius spp. I think I need ot take the plunge and get Amanita muscaria to GA and later FAC sometime soonish. I am just getting some more info on the whole Soma thing, but otherwise please feel free to give it a once- (or twice-over). I suppose this is an informal fungus peer-review (?) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The species must have been from the Index Fungorum http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/names.asp?strGenus=Lactarius - the reference is right up at Basidiomycota level. It was an isolated effort to establish the Lactarius (Russulaceae) page with a name to distinguish it from Lactarius (Lactariidae) in the Animalia.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 21:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dustbin Baby (film)

I've left two issues on the GA review open. I rewrote bits myself. Please review to see if you agree. As long as the suicide was explored and not randomly thrown in, the category is no problem. I'm moving on to the references. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The play.com reference doesn't mention the release date. Where did that come from? If it does come from that reference, you can just use one reference at the end of the paragraph. Also, any idea as to why a BBC film would be released by ITV DVD?- Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• P.S. What is up with the second entry at User:J Milburn/Recognised content. You don't seem to mention a title there. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - January 2009 Issue

Summary: We lead with the exciting news that we are now recognised as Wikimedia UK by the Wikimedia Foundation. This means that we can shortly open a bank account and approve membership applications. Planning is also underway for a new website and for the upcoming Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, we continue to support Wikipedia Loves Art, which will launch on 1st February and the bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford, and bring news of recent and upcoming meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

1. WMF approval and chapter formation process
2. New website
3. Annual General Meeting
4. Wikipedia Loves Art
5. Oxford Wikimania bid
6. Meet-ups

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hi J Milburn. Good news! I have just promoted Dustbin Baby (film) to GA status. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re this post

This [2] is in violation of WP:NPA, especially the closing line.

Being an admin does not change the general principles of behaviour, and you should be working with editors, not fighting with them. Barging in with attitude a-blazing isn't going to help WP. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 13:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Grow up" is most certainly a personal attack, or at least reads as one.

The rest, regarding uyour handling of the situation stands. If you approach Kenosis with the respect due any established editor, you will see that he can be quite willing to work with you for the betterment of WP.

That's what I hoped to achieve by notifying you of the perception created by your comments re the image issue. Think of this line for instance, "However, being willing to change my mind does not mean that I will accept any old invalid argument you choose to throw at me". You talk of a desire for Kenosis to "please stop patronising me", which he had not done, and yet your own tone is patronising. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd that you should be offended when people discuss your incivility where it occurred. But since you left your personal attacks standing, it struck me as the correct place to discuss it. If you don't want your incivility discussed, you should really redact your comments and apologise. Then there's nothing for anyone else to discuss. Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does seem odd, Guettarda, but I think we're talking in the wind here. I don't see Mr. Milburn as being willing to discuss this issue any further. Perhaps we can look at this as a tacit admission of culpability. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius theiogalus

On January 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius theiogalus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius vietus

On January 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius vietus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected talk pages

Please don't leave automated notices on protected talk pages. And it's silly anyway, because Cydebot has performed hundreds of thousands of category edits, and really doesn't care to keep getting notices updating him on the status of each one. --Cyde Weys 21:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What next then....

I am still delving into Amanita muscaria WRT the feedback, which has been very valuable and exactly the sort of working over I needed. I had stared so long at it that I really needed some extra eyes. You seem to like the milkcaps etc. and I was musing which were meaty enough to take to GA or FA...so many species are very slim on the info. I guess Lactarius deliciosus is an obvious one. The genera are too tricky as the taxonomy appears to be in a state of flux (Lactarius seems to sit within Russula so I suspect big changes will happen in the next year or three). However, maybe Russulaceae or even Russulales may be worth a shot, although the higher up one goes taxonomically the more tricky som of the biology is required I guess. Anyway, I am happy to help. I was musing on the saffron milk cap but lost interest after I ate it a few times (not bad really, and ok fried in breadcrumbs, but there are plenty of yummier fungi about - I had some dried ones of these teh other day and tehy were quite different and milder to the usual. Anyway, let me know. I did also want to do fairy ring which combined two of my favourite interests, mycology and mythology :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That is, if I may say, a rather fine looking portal. Wasn't too concerned with portals...and then I noticed that if you type in wikipedia in google (damn, didn't work just then, but before, google spat out a bunch of portals (!) below the entry. News for fungi, there was the fungi that seemed to grow and absorb radioactivity last year I recall, and erm, I dunno, we cn think of some others. I portal is a cool idea and there are a few fungi people actually editing at the moment (more than ever) so there is a bit of momentum (also a good time for a fungal GA or FA). I suspect list of lactarius species may shrink dramatically once the genus is revised. I will ask Peter G Werner who is much more knowledgeable than me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will keep a lookout for news stories and see how you are going. I recall tehre is a way of making the DYKs rotate too somehow. Can't recall where I saw it. Let us know of any other fungi which you reckon could be snuck thru GA readily. I do agree sometimes the lesser known ones can be easy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Maxine Peake10.jpg

I see this image was deleted with no substitute image from another event being provided, despite the argument being advanced (by you) that finding an equal quality image from another event should be possible. ciao Rotational (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please reread the non-free content criteria. They are quite clear that content may not be used if it is replaceable, not only if it is replaced. A free image of the subject could easily be created, and the use of a non-free image is therefore not justified. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you suggest that a "free image of the subject be easily created"? Certainly not by me - I am nowhere near Maxine Peake's normal haunts. The point is that "replaceable" is an entirely theoretical and very subjective concept which has no practical value. A copyright close-up image of Saturn is "replaceable" if one had someone up there with a camera. If the requirement has no practical value, then it should be scrapped. ciao Rotational (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right! It needs an earthquake to move most Wikipedians out of their fairly comfortable ruts. To achieve consensus on the most trivial of issues is well-nigh impossible and even changes that should be uncontroversial are fought tooth and nail. Bottom line is that we're dealing with one of the most stubbornly conservative organisations ever, and making decisions by democratic vote is an exercise in futility. What WP desperately needs is a body of wise super-editors who can make sensible decisions and dictate sound policy without having to toss every issue at the electorate. This sort of democracy simply doesn't work. ciao Rotational (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page pic

How does [[Image:John-stuart-mill-sized.jpg|thumb|right| improve understanding of your goals and principles? Wouldn't a non-imaged "...the only way in that a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes that it can be looked at by every character of mind." - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. serve just as well? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed on providing Non-Free media

Hi, having "stumbled" over your edit on Rotatio~'s talk page, I ask you for help on Non-Free media uploads I'd like to do HERE, on Émile Bernard. This painter had such a variety of styles during his life that I do not succeed in cutting down the ~100 samples available on internet below some ~25. Would such be accepted here?

It would not be "very funny" to upload any stuff which would actually "have to be erased" afterwards. Thanks for your expected answer. [w.] 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Give it some time, I contacted primarily opposition people first. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to including provisions that allow for a single non-free image as a last resort if no free images exist? I think this will help bring some of those who object to the support side of the house. At the same time, it also gives a little more ammunition because it indicates it is a last resort; if a free image exists, then those images can't be used. In the interests of not cluttering up the talk page any further, please just respond here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In season articles, do you mean? Yes, I would object to that. The logo is of the team, not of the season. If the logo is required, then it is to illustrate a specific point in the text. The idea of "The logo is necessary if we can't find anything else" is strange- either a picture of the logo is needed, or a picture of the logo is not needed. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Fungi

The other day, I was about to praise you for a job well done but my boss was about to walk pass my cubicle so I have to quickly close the Firefox. What I would suggest is to have at least 20 selections per section (with the exception of DYK, of course, since you can't control that part). So, find more featured pictures. Don't limit yourself to just Commons. Try others such as our own Wikipedia for those that are featured here but not on Commons. If you know another language, go find those pictures featured in that language (if they have such process). Next thing, I have to ask you if some articles of your 48 selected species are GA or FA. If so, move them to selected articles instead. This way you can increase the # of selected articles and keeping a high standard in your portal.

Of course, don't just limit your improvement according to my comments. Once you have done so, I think it's ready for featured portal nomination. Btw, if you are interested in fungi, consider helping Wikispecies because we're always looking for someone interested in biology, especially fungi. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there aren't anymore featured pictures or GA/FA, then by all means pick some more of your choice as long as it is of good quality. I won't suggest you to put the portal template on all fungi pages. Just put on those that have been selected for the portal. While you're at it, you can also start helping Wikispecies (isn't it great?) by adding {{wikispecies}} to any pages that have a corresponding fungi page in Wikispecies. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you've been reviewing a few, have you found any featured or really good pics in some stub articles (i.e. to whip up to DYK or something?). Luridiformis added a nice pic of Cortinarius triumphans just before he went quiet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey mate

Hey.

I've never talked 2 u b4 but i am now becasue my usual helping administator (Gogo Dodo) is busy.

I wanted to ask you what would probally happen if i created a page called List of vegetables. I would put on it all vegetables. If you think i should make this page should I put a normal list on or 1 which there r like 3 colomuns (i dont know how to do this) or like A as a heading then all the a veges and so on and so forth. Please relpy on my user talk page (as is normal on wikipedia). if you thinks its a good idea i will make it. (could you please prtect it then. then i might make one for fruit if all is good.

Thanks

De Mattia (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Just a suggestion - Archive your user talk page because it is quite full.

Request for admin assistance

Thank you for the help that you have given me in the pass. I am currently having a policy issue I am trying to resolve with another user. But to do so, I need a copy of the edit he made adding a delete tag to article THE FREDDIE & FANNIE ROPE TRICK Since the article has been deleted, I have no access to the history edit. If you would be so kind as to post a copy of the edit he made, specificly the tag used and place it on my user page using nowiki tags to suppress the template, I would be appreciated. Post location User talk:Dbiel#Copyright - Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Now to find out why the tag does not work as advertised. Possibly a browser specific issue. I will let you know when I have had time to experiment. Thank you again for posting the deleted information. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi how r u U have sent me a message a long before ago and "Thank You"" was written in it may i have a reason plz. Sorry for the late reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adyniz (talk • contribs) 09:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adyniz (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fungi portal

I'll gladly restore this, if you like. These Japanese prints are a lot of fun =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to look at it, but I have a Japanese print in the FPC queue at the moment that looks about to pass, so! More information in half an hour when it's downloaded - the reproduction is clearly going to be one of those 6000 x 8000px monstrosities. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the smaller JPEGs look vvery good, so I don't foresee anything too difficult. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It could also go inUmbilicaria esculenta (e.g. Iwatake), and somewhere in Hiroshige, even if just the gallery.

Sorry about that, I fell asleep for a bit there. Okay, I'm looking at it now, and am afraid there's not much I can do: It's stunningly preserved, incredibly pristine, and needs, at most, a careful levels adjustment. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mister Barnes

Thank you very much for the barnstar ! --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lichfield Court

Thanks very much for your help with my article Lichfielduser (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fungi portal

Sorry this is taking a bit. In the meantime File:Morchella conica 1 beentree.jpg and File:Morelasci.jpg are featured on commons, used in Wikipedia articles, and I suspect both would be a cinch for being featured on en-wiki. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Connie Talbot in Hungarian

Dear Milburn! I was the one who translated all the articles about Talbot and her work. There's a template I've put to all related articles in the Hungarian Wikipédia (called: fordítás, translation in English) which shows the following text: Ez a szócikk részben vagy egészben a XY című Wikipédia-szócikk ezen változatának fordításán alapul. The template's text in English: This article is based on as a whole or partly on the translation of XY titled Wikipedia article's this verion's translation. Clicking on the word ezen (this) you can find the version which has been translated. --Ksanyi (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I translate articles which are connected to Connie. For example Streetly, Walking in the Air, child singer and other articles which links to Connie Talbot. --Ksanyi (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

SWOO (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Re: Boletus pinophilus

Thanks for the review. I'll hopefully be able to address the issues by tonight. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aseroë rubra

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Stinkhorn Springbrook.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. MER-C 02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius pallidus

On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius pallidus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC

The Pirate Bay

Hello. I started the thing on the discusion for the main page about the pirate bay. how about having it as a news event. Our aim is to get the story on the front page. Any suggestions welcome

Zack ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.203.154 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to nominate it to appear as a news event, try this page. However, I doubt it would get through- possibly when there is a ruling, but, until then, I can't see it getting on the news. J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: For your bot...

Thanks! :)

Thehelpfulbot also says thanks and hopes you have a good day! :D

The Helpful One 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius quietus

On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius quietus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Girls Aloud Brits

I used what I assumed were unliscensed images of Girls Aloud from forums previosuly, all of which were extremely high quality press photos.I think it's quite obviosu from the quality of these current images that they are not press quality, and have been taken with a very limited camera. They DO however reflect the girls current looks, and are more appropriate than the tour images posted by some other users in the past. They are also relatively good close-up shots of the girls, albeit with a low resolution. You're clearly asking me to prove that they are phone-camera images and I don't possibly know how I can do that? Which is a rather unfair position to be put in. I accept that wikipedia needs to be moderated, but surely it is an abuse of power when you are preventing any images from being added? I had a valid rehearsale photo of Siobhan Dillon on here, as well as a backstage photo of Whitney Thompson, both of which have been deleted in favour of NO main image. Which is ridiculous, because they were both MY images to distribute how I choose, and someone has removed them without any fair rationale. Regards. --Daibh (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I took them at the Brit Awards with a Sony Ericcsson K850i Camera phone on the 18th of February 2009 at between 7:30pm and 9:30pm. --Daibh (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I managed to cover part of the lens with mythumb in the excitement of them winning the award, so this is a cropped version, as I didn't think a smudge at the bottom of the photo would be what Wikipedia viewers would care for. I do see what you're getting at, but I don't think I would have wasted my time making screencaps to edit them so poorly. I can edit the original Nadine picture to have NO black area at the bottom if you would prefer? --Daibh (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My only interest is in ensuring that Girls Aloud are well represented with as much information as possible on this site. I admit I have played it fast and loose with images of Girls Aloud in the past (simply from lack of opportunity to take pictures of them myself). But I have also added several of my own images to this site over the past year or so which HAVE been my own work, and remain on the site undisputed. I am now in the position to offer some images of GA that I own myself (notice I was not able to get a good enough shot of Sarah or Kimberley - so did not add them). If these are deemed inappropriate I shall simply endeavour to get some others, possibly on the tour in May and add those. I am not attempting to vandalise or undermine WP, simply enhance the experience of anyone looking for information on one of my favourite bands - I have just looked at the main photo for the Sugababes, which has NO more iformation than my images, is of similar quality and could also be mistaken for a screencap, yet no-one appears to have questioned this. Perhaps the uploader is considered more 'reliable' than me, but again, I would ask you to take into consideration the many contributions I have made that have been verified and widely accepted since I joined. Kind Regards

P.S I have no idea what the discussion you referred to is, so perhaps you could explain? --Daibh (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Back Off?

Whatever your issue is, calm down. I'm finding your snide remarks very confrontational, and you use of unfathomable abbreviations is exclusive at best, actively aggressive at worst. If you have something constructive to say, say it. If you have nothing constructive to say, say nothing. It's not that difficult. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't leave harassing messages on my user talk page. Oh, and the other thing is...since you have no authority over me - or anyone - I'll say what I want to say, and you'll do nothing about it. So, as for backing off - take your own advice. —Godheval^{T C W} 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I've yet to figure out what you're referring to. I haven't done anything to show you any disrespect. But I do find it curious how you show up out of the woodworks to dispute something I question, as if you're watching what I do. But perhaps not. —Godheval^{T C W} 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have better things to do, then go do them. And I will do as I please. Unless you have some legitimate formal complaint, this whole conversation is a waste of my - and your - time, because it won't change anything. And BS that you had to look up our previous encounter. You remembered it full well, because you were beside yourself with online indignation, then, too. And no, it's not that I "still" have no respect for wikipedia editors. Quite the contrary. I simply have no respect for YOU. Regardless, that doesn't have to mean any bad interactions between us. So on your way, then. —Godheval^{T C H} 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you're trying to draw out some inflammatory language, but I won't bite. My reasons for disrespecting you should be clear, and if not, try looking at the situation from a different perspective. A clue can be found in how you worded your last message to me - calling me an anarchist. An anarchist wishes to do away with an established government/authority, correct? For me to be an anarchist, there would have to BE such an authority here on Wikipedia. And since this discussion is only between YOU and myself, and you seem to think that I am disrespecting YOU, the implication would be that YOU are that authority. Starting to get the picture? I hope so, because I'm all out of clues. This whole conversation began with you - out of some bizarre self-centered paranoia - thinking that I'm being disrespectful towards you and reacting to it. I haven't said one harsh word to you, and so, as I've said repeatedly, I don't even know what you're talking about. —Godheval^{T C H} 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For instance, if you're not in any way being offensive, could you perhaps explain what your abbreviations here mean, both in the summary and the comment? J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh, what a curious string of letters. I didn't even notice that before. I must've misaligned my fingers on the keyboard or something. =) —Godheval^{T C H} 20:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

regarding the halls in askam-in-furness

Lets start at the Lots in askam. The first hall you would come to is rankin hall which was just a town hall at the time then about 30-40mtres up the road we then arrive at the old school which is now the community center[centre] and finally the temperance hall in ireleth. Rankin Hall is built onto the pub "The Furness Tavern" and isnt used for much at all anymore.Mothers and toddler groups etc. Hope this has been helpful to you.I live in askam and have done for over 25yrs,please dont hesitate if you would like some more info. regards.....cozee—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozee (talk • contribs)

No the community centre where all the meetings,etc are held is Called Askam and Ireleth community center[centre] and is situated about 5-10metres away from the coop. Rankin Hall is the Hall that is connected to the pub at the bottom of Duke street oppossite The junction to Sharp street. Regards...cozee—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozee (talk • contribs)

p.s.Im not good with litrature/english so my editing would only make ur page look distateful,so ill leave that upto you.If you want varification.My mother has lived here all her life and would gladly give you a second oppinion.

Glad to be a help.Thank you for the section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozee (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

I was talking about a WP violation. Can't we be civil?Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Contacting such a person is a waste of time. If a user makes an edit and violates WP:CIV, the edit should be removed. How else will the editor understand the this is not an insult forum but an encyclopedia. The edit should have been re-added without comment. The re-add suggested that the WP:CIV violation was acceptable. All I ask is civility.Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do what you wish. But if we follow your policy, then we will see many uncivil comments on the history pages in articles such as this. As WP:CIV says "Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles." It is all about improving WP. Throwing around names like "loser" do not "help maintain a pleasant work environment."Objective3000 (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You talk to people that add comments suggesting all editors that disagree are "losers." The response is predictable.:) Don't know why you're taking up so much time with this. I suggested that it be re-added without a WP:CIV violation and it was. Large, collaborative works like WP are impossible without civility.Objective3000 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FP possibles

This is mainly from reviewing the selected species images, though there's a few from following up on some images over on the commons category system. Best chance:

File:Mycena-leaiana.jpg, File:Pleurocybella 050919low.jpg

Decent chance:

File:Hydnellum aurantiacum.jpg, File:Humaria_hemisphaerica.jpg, File:PhellinusTorulosusedit.jpg, File:Hygrocybe_conica_(2005_11_07)_1.jpg, File:Ramaria_formosa_-_Dreifarbige_Koralle.jpg, File:Gomphus_floccosus_20070805.jpg

Worth trying:

File:Clathrus_archeri_-_Vosges_France.jpg, File:Clathrus_archeri.jpg, File:Geastrum_fornicatum.jpg, File:Boletus_barrowsii_4936.jpg, File:Boletus_luridus_1.JPG

Hope this helps! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye, the quality of fungi photography isn't fantastic; I suppose we could put out an appeal to Southern hemisphere photographers, who (I presume) are in the middle of their mushroom season. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Morchella conica

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Morchella conica 1 beentree.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. MER-C 07:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Diosgyor007.jpg

This is an absolute free picture, wich was printed in most history school/other books in Hungary. Therefore I can't understand your claims

User_talk:Celebration1981" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw chain

Hi. Article: Saw chain, images Scratcher-1.JPG, Scratcher-2.JPG, oregon10.JPG - The owner of these images has given his permission for them to be given over to the public domain. I have already forwarded the email conversation I had with him to the permissions-en address; please remove the speedy deletion tags on these images. If you wish to contact him yourself or request a copy of his emails to me, contact me; thanks. Nailgunner (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it, cheers. Nailgunner (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Inocybe lacera

On February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inocybe lacera, which you created or substantially expanded. 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) 11:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Larklight trilogy

Hi,

Re. Larklight trilogy

I did loads of work on these articles yesterday; I fully agree that the plots are way too long and not very good; that's the main thing that needs sorting out.

I see the 'trilogy' article as having a very brief summary of each book, about 1 para.

I'm gonna put the pics back in there though - I think pics brighten up articles. Originally - before other people edited it - there was no info box, and the 3 pics were big and at the top. I'm not convinced the infobox is worthwhile for the 'trilogy' article, because it's not so appropriate to 3 books as to one - but others have added it and worked on it, so I'll go with the infobox, and the 3 pics within the 3 sections.

The user XXRonaldo007XX has tried to add an image to that infobox, which I don't think is a good idea - (s)he's a new user and struggling a bit with syntax. I'll leave him a message in a mo.

Please read and comment in Talk:Larklight where I've started a discussion on what I see as a way forward, regards structuring the articles.

Thanks for your input,

--  Chzz  ►  23:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Morchella elata asci

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Morelasci.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. MER-C 07:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Lycoperdon perlatum

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, File:Single lycoperdon perlatum.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. jjron (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Amanita caesarea

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, File:Amanita caesarea.JPG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. jjron (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)