Archives

Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52

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.

I'm not sure about the "free-ness" of the kitty picture. Feel free to delete it if you want. It was only a one-time gag, and I doubt it adds much to the sum of human knowledge. Lovelac7 12:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for your help! Now if I move all of the on this day pages so they don't have the "..." I will be able to edit them again? HoosierState^Talk 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you might have guessed from my previous edit, I'm not a friend of excessive citing of sources. Do you really see the need for putting an in-text reference on every single sentece? The taxonomic properties of a mushroom can easily be credited to a single source at the end of paragraph. De728631 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and it is of course in order to cite questionable material. But your article looks like a whole list of citations, which again is frowned upon by WP:When to cite#When a source may not be needed. Subject-specific common knowledge needs no citations. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added Image:German sniper screenshot.jpg for deletion because copyright wasn't specified, however I did add a Non-free use media rationale for the Sniper article. Also, the picture is a screenshot from a documentary on WW2 snipers, the film itself was shot during the war however. This could mean the image belongs to the German propaganda ministerium, which no longer exists. Is this sufficient to keep the image or should I give other information? Wiki1609 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You deleted the above image some time ago - could you please restore it? The identical version exists on my old account - I shall be trying to get the old ones CSD U1-d... how are you, anyway?--Vox Humana 8' 14:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I thank God that I found you writting in one of the pages I am watching, since I have been looking for an expert in this field and you seem to be the person I am looking for. I have a few questions with regards to fair use of currency images (not currency pictures). Can you check this image for example?

Image:2002 Austria 50 Euro Christian Religious Orders back.jpg

It is my understanding, and I might be wrong, that currency images (scans of coins/bills) are not copyrighted material, because of the nature of the object: they circulate, their artist are paid on contracts where they can not hold copyrights on it ... etc. Note that I am not talking about currency pictures, particularly pictures of old coins that do not circulate any more, since there could be some sort of artistic sense on it: lights, shades, angles ... etc.

So I was wonder for the previous image:

1) Is the fair use rationale OK?

2) Can this image be considered free use?

The problem is that the article that use this image (Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)) has all images of all euro commemorative coins released by Austria; regardless that all images fair-use rationale are fine (I am checking with you again this fact, just in case) there are too many non-free images in one article, so this article can not be promoted to FA or FL.

I do hope you can help.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Miguel.mateo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PS. Let me know if you do not want me to place this msg anymore, I do not know if you are watching my talk page. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Miguel.mateo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For a short period of time only (2 more days at most, I expect), besides that page is just a draft and all new/reorganized/rewritten content will be moved to the actual article space shortly. In the mean time it is helpful to also include the images in the draft, not the least important reason being that I'm not keen on looking in the history for images and images' descriptions. There is nothing immoral in that, please. diego_pmc (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included the link, after I read the message at the top of your talk page, sorry. I don't think there'll be any problems opened, after all they're used on an intermediary page, not in the actual user page. having them there helps me improve the overall layout of the article. For example the text in the infobox, from label "Schedule" aligns better when there's an image. diego_pmc (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hat two images that I uploaded: File:Sillyuserbar.png and File:Sillyuserbar.png, that were for educational puropouses as an example of a user bar which was clearly stated in the description, if I upload them again can you not delete them this time? I can understand thou why you deleted them the 1st time scince they looked like non-essential images.

Not too sure what you are talking about? Hag2 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What's next?Hag2 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As of 21:33 (UTC) it does not work?Hag2

Everything is ok now. It must have been a peculiarity of cyberspace. When I tried editing in the image at 21:20 nothing worked! So I went away. When I came back, you had replaced the image on the right. I changed my mind (during the long hiatus of the day) and decided that I wanted it on the left, with lots of info. So I just now moved it to the left. Thanks for everything. *have a nice day* Hag2 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your quick message. You're right, its an orphaned image. I haven't attached it to any article or any page expect for my user page where I've bragged unnecessarily about it there. Thanks for the tip though! --Krishvanth (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to removing tags from images, I apologize for doing so incorrectly. I had written in the discussion and in the summary that these images were provided by Integrity Media, and were to be attributed as such. I thought this information was sufficient. I have been authorized by Integrity Media to provide images for their associated artists, and did not know what other information was needed to verify its copyright status. I have asked in the past, but have not received any response. I would greatly appreciate your help in this matter, that I might not encounter the same issues again. Thank you in advance. WorshipGuy22 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not by e-mail. I have been contracted by Integrity Media to maintain their web/social sites, and this is one of their requests. I have already confronted the COI issues, and have consented to consciously avoid "spamming" issues. I am trying to add validity to the current pages on Wiki by updating photographs provided by Integrity Media, as well as adding source information to those articles which are lacking such. WorshipGuy22 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your answer, and for your quick response. Further, would an e-mail from the director of Public Relations be sufficient? (since she controls the PR images and articles) If so I'll do it today. Also, is the disclaimer something that I can copy/paste into future uploaded images, and if so would I do this in the Summary Section? Thank you again for your time. WorshipGuy22 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with the PR Director, and she requested that I remove the images, because she did not realize (nor did I) that the images could be distributed commercially by others. She said that she would like to run it by both the creative director and the legal department, before granting permission, and would rather have them taken off for the time being. Thank you again. WorshipGuy22 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your help. It is nice to encounter a kind and helpful administrator. I appreciate your watching out for both Wikipedia's sake, as well as for my own. Regards WorshipGuy22 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I would like to ask you a question. Is it allowed to introduce external links in the main body of the article? In Concerned (that page on my user space you removed the fair-use images from) there are two other comics mentioned. is it permitted to introduce links to those in the article? diego_pmc (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say this doesn't have a source? I clearly type "White house photographer" thousands of other pictures have just such a description, here are 2 I found just on Bill Clinton's page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ClintonAdmin.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clinton_Karlspreis.jpg

It's clear you are targeting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckre (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now? Justindavila (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest I do to remedy this situation? Justindavila (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why you deleted my image. I understand that Wiki is not a "soap box" but having verified facts regarding the biggest turnaround in Irish education is definately informative and the image was to go with the article.

Thank you for the update. I will use a different picture and ensure it is placed in the correct area.

philiporeilly7 12:35, 19 August 2008 (GMT)

I did get your message; however now I would like to know what the J in J Milburn stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Bjornovich (talk • contribs) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.--Andy Bjornovich (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image "Image:SAWPR3.jpg" comes from Wiki Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_the_78_municipalities_of_Puerto_Rico.png , modified to show the American advance during the Puerto Rico Campaign. Please help me set the copyright info straight. Thank you my friend, Tony the Marine (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, you are truely one of the best persons to interact with. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never really mess with tagging photos and such, but thanks for the help on the Help Desk. Anyway, I've encountered a user who is disputing the validity of the pic here. Is he right? --Endless Dan 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't get that. So could I take any promotional shot of a living artist and use it - if it has the appropriate credit and tag? Why doesn't everyone do this for every artist that is missing a pic?? This is why I don't fuss with pictures. And secondly, it's okay - I'm an honorary administrator. Like, officially. --Endless Dan 19:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and thanks for your help. But I should have never bothered. lol --Endless Dan 19:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna dispute the image. I don't have the energy. Although, I don't see why touring with Nirvana would warrant a pic of he and Kurt Cobain. It's only a small blurb on the article and it wasn't a notable tour. Thanks again. --Endless Dan 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Milburn, can you take a look at this page and let me know whether or not the changes I made regarding the author and license tagging are satisfactory? I have not done a lot of work with images and, although I think this is now correct, I do not want to go forth and perform these updates to the companion images unless this is the right way to go. Thanks in advance. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Did you see something that indicates the images were taken in Austria? I may have missed that. The reason I thought they were made in the US by a gov't employee is they appear to contain a raised seal that was impressed along with the US Declaration of Intention form (this can be seen here). Shouldn't that be sufficient to indicate that the images were taken when the form was prepared in the US? At least, it seems reasonable. But if this isn't convincing I'll try a fair use claim instead, as you suggested. Thanks for your time. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, INDNAM asked for my help at User talk:Delldot#Tourniquet. I've made several suggestions to them, but I think it would help if you could explain to them what problems you saw with their edits. Thanks much, delldot talk 02:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn thank you for the reply. There seems to be confusion about what I have contributed and referenced. I actually have cited multiple sources in the tourniquet article. In fact the source you quote about crushing of tissue and limb loss was one cited by Owain, not me. Tourniquet use as a prehospital intervention is cited in PHTLS Mosby 5th and 6th edition which is the only guidelines to date that have been endorsed by both the American College of Surgeons and the National Association of EMT's. Another source is John F. Kragh et al. which is ref. 4 Another source I can include is {Prehospital advances in the management of severe penetrating trauma} Robert Mabry, MD; John G. McManus, MD, MCR. This article supports what I have contributed as do the others I am referencing. In addition it highlights specifically the CAT tourniquet. I appreciate your help, please review the history and commentary on the tourniquet page. The information currently on there is wrong, the pictures and information is outdated and what I have contributed is absolutely accurate supported evidence based information. If you look at Owain Davies talk page you will see I broke down each inaccuracy in the article that it keeps reverting back to. I will try once again to show my contribution, it is the correct information.I hope this can be rectified to show accurate data, not outdated studies and dogma.Thank you. INDNAM —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after all that work we put into it, they're trying to bring it down... BOZ (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters‎ is up as well, and faring badly at first. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Carol Park.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Image:Runerk.jpg Appears to be a publicity shot, has been used by MTV." I gave you my answer. but never recieved any reply. This is a press photo, but The right-owner (Rune RK) gave me permission to use it here. ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bockhahn (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is part of the article Vegeta now. Kindly do the needful. (Krishvanth (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And I've removed the {{di-orphaned fair use|date=18 August 2008}} thing too by the way.

What a difference a day, a week or a month makes! As you may have noticed, I withdrew from further discussion from this site after the disputations over this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg that Kingturtle removed from the article.

World events will now bring into clearer focus the relevancy of it. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what's the problem, I just illustrate some recurring characters in the list of HTF characters, that's all. Can you tell me what's the matter ?

--Mr Alex (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the reasons against deletion on the talk page of the article. I have no particular axe to grind in this. Cheers--Streona (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius piperatus, 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) 14:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate I would like to contact you privately, my email is errlloyd@hotmail.com if it is possible could you email me and if it is not possible just edit here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Errlloyd (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion that might be of interest is here, thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius blennius, 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) 12:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "J" stand for? No offense, but you really need to reveal what "J" stands for? Can you tell me please on my talk page. Thanks. -- 92.21.163.135 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, if you must know. I don't really like it, so I prefer to be 'J Milburn' online. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you previously tagged this image for CSD. Would you mind dropping by and seeing if the additional information that the uploader has included is sufficient? GlassCobra 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added info, sufficient? Thx. Justindavila (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear J Milburn,

Since you are an experienced wikipedian and also an administrator, i'd like you to look into this "very important article". Please see this discussion, and share your thoughts. Do you think the article should be renamed (on the basis that Wikipedia is a world-wide site)? Please respond there. Have a good day. Rehman (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DGT960_chessclock.jpg

"I'm seeing nothing on the source website about the image being public domain. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_August_27"

You dispute the public domain status of this picture. We made this our selves and would like it to be free for anyone to publish. What should we do to achieve this? Please contact "Paul Roumen" on the contact page of DGT http://www.dgtprojects.com/contact.htm

Greetings J Milburn, Thank you for the welcome!! I tried to send message but I got it wrong. I have left a message for you in my talk section.

ALL THE BEST!!(Randy Blake II (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is not in regard to any particular post or article but having encountered your edits and discussion throughout numerous places over a substantial period of time I would like to thankyou for your tireless effort in improving Wikipedia. Of course you deserve more than just praise from me but I feel compelled to acknowledge such a wonderful contribution and I also hope to contribute the same way that you have over time. Lympathy ^Talk 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. I am very grateful and if there is anything I can ever do to assist in any way regarding info for bands in the genre or whatever really, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will do my best. Randy Blake II (Randy Blake II (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Dear J Milburn,

Your marked my image upload 'Terry Emailing Lucy McKenzie' as problematic. Please let me know why and what I can do to solve this. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneSiren (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn,

Thanks for your points about the image 'terry emailing lucy mckenzie' explaining why you have tagged it for deletion. I do see from your comments that I may have given it the wrong source (or copywright?) explaining it's origins. The image is of a work that is actually not by me but I have uploaded it to use in an article I am creating about the artist portrayed. (Any suggestions as to which source (or copyright) would be appropriate would be super appreciated, I was not sure if I did this correctly). I do have permission to use this image.

The article is currently under construction and I have not even added the image to the article yet. This is my first time to use Wikipedia so I may be a bit slow. The image is actually quite important to the article as it illustrates a key concept of the artist's practice and depicts a pivotal scene in his development and collaborative practice. Thank you.~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuneSiren (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get involved in the discussion on the Ulster Defence Regiment talk page then you are very welcome to do so but I'm afraid I can't accept the judicious deleting of images, especially when they are the only images which prove this military unit actually did produce at least one album. Non-free or not they are relevant to the subject matter. I welcome your reasoning on the talk page for the article or on my own talk page but in the meantime I will be restoring the inages by undoing your edit. I would be very obliged if you'd note that this page has just been released from several weeks protection after an edit war and that it is currently being monitored. Thank you. The Thunderer (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale behind the use of the two images is manifold. Firstly it shows the uniforms of UDR pipers when no other free images are available. Secondly the back cover lists the regimental marches of the regiment and the regimental march of 5 UDR (the latter information is not available elsewhere) and thirdly the album covers together form an accurate and reliable record that 5 UDR's pipes and drums did produce an album as asserted in the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment by Major John Furniss Potter. The use of these images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The use of "An album cover as part of a discography" is perfactly acceptable under non-free use rationale. It would be just as easy to provide Crown Copyright status for the use of these images and furthermore, permission for their use is only an e-mail away should you so desire. This is an article on an historic regiment which does not exist any longer and we should go to great lengths to display the few pictures of uniform to readers of the encyclopedia. The Thunderer (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uniforms referred to are the specific to pipers from the Ulster Defence Regiment. Their dress is described in the heading beside where I had placed the images and it is markedly different from all other Irish pipers in the British army in that; they do not wear a hackle in the caubeen and have a different colour of cloak lining. This was an unusual regiment, formed entirely for anti-terrorist work, so pictures of its soldiers are very hard to come by and even harder when it comes to musicians - because they couldn't be identified until quite recently. I am aware of no uniforms for this regiment on display in any museums anywhere as yet. Albums produced by the pipes and drums of the regiment are mentioned in the regimental history by John Furniss Potter but even HE did not include pictures of pipers or drummers from the regiment. I must repeat my earlier contention that the value of these pictures to the encycopedia outweighs the concerns about free use with this rationale. The Thunderer (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why tag the images as "orphaned" when you don't even understand yet why they are being used? The Thunderer (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've overlooked the fact that they are also Crown Copyright, as have I. I will change the tags and restore the images as CC is free to use for educational purposes. The Thunderer (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your rationale here, rather than assist me to find a suitable copyright tag to include the images for the benefit of the encyclopedia you seem intent upon their removal. So be it, you will not stop me putting images of UDR pipers in that section and I am currently awaiting a selection of same from a Major of the 5th Battalion UDR, with permission to use them. So much for good faith on Wikipedia. While I'm waiting perhaps yopu could busy yourself deleting the cap badge of the regiment at Image:Cap_Badge_of_the_Ulster_Defence_Regiment.jpg, and while you're at it why not delete all the cap badges of every British Army regiment listed on wikipedia, because they are non-free Crown Copyright too. With any luck by the time you're finished the encyclopedia will be suitably boring for you.The Thunderer (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it makes a pleasant change from the usual string of "why did you delete my image!!!!?!" messages I tend to get when I go on a PUI cleanout. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you seem to know, I have a question. If I take a photo of a painting of a bloke, maybe two blokes, both of whom deceased, photos of neither freely in circulation, copyright of paintings unknown, can the photos be used?Traditional unionist (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Neither painting is on public display as such, one is on display within a building however. But it would be difficult to assert commercial value being lost by the photos.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In truly predictable fashion you use your SUPA ADMINU POWAHS to threaten me. Oh, expletive expletive NOEZZZ!!!! ...0rz. In all honesty, though, you caught the backlash of a building frustration with Wikipedia bureuacracy. So my last out wasn't really about you, personally, just those like you. So don't cry too hard. It really will be okay. Tomorrow, and forces-willing, you'll still be alive and intact. Pride bruises don't last long, I swear. =) —Godheval^{T C W} 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome! I've sent the email you've requested showing that I have permission to upload the photo of Henry McCullough to his page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_McCullough, but only want to say here that I'm aware the image I've uploaded has some formatting errors. I'm working to resolve that immediately and will resubmit.Kuan-shih Yin (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted and the image is now available at the link I've provided and uploaded.Kuan-shih Yin (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your message on my own talk page. It's the image itself I reformatted and resubmitted. The emails should be fine. Sent them as instructed by Wikipedia. What I'm curious about now is how the image itself will get to Henry's bio on the site?Kuan-shih Yin (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem, can you be of assistance?Screambloodygore667 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there J Milburn,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up if you are located near London at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon!

Thanks for reading.

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a legitimate article to write and I also have refrences to add. The thing is I don't have a huge amount of information on it. I do have a decent amount though, probably the amount of a stub article. if i add it and include sources and refrences, is it likley to get deleted? Screambloodygore667 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you please remove (Image:Reading For Real.JPG),(Image:HelenDrennen.jpg),(Image:Wesley college clunes campus logo.gif‎) ASAP as they are no longer required....thank you! cheersSheepunderscore (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot!!! cheers Sheepunderscore (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are your grounds for deleting the image "femej.jpg" (it was not yet linked into any article). It was a picture of a woman ejaculating, there is similar content on the male ejaculation page, why did you delete it ?

--Sepul^ (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will find an open licenced image, then. P.S. I have been a user for 2+ years.

--Sepul^ (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animax Asia's Calvin Wong has send me this two Images though E-mail to use in the Wikipedia so please help me what to do so that these Images will not deleted.I hope you can help me with this problem and thanks to Inform me about this problem Sumit (talk) 7;39 PM 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How can I add a copyright tag? By the way, I own the image, so I'm sure the author won't have anything to say about it.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Andy Bjornovich "owns" the image—yet it apparently has an author who "won't have anything to say about it"—one wonders why the image appears on a Web page (about two-thirds of the way down) to which the page's subject claims copyright in whole. One also wonders why this image, of a woman named Niamh O'Brien (who performs under the mononym Rhíannon) is being used to illustrate an article about a completely different woman. Deor (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain this deletion? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My article is about DSBM (Depressive Suicidal Black Metal).

It decribes the genre of music, its ideologys, how it sounds, a few of the influential artists and stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screambloodygore667 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok thx for the help. =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screambloodygore667 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orignal location of Image is - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ml/3/3e/Chandrashekhar.jpg Image is uploaded at wikimedia.org. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the description page of Image - http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%9A%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%82:Chandrashekhar.jpg here I can't find any licensing info. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input, however I was in the process of creating Fair Use Rationales when you deleted the images. I've replaced them with Fair use Rationales. As to the infobox please see this discussion:[1] Modernist (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before removing any more images please discuss at the link above.Modernist (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets slow this down, I'm sorry if you think that I was rude..The images on History of painting and other articles have been talked over the years with many, many editors. There have been many discussions at the Visual arts project concerning the special needs to depict works of visual art. This whole thing between you and I is getting out of hand. I don't want an edit war. Discuss these things with us at the Visual arts project. Modernist (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue of galleries have been argued - we need them at the Visual arts project and I would appreciate your not deleting anything until this has been discussed with the Visual arts project. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J Milburn, this is not something that should be done without enough discussion to reach agreement. There should be discussion first...even if you think you are right, and even if you actually are right. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, you replied on my talk page:

Discussion about what? Removing non-free images? Like how we have discussion before removing pictures of penises from featured articles? No. That's not the way it works- it's up to those who wish to include non-free media to convince everyone else that it's needed, not the other way around. Trust me, removing images contrary to our non-free content criteria is pretty standard stuff- myself and others do it every day. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You liken removing a Jackson Pollock painting and a De Kooning painting to removing a penis?

Wow. Modernist (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be talk about this first. I have no idea why you are making a comparison to dealing with vandalism, which needs to be removed immediately (although many administrators do leave warnings). You seem to be saying that you can't be bothered to discuss it on the Project Visual arts talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your comments, I have as have other editors here seen and understood the guidelines on non-free content and non-free content criteria and studied them at length. In writing an article such as the History of painting, the obvious length and size of the article having inline illustrations would be prohibitive, that said the galleries in this case make economical and spacial sense. To create the complex picture of art today sometimes these POLICIES per WP:UCS and WP:IAR the first rules of Wikipedia, are important.Modernist (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta leave now...back later. Modernist (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• J Milburn, obviously everyone has been doing the right thing as they see it. Despite all, the discussion stayed civil, which is no small thing. Sorry if I took persistence a little too far. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate... I was merely responding to someone elses demand for the article... no need to be a sarcastic wanker about it. Aussie.power (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore... arent you usually meant to gain consensus before deleting an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie.power (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well given the nature of your opening tirade I am going to stand by my comments. I wasn't aware we censored wikipedia to accommodate the media. Of course... you could have just removed what I wrote without mocking my discussion page comment. I can almost guarantee you that in the due course of time the Bristol Palin article will be created again anyway, of course I will leave that for someone else. Aussie.power (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I would also like to apologize for my somewhat over the top reaction. Aussie.power (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comments show lack of awareness of the concensus long established in the Visaual arts project about infoboxes. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style: "It will often be better to place a work by the artist at the top of the article; this is especially the case for imaginary portraits of early artists, or photographs of more recent ones." This issue has been often debated there and on talk pages, and there is clear concensus on this. The priority is to have the best & most informative image at the top of the page. Pictures can be used in artist infoboxes, or a painting infobox, or (the choice of many arts editors) no infobox at all, and an informative caption. It is never preferable to have a pictureless infobox at the top of an artist's article if there is an image of his work available. The use of artist's infoboxes at all is somewhat controversial, not least because the information in them is often inaccurate, over-simplified or misleading.Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, have a cookie for making that change for me to Bristol Palin. Hope you like it :-D SoWhy 14:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to start an article Crusade (novel) for the sequel to Brethren by Robyn Young. But before I do that, I wanted to ask...given notability guidelines, etc., would it be more desirable to put both these novels in the same article, and change the name of that article to something more like "Brethren trilogy," "Brethren series," or something like that, with subsections for each novel?

Thanks. --Politizer (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you again for suggesting the Levett page as an English surname page. It's all very arcane and boring, but it's been a lot of fun sketching it out. Thank you again for the suggestion -- and for your help. Best regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your last comments on my talk page...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milburn. I saw your note regarding the image concerns you have w.r.t the uploads by User talk:Manjunath nikt. I see a some images of mine (currently residing in in wiki commons) that has been claimed by Manjunath in Haveri (such as a few in Image:Haveri region tourism circuit.JPG) and also Image:Trikuteshwara temple complex 4.JPG. There may be more. A few other images perhaps came from web pages such as [[2]].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My images are in commons category:Temples of Karnataka.

Image names are, Image:Siddhesvara Temple Haveri.JPG
Image:Kedaresvara Temple at Balligavi Shivamogga.jpg
Image:Gadag Saraswati temple pillars.JPG

As and when I find more, I will let you know.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web page images were contained inside the Image:Haveri region tourism circuit.JPG which you deleted anyway.thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you forward the email permission you recieved (along with a link to where you have uploaded the images it applies to) to the Wikimedia OTRS team on the address given here? This means that the permission for the image is stored by Wikimedia, and the images won't end up deleted as a precaution. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is only on wikipedia nowhere elce i don't think and how do i forward it to you? Gaogier ^{How can I help?} 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do i censor out my email address?

Dear Simon,
Thank you for your email - we will put you on the mailing list and yes
if you would like to add the image to Wikipedia that would be fine by
us, the image is copyright free so you don't have to worry about that.
Kind regards,
Jessica

Jessica Beverly
Curator
Cutty Sark Trust, Greenwich
Registered Charity No. 1080462
Tel: +44 (0)20 8858 2698
Fax: +44 (0)20 8858 6976
Email: jessica.beverly@cuttysark.org.uk
www.cuttysark.org.uk
Clipper ship Cutty Sark, fastest in her day

Registered address: 2 Greenwich Church Street, Greenwich, London SE10
9BG
Registered in England No. 512170. VAT Registration No. 239 3608 48.

Original Message
From: Simon [***********************]
Sent: 27 August 2008 08:34
To: Jessica Beverly
Subject: Re: The Fire On Cutty Sark

Yes, i would love to join the mailing list, also may I ask if I can
use that image you attached for wikipedia and if so what is the images
license, also I will defiantly make a visit when all is complete, that
will be a great day, my worries are over now.

Sincerely,
Simon

On 26 Aug 2008, at 09:52, Jessica Beverly wrote:

Dear Simon,
Thank you for your email and interest in the ship. We were very
fortunate in fact because at the time of the fire we were already 6
months in to a major conservation project and therefore had removed
all
of the deckhouses, the masts, all of the deck furniture, the museum
collection and half of the hull planks and so in fact only lost less
than 2% of original material from her working life. Thankfully the
thickness of the planks meant that they have survived remarkably well
and there is only some surface charring (which can be corrected) and
the
iron frame was slightly distorted in a few places (nearest the seat of
the fire) and that has also been straightened out by our conservation
team.

The ship will be returned to her former glory on completion of the
conservation project, looking as beautiful as she once did, but she
will
not look exactly as she appeared prior to the fire. The project plan
was always, once she had been conserved, to raise her 3 metres and
put a
glass canopy around her at the waterline. By raising her 3m that will
reduce the pressure on her keel (50 years in dry berth was distorting
her shape) and the glass canopy will protect the newly-conserved hull
with the additional benefit of opening up a new space underneath the
ship. I attach a photograph of how she will appear when we complete
the
project in 2010.

I hope I have allayed your fears somewhat and that you will come and
visit the ship when we re-open in a couple of years' time. Keep an
eye
on our website www.cuttysark.org.uk for the latest news on the project
and the progress of the conservation team. We can add you to our
email
update list too if you would like.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch with any further queries,
Kind regards,

Jessica Beverly




Jessica Beverly
Curator
Cutty Sark Trust, Greenwich
Registered Charity No. 1080462
Tel: +44 (0)20 8858 2698
Fax: +44 (0)20 8858 6976
Email: jessica.beverly@cuttysark.org.uk
www.cuttysark.org.uk
Clipper ship Cutty Sark, fastest in her day

Registered address: 2 Greenwich Church Street, Greenwich, London SE10
9BG
Registered in England No. 512170. VAT Registration No. 239 3608 48.

Original Message
From: Simon [***********************]
Sent: 23 August 2008 19:03
To: Gail Smith
Subject: The Fire On Cutty Sark


Well I am planning to visit in the near future or when the project is
finished and my question is, is it possible to fully restore the ship
to exactly* how it was before the fire or will it have some new
looking wood that looks different and patterns missing, The day i
heard about the fire I was planning to book a trip but then i saw the
news and I was very upset because I thought my chance was ruined and I am
a big ship lover, and it has been one of my dreams if most important
dream to visit the Cutty Sark for a while, Thank You.

Sincerely,
Simon.
<Post Project ship in CS Gardens.jpg>

_____________
Please lock the image or take it down until I have time to sort this stuff out some way or another I didn't know it was this complicated, Thank You. Gaogier ^{How can I help?} 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait till Ben gets home he'll do it... Gaogier ^{How can I help?} 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand its on the line of fair use. I don't know if it is analogous to an album cover. I would see Georgia-NATO relations as a split off of the NATO article. I would be interested to know if NATO had any public domain symbols that could replace their flag.--Patrick Ѻ 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think you should have given me that notice, because the current version of the image was not uploaded by me. Otherwise, I'd just delete under db-author. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind when people "template" me, it's just I didn't think that I could really do anything about it, since the current image is not mine. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I put the explanation for why use of the image is permitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guide12 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever this was, I assume it was a mistake!? --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you edited above the </noinclude> wikimarkup code.

You a magpie? --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your username is not a reference to Wor Jackie? NB I love the silly template, which is why I keep it watchlisted. I think it's sadly underused. --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that odd, considering you're British and he was an absolute superstar in his day! --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, no free images of Mr. Colberg exist. This image is from his website and qualifies as fair use, because we should have a picture as a potential future Governor of Alaska. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put this on hold for 24 hours while I contact the copyright holder? Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tag the Scout logo's that has become orphaned by your actions in a way that they are not deleted or put them back. Some of those were very difficult to find. For most of those logo's can a article be written, but there is not yet enough information to make one. --Egel _Reaction? 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to read for you: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy --Egel _Reaction? 17:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is not governed by statute. To answer your question: they should be used to improve the encyclopedia and not left lying around. --Egel _Reaction? 18:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the balance between being bold and being civil. Your actions are often somewhat too bold, almost to a degree of boldness you expect in a live or dead situation. --Egel _Reaction? 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only see logo's that needs more discussion. --Egel _Reaction? 10:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you undelete this image please? I placed a valid fair use rationale on it just as you wiped it out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain this revert? Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Cheers.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You wrote that the copyright of a picture I uploaded was not clear. Can you check if the image is now fine? Veni (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping matters by continuing to delete things to orphan them while we try to discuss this. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I second that. Please leave the Scouting Project some time to come to agreement on this. --Bduke (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE to Milburn on my talk page: Talk about self-fulfilling reasoning and rule by a consensus of one. Since you refuse to discuss this and only listen to yourself, we'll end the charade of discussion at WT:SCOUT. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've added the non-free use rationale to the image, as per your request. If there are any problems with it, please let me know and I'll try and fix. Ron2K (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You redirected this article recently as a ONEEVENT case. Could you please take another look? Myself and another editor have been discussing it on the talk page, and it has been restored several times. The editor has failed to provide any new sources, but is continually recreating the article anyway. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I deliberately separated the AFD closure from the redirect because there was not a consensus at the AFD that there should not be an article. I've restored the redirect and left a message. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Milburn! You helped me with the Meshuggah article some time ago. You probably don't remember anymore :) I would welcome your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah. Have a nice day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milburn

I am a press journalist from Jaipur woking in a leading media company called Bhaskar. I am trying to add Ajay Data into the enclopedia as i think he is a very well deserving to be there.

You have raised the following issues-

1 Image copyright problem with Image:Ajaydata with tie.jpg 2 Image copyright problem with Image:Akd yeo.JPG 3 Image:Interview--XGEN.pdf listed for deletion 4 Possibly unfree Image:Et spamjadoo dr antidote.jpg 5 Your userpage 6 Image without license 7 Unspecified source/license for Image:Ajay-sir-with-pm.jpg

What ever I have added, i have added with the permission of his office and after his personal interview by myself. Please help me or guide me if i am doing something wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.157.79.194 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on User talk:Ajaydata, as I am assuming that is your account. J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for dealing with those images. I suppose it wasn't intentional that you sent Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg to PUI rather than IFD? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was independantly reviewing their uploads and realised we were cutting against each other so I'll disengage. Drop me a note where you get to if you don't finish them all and I'll carry on if I get time later. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please, take a look: [3] Flayer (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Flayer (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Flayer (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:IFD here discussion pages of articles using the images in question should be notified of their potential deletion. It looks like you may have missed some of these. Jheald (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to nominate images for deletion, then follow the protocol. If you don't think the protocol makes sense, then raise it at WT:NFC. If your tools don't let you put in those notifications automatically, then do it by hand. Jheald (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying people is not just a courtesy. Notifying people on the discussion pages is the protocol. Please follow the protocol. I see I'm not the only person who's unhappy about this.[4] If you think the protocol should be changed, please raise it at WT:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll stop nominating at IfD and go back to more effective methods

"More effective methods" being what, exactly? Is this some sort of threat? Jheald (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just used to go for less centralised discussion of images, which was generally more effective in terms of removing non-compliant images. I've used IfD over the last couple of days in response to the FPAS RfC, but I've seen enough already to tell me it doesn't work and takes too long.

Sorry, what is "less centralised discussion of images" ? Jheald (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages, user talk pages and WikiProject talk pages.

Well, that does seem a much better way to go. Much better to get change quietly by discussion and agreement, where possible, than confrontation at WP:IfD. WP:IfD should be a last resort.

On the other hand, WP:IfD is better than what seems to be the practice of some image removalists, viz getting pages edit-locked and then deleting images as orphaned to force their way; which I do not think is a good way to go about things for the long term health and happiness of the project (cf WP:PROCESS). Jheald (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to set this straight, I doubt the "requirement" of giving notice to article talk pages for IfDs is valid at all. That claim was added on the IfD page unilaterally by a user who was frustrated with image deletions some weeks ago, but I'm not sure there ever was a strong consensus for it. It has certainly never become actual practice to treat it as a requirement rather than a recommendation, and since policy texts are supposed to be descriptive of actual practice and not prescriptive, I can't see it's worth much as long as everybody is ignoring it. I agree notifying article talk would in principle be a good idea (in fact, I think we should generally notify article pages instead of uploader talk pages, for various reasons), but as long as it means more work for me, I'm not gonna do it. I'll highly welcome it if somebody bribes the Twinkle developers to add the function. But image cleanup is tedious enough as is already; I'm not going to do yet more paper work manually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your message on this user's page, when I went to see what else he'd done. He added another photo to Homosexuality in ancient Rome, which I reverted. I haven't done anything about the actual photo which he also uploaded or given him another vandal warning, as I don't know how to do the former and am not sure about the proper form for the latter. N p holmes (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. Milburn, I have been asked to look at some of the recent film article images that are being questioned as merely "decorative". As per all the images from User:Ed Fitzgerald that are in question, it seems to be a oversimplification to simply label everything that is non-free as "decorative" which I usually see as the "pretty picture" that has no relevance to the article. This application of the non-free image guide appears to be a very subjective standard. One of the usual criteria that I apply is whether the image (caption nonwithstanding) provides the reader with more information.

In the film project group, finding images especially for older and classic films is extremely difficult, and non-free images from screen captures are one of the only solution. How can the project arrive at a more appropriate means to look at non-free images? One of the main criteria is the lack of clear-cut connections to the context of the article and I agree that many editors have not made the case for the non-free image. Would you like to engage in some discourse about the non-free image? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you provide rules for "low resolution" images? I can't find any. --UrSuS (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, I'll know it in the future. Thank you for the link.--Sins We Can't Absolve (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote me:^{--Jerzy•t 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

I was just wondering why you made this a two week block instead of just indefinite. Godheval has made it quite clear he has no respect for Wikipedia policies on non-free content or civility, or for Wikipedia in general. In the meantime, he has continued to sling insults around, making rather odd judgements about why people edit and who they are, as well as speaking in a very condescending and patronising manner to anyone who will listen. I don't think he has anything productive left to give.
J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer may be "because of my personal needs for caution where i experience a problem as subjective". But while i too am skeptical about the chances of turning Godheval (talk · contribs) into a colleague, i think some risk of drawing it out is justified by the possibility, especially since the failure of a week to "powerfully concentrate the mind" is IMO much less likely than that of a day or two. I'm not sure i checked for previous blocks, and at this point i'd say two weeks (i.e., a 7:1 escalation from your 2 days) would certainly have been better than one -- tho i think my explaining my bumping it up now would muddy the waters more than it would remedy my oversight or momentary misjudgment. If you want to increase to 2 weeks, 6 months, or indef, however, i will regard it as not just a welcome second opinion, but also as your appropriately acting independently on your own judgment (and certainly not as a conflict between us). And if it is i who next has occasion to block them, this discussion will be a valuable reassurance that firm action is more defensible than i was initially confident of. Thanks, and i hope my general approach and this particular lapse don't turn out to cause any noticeable harm.
--Jerzy•t 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that this image which I recently uploaded is in fact merely a cropped version of Image:David Bellamy Headshot.jpg already in the public domain. Perhaps you could advise me as to best way to summarise in the image summary. Many Thanks. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have thousands of edits, many huge articles, but I don't do much in terms of admin stuff, i am a content person.

I feel we have been fighting unnecessarily on the Manu Sharma article. You believe it should go, I really do believe he is important. In India he is a man known to everyone, and now, a year after the Jessica Lall verdict, newspapers still keep reporting him, comparing him to current news, etc.

I think we are both well meaning people, who care for content on wikipedia. We are not fighting because I don't like you or you don't like me, but because both of us feel that there is a case here, though at some point these things get mixed with our egos, something that I would like to understand better.

I am writing this to suggest that let's not keep bashing at each other on this. The original AfD was inconclusive. It is not as if there is absolutely no justification for keeping the article, and I know that there is also some similarity with other ONEEVENT cases.

I have often wondered how our egos get so desperately bound to these rather peripheral issues. At these times, I try to take a deep breath, like a week's break, and think about other stuff.

I respect you for your efforts, and perhaps you also realize that I am not doing this out of any personal animosity.

So I would like to offer truce. If you really wish to go for ONEEVENT cases, I am sure there are many more that one could shoot for - Christine Beatty and Lee Boyd Malvo are two that I noticed recently. However, if you still feel that Manu Sharma remains a genuine ONEEVENT case, pls put it up on a new AfD, and let's get to consensus.

In the meanwhile, I must say I have learnt a lot about ONEEVENT, which I didn't really know about, and thank you for that lesson. mukerjee (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I have an admin question for you. I noticed this morning that a user named Geekyguild has been going through Wikipedia deleting all links to and mention of some online retailer called ThinkGeek; I have reverted many of these edits because he was compromising the integrity of the article by deleting URLs without paying attention to the context (breaking {{cite web}} templates, creating nonsense sentences, etc.). I also noticed that the ThinkGeek article has been marked as a candidate for speedy deletion because of (apparently) having been created by members of that retailer's staff to generate traffic for their website.

A few things that seem fishy:

1. The ThinkGeek article has a decent edit history, having been edited by 79 different users over 5 years (first edit was made in 2003).
2. Both the user Geekyguild and the user who marked the article for speedy deletion, WIKIGUY_PATROL, are users that only just registered this morning, and haven't made any edits other than these attemps to get rid of everything related to ThinkGeek.

So I was just wondering if you could look into this and see if it's any sort of foul play. (I've also posted this message to David Fuchs). Thanks! --Politizer (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to speedy the picture here as orphaned, as now the article is deleted it serves no purpose. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems...odd...but OK. I guess it will linger around then :) --Narson ~ Talk • 16:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the deletion discussion page. Dalejenkins | 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings J Milburn! I would appreciate your comments/suggestions/opinion on Wikipedia:Peer review/Meshuggah/archive2. It would help me a lot if you can do it!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IS a pleasant surprise! :) I really never expected a barnstar from someone who shared opposing views in AFD. Thank you so much. :) I did do a lot a research on the topic to save the article, reading through tons of material to list more on his personal history. I'd even come close enough to source picture of Manu... I had asked around on Flickr, but it didn't work out due to licensing issues (it was an illegal derivative there). Thanks once again, much appreciated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Great! I must say, that you are a funny person, Mr. Milburn! I salute your gesture! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear J Milburn: Thanks for your inquiry. In fact, MOSNUM determined after a long debate that dates are not to be autoformatted, a significant change in practice. If you wish, I can link you to a few relevant pages beyond those that were linked in the edit summary. In addition, MOSNUM requires consistency in (raw) date formatting throughout the main text of an article; I see that this was fixed by the edit. Tony (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True: autoformatting should no longer be used. Cheers. Tony (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The so-called Human cover looks pretty much selfmade in my opinion and as it lacks sources and has not been released on her official website yet, it has to be removed. - Noboyo

This is just a friendly notice since you involved yourself in the discussion of my biography in Wikipedia.

Finding my biography in Wikipedia two years after it existed, was a great and joyous surprise for me. It is in fact my first foray into the Public Domain in 11 years, since my last attempt at elective office. Everything I have contributed to this site, all the discussions with all the Administrators, is self published material in a public forum.

The mainline media, CNN in particular, is portraying the current economic crisis in Apocalyptic terms and totally unexpected. The record bares witness that on July 3, I made this statement in Ground Zero talk:

The global system is just entering the time when this line from Rev.18 will be seen and believed: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more.

This is precisely, exactly what the current financial crisis is all about.

Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are asking about this. I have not been able to discover a way to "tell" the Wikipedia system that this photo is in the public domain (see [5] now deleted, and [6]).

I work for the University at Buffalo ([7]) and oversee our photographs, so I can attest to this being a permissable use as fact.

The photo in question was taken by our photographer, Douglas Levere, for the University at Buffalo, and our policies allow for its use in this manner.

We could find no clear Wikipedia instructions how to attest to a photo shot by a third party, has clear copyright, and I am at a loss how to correctly share this and other pictures.

I would appreciate your assistance as we have other pictures we will no doubt wish to share with the Wikipedian community.

Thanks!

hjarvis (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some advice? Does the logo's in the article Surinaamse Padvindsters Raad have enough discussion, or is more needed? --Egel _Reaction? 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article One Voice (Andrew Johnston album), 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J Milburn. I've just reverted Template:WikiProject Metal back to an edit made to it on March 26 2008. The following edit, which you made, [8], broke it. It was brought to my attention on my talk page, and since I didn't know how to fix it, I reverted it. Could you take a look and see what needs doing to it that was supposed to have been done originally? It's currently protected from editing, so if you're not an admin yourself, let me know and I'll unprotect it if you need it to be. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just handled Image:Vma.4.jpg. My related post at WP:AIV about Zachri29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be sitting unhandled.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this. I mistakenly loaded the image here rather than at Wikimedia as I have been doing, and thought the 'created by self' info must have been the copyright status as there seemed to be no indication of where to put it. Have fixed it now.Sterry2607 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry, thanks for not blocking me and sorry for my bad behaviour and i'd like to make it up to you....... This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Thanks for your help and thanks for a lot of things Phasmids and mantids (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]