Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since you created the "current" FL version, do you think it will be suitable to create a list for defunct championships?--₮RUCӨ 22:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy is a pass. I had one more thing about the image with Julie, but that one is about ready to go soon too. Nice work! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is one of your areas of interest or not, but if you'd like to review that for me I'd be much obliged. If not, no big deal. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have some interest in ice hockey and while I note with some sorrow the passing of Colleen Howe, the one and only "Mrs. Hockey" and now-late wife of Gordie Howe, I also note with some surprise that there is no article with Colleen Howe as its subject. Sure, there's a school in School District 34 Abbotsford named for her but nothing on Wikipedia for this author, pioneering female sports agent, and member in her own right of the United States Hockey Hall of Fame? If you're interested, this would make a fine addition to the encyclopedia and an easy DYK candidate. (I would, of course, have to recuse myself from approving or promoting any such hook.)
Here are a few sources that would get a writer started: Yahoo Sports obit, New York Times obit, USA Today obit, National Post article from 2008, 1974 NYT article by Howe, Corporate Detroit article from 1991, Globe and Mail article from 2003, Washington Post article about HOF induction, NYT article from 1993, [Sports Illustrated article from 1980], and, well, I think you get the idea. There are a jillion good sources out there.
I'd write it myself but I am completely terrible at biographies. No pressure or obligation here, just a suggestion to an editor who I think and hope might be interested. Please let me know either way. - Dravecky (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Scorpion for trying to make the best of that situation. I guess me and Matt can't really cope together anymore. But I guess its just best to move on. Thanks again for trying to improve that situation.--₮RUCӨ 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the review. Much appreciated. I responded to your comments. You'll see that a few of my comments have some points raised that I'd like your opinion on, so just give me a holler when you get a chance to let me know what you think. No rush, and I'm very confident we can get through this and get this article to GA status! :) --Hunter Kahn (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That was fast work by you and Gimmetrow. The FLRC needs to be archived; the title was already removed from WP:FL, and I updated the count. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'm only waiting for the PR to finish, but it doesn't look like I'll get any more reviews there anytime soon, so I may as well nominate it now while I think about it. Any last comments? Gran2 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that Ice hockey at the Olympic Games attained GA status. I just wanted to say well done and keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Copied from H1nkles talk page to ensure receipt:
Hi Scorp, I already told Matthew this, so I will just copy my comment to him: I will be on vacation (away from computer) for much of next week. If there are any FLCs that I have opposed, and it looks like the issues have been resolved, feel free to promote and disregard my oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with my USNA legislators list? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look soon. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for someone to give me a little opinion on a list. I want to take List of TNA X Division Champions to FLC. I have it finished in a subpage: User:Wrestlinglover/List of TNA X Division Champions. This will be my first FLC, and I don't know if it is ready. Looking for a little advice.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 22:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thusfar, you've proven to be extremely unhelpful with that infobox. You accuse me of "doing it the lazy way" (despite it taking quite a while for me to work out how the code actually worked), but you fail to actually provide an alternative or improve it so it is more readable, instead just irresponsibly reverting to the last version - an entirely unhelpful act in all regards. You should not stand in the way of good faith changes as if you own or have to veto everything in the article. How is it lazily done (and how is it less lazy than throwing in two infoboxes, thus entirely screwing up the presentation and instantly giving the article a completely unprofessional feel to it, as though it were put together by a bunch of schoolchildren)? You have the bits for the first part mentioned first, separated by a line break and followed by the second part. A perfectly logical and readable arrangement. How could it be better arranged? Refining the change would be a far better application of time than merely discarding the whole thing because the polish isn't as spick as you might like. -- 139.222.233.188 (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
As requested, here they are --> Resolute 04:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ice Hockey World Championships "Did you know" on the Spring equinox! Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Just... wow ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson filmography. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I am impressed with your honest perceptions, it took someone brave to stand up and say something. The only thing I don't agree with is blaming yourself so much, you are by no means the only guilty party. I have also watched this go on and took the easy route by refusing to review these "easy" lists instead of opposing them, because I didn't want to deal with the drama and argue endlessly with nominators. If there is anything I can help with please let me know. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Responded back at the peer review. Personally, I think it needs a copy-edit before going to FAC; I noticed a couple of prose glitches just in the places I responded to you about. If you need help with this, let me know and I'll get right on it. As for the issues at FLC, I would be happy to do more reviewing, if time permits. While I have had success as a nominator at FLC, my heart as a reviewer will always be with FAC. Recently, however, FAC hasn't seen many sports articles (my specialty). If this lull continues, that should free up time for me to become more involved with list reviewing. More sports lists get promoted than any other kind, so this is one area where my skills can be beneficial. I'll also comment on your pages, as I have a few thoughts on the vast collection of sports FLs on Wikipedia. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Since you're a very experienced TV editor who would be unbiased for my request, would you review/skim the articles Stargate Universe and Stargate SG-1 and see if they would pass as B-class articles? I'd say SGU is near GA-quality if it wasn't for the lack of a Reception section (the show is only going to air in six months). SG-1 is good on structure and the plot and production section, but its Impact section is not fully fleshed out yet (I am working on it though). I'd appreciate it. – sgeureka t•c 10:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the List of universities in Canada and its sublists. Per the merge propsal I was about to start mocking up a merged article when started to check through the data in the lists. Turns out that they are all out of date. I updated most of the British Columbia ones, but it took me over an hour. I have a good mind to nominate all the subpages and main list for FLRC. What do you think? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Your point has been addressed, sir -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to make the fix if you think it is necessary but I didn't think WP:OVERLINK applied to refs as references are dipped in and out of through ref targeting and not read. In that respect they are like sortable tables. I am only commenting as I once made this point at a previous FLC, and the reviewer who mentioned it struck their comment in reply. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied to your comment there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You asked for my thoughts on User:Scorpion0422/State of the FL process...
Overall, you make several great observations and are headed in the right direction. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, are you going to update Template:Announcements/New featured content and Wikipedia:Goings-on? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey for featured list removal here. I think the names had to be checked. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your inquiry. The 1,000 lists I am referring to are indexed here (for NHLs) and here for NRHPs. Of these, the List of NHLs in NY is one top contender, and other leading contenders are the 10 fully photo-illustrated NHL or NRHP lists, listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#List of fully illustrated lists (which includes the AL NHL list). The NY NHL list is the article in wikipedia that I learned everything in, and it reflects hundreds of hours of work on my part and also contributions of many others, including an extraordinarily large number of new photos taken by the wikipedia editors.
The strength of the 50+ NHL list articles were all benefited by a big campaign we ran, a "Fourth of July or Bust" campaign, ending July 4, 2008, which created and/or improved all 2,430 or so underlying NHL individual articles. The focus was not on polishing the NHL list-articles, but it would be relatively easy to clean up any one state list-article now. If you browse in the state / county / city lists indexed from those top-level NHL and NRHP lists, you will observe we follow a color-coding and item-numbering system that is consistent, and I believe was well thought out. Also, within those lists and in some other historic site lists outside of wp:NRHP there is a practice of including the higher-level historic designations within a geo-based list of the more numerous historic sites of a lower level designation. That way, a reader interested in historic sites in a given area can see, on the linked Google map, all of the low-level sites and also the relatively few higher level sites. And likewise read a short blurb about them in one list-article. Rather than have to go to two or more articles, and have no shared map showing them together. The formatting principles and this reader-friendliness aspect that we have thought out and applied in >1,000 list-articles now, are important to me but have been effectively dismissed in the FLC experiences to date.
The List of NHLs in NY article went up for PR and then FLC earlier than the List of NHLs in AL list, and failed. Consensus is that it failed primarily because it follows the principle of including the fewer, higher level Federally-designated historic sites in the state, while the title of the article is not long enough to describe that fully. There is no alternative proposal for an article name, and I argued the name was fine, it did include all NHLs in the state (and some more items). I have since noted various other FL lists where more than one list is included in the list-article, and where the title of the article does not ramble on to fully describe them. I am unsure whether to just bring the NY list back up for FLC, and ask for a different decision. Within the FLC process, it was fully supported by several reviewers (after various productive suggestions were implemented). In my view it was shot down by the forcefully expressed objections of a few. To bring the NY list back to FL would now be further complicated by the AL list precedent.
If you would recall or revisit it, the FLC for the AL list was outright nasty in some obvious ways. It reflected and amplified some disagreements that came up in the previous NY FLC. In my view, the FLC demonstrated the power, within the FLC process, of persons having personal taste differences, to sabotage a very good list. In that process, the AL list was changed in formatting ways and was not allowed to list the few other top Federally-designated historic sites in the state. The 3 sites declared by President or by Congress, rather than by Secretary of the Interior are mentioned in the text, but the coordinates for them and the table providing short blurbs about them, like for the NHLs in the state, were stripped out. Also the formatting was changed to enlarge row numbers, to include excessive symbols, and to include, up front, a Key section that is excessive and ugly relative to low-key alternatives for making some not-too-important, subtle distinctions. These matters might not be obviously important to an outsider, but they are deep obstacles to putting forward other lists. There has been no subsequent development within wp:NRHP to bring list-articles towards FLC, or to make the name-changing-related and formatting changes that were forced upon the AL NHL list, because they would not be good changes to make. Others besides me expressed some frustration within the AL FLC, and elsewhere since. We were at a point then of having developed potential to bring 50+ state NHL lists to FL. In my view, the main effect of that FLC was very morale-busting on me and others in wp:NRHP. It was noted by Dabomb at the end of the AL FLC that many improvements were made during just a few days. Certainly some were good changes. Others are depressing to me, as they hurt the article itself, and set big obstacles that effectively rule out bringing more NHL and NRHP lists to FL, which I don't think Dabomb could have then appreciated.
I have wondered about trying to deal with the two big issue areas constructively, outside the FLC nomination for a given list-article. I have wondered about creating an RFC and inviting MOS people and others to consider/evaluate the NRHP list-formatting system, to establish some consensus that our color and numbering system is good (or to identify some changes that we would accept and implement). The host site could possibly be the Talk page of FLC. About the naming of list-articles and/or the inclusion of relevant supporting lists within a list-article, I have wondered about opening a discussion topic at the Talk page of FLC. Perhaps if there could be general discussion and consensus, some principles could be established that would be helpful. Would you support some such indirect efforts, perhaps? doncram (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Some of the innovations created within the NY list-article's development have spilled out to other places, so it will not now appear as obviously great a representation of wikipedia's best work, relative to other wikipedia lists, as it was at the time of its FLC. The AL list certainly reflects it. I directly participated in an FLC for Listed buildings in Runcorn where i actively shared some of our best stuff. And I am one of the founding members of new Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites where I expect to actively help share further (and co-develop other good stuff), but where i feel personally a bit hamstrung because I feel i can't get a list to FL status. doncram (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm reviewing this list at FLC. It repeats the list of winners that is avaliable at Silver Slugger Award, but does offer teams played on and statistics, which the main list doesn't. Given what's happening at FLC, do you consider this list a problem in terms of duplicating information? This is part of a planned featured topic; therefore, I believe it's important to settle this now. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Better? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 18:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw you completely reverted all the work I did on the List of Nobel laureates in Physics article, listing in the edit summary that the images had improper license information. Please explain how public domain images from the commons justify "improper licensing information." --Odie5533 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to say no this time. I'm simply swamped with work — both on wiki and off — and I can't commit to anything more. Good luck, though! Scartol • Tok 16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Scorp, that line break makes the table look really ugly on my current monitor (IE 1152x864), and I'm finding a lot of breaking problems on most resolutions, even my widescreen laptop at home. Do you think this list would be better off without the pictures? I hate to cut out free images, especially when so many good ones are available for these lists, but at the expense of Cr.6, I don't know if it's worth it to keep fighting with them. Do you have an opinion? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It might be of little interest to you, but as a director and considering there may be quite a few FLRCs in the future you might want to see this, which concerns "procedural" FLRC nominations. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 20:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think this list should be merged into Maiden's self article, but you have the word here. If you could give me some heads up on how to imrpove the article (if it needs any improvement), I'd really appreciate it. I'll ask for a peer review to be done, but now all I need is your opinion. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Scorpion, I have an article that I would like to run by you given the current discussions on content forks. What do you think of List of Canadian Chiefs of the Defence Staff when compared to Chief of the Defence Staff (Canada). Would that list be considered a content fork by yourself?
In reply to your message, I should be in a position to comment in one of the threads currently active regarding the fork issue later today. Thanks, regards, Woody (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Scorpion, i've had the Nancy Cartwright article in my watchlist for sometime and I couldn't help but notice your dispute with User:UC Bill. I think you should seriously consider undoing your revert of his rather offensive message and taking this to WP:AN/I. I was offended by him and he wasn't even aiming his comments at me! I admire the way you took that abuse without responding as such. Happy editing :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite all that is going on with FLs at the moment, I have an unrelated question about formatting. Basically BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is the final list in my SPoTY topic but I am having problems with the table. At the moment it is quite wide and may have accessibility issues for small resolutions. This used not to be a problem but unfortunately I had to add country names per MoS. To make this more accessible again, I experimented with splitting it up but don't really like that either. Do you have any suggestions? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Posting to several FLC regulars, maybe this program would work, see — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Matt and Scorpion: see Bencherlite's comments and my responses about date formatting in refs. This is going to be an issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI: This should be of interest. I am the initiator of the FLC in question but due to being overwhelmed with school Rlevse was helping out since he has authored most of the lists like this for the FT which it seems won't be nominated now. -MBK004 02:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Scorpion. I'm back online both at work and at home (as of about 6 hours ago) and I want to help with the current discussions. I'm glad to be back and I hope that, given time enough to read the background, I'll be able to contribute. For what it's worth at an early stage, I totally agree with your concern over the number of "paint by numbers" (my expression) lists that get nominated. You're right, we need to fix it up tight and make something substantial and objective (if possible) about what "useful" really means. I'll do my best to play catch up... Best to you, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Scorpion. Just wondering, are there any other issues at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Veronica Mars (season 1)? Thank you for your time. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Springfield's state's flag.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of their house, why do we not have a picture of it?....from the show I mean, not the real one. CTJF83Talk 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you are still interested in getting episodes up to GA quality? here is the main FT drive page. Let me know, if you wanna work on more! CTJF83Talk 08:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA X Division Champions, I inquired about whether it should be seperate from the main article. Though it's currently short, the nominator plans to build the main article to GA status. I'm inclined to continue with a normal review, but I just wanted to run it by you first. Also, the Swimming World Swimmers of the Year FLRC hasn't been transcluded onto the FLRC page. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, if he wants to. I had a shortlist of possible additional delegates a while back, but since TRM has returned, he probably trumps all of them. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I have had an attempt at saving this one, and have added sortability, formated refs etc. Could you revisit and state what else needs doing. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 01:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I made a copy of that article. You can delete it, if you want.
Good work finding the info on the Twilight Zone movie. Zagalejo^^^ 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
They are all images on Commons with no deletion notice there. I did paid attention before I added any images. If it ever turns out the image licenses are invalid then they will be deleted from Commons and wille be removed by the commonsdelinker bot. Some even had an OTRS tag! Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of FLC these past two weeks; I appreciate it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you upload picture World U18 Championships Gold Medal.JPG to Commons? 88.112.59.27 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. While I still find silly the writing/citation house style you mentioned in your reverts of my edits to Marge Simpson,[1] I very much appreciated your restoring a (Cited!) Cultural references section to Wedding for Disaster. Can you do something regarding the ongoing IP vandalism to the latter article? It's getting pretty awful.
[1] Specifically, the endless use of "in the episode . . ." or its even-worse cousin "it is revealed in the episode . . ." Footnotes exist for a reason! (This isn't a quibble about the Simpsons pages, really; it's a fanwank issue with numerous Wikipedia articles on media topics.) YLee (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
See User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Hello_TRM — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I have responded to all of your issues at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Clint Eastwood filmography/archive1. If you have the time could you please stop by and ensure there are no other issues? Thanks and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we ask Gimmetrow to do this with FLC too? See Wikipedia:FCDW/FACRollout. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delivered for the WikiCup by GARDEN at 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Queries to my talk.
See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Blackhawks captains/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen this? Yeardley Smith reveals that as of last month, they've begun recording the 21st season. I wasn't entirely sure what to do with this, because I'm not sure we can cite YouTube videos. -- A talk/contribs 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Instead of reverting please take your concerns to the articles talk page, further edit warring will result in a block. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know I'm going away and won't have internet for 2 weeks.
Also I like the FLC sweeps idea but won't be able to participate until I return. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to a new set of criteria when I return. Rambo's Revenge (ER) 10:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on my latest suggestion here, which might render another list unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're here, could you pop on for a second, please? Matthewedwards : Chat 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, great job on coordinating all this, from the criteria changes to the FL task force, all while TRM was gone / transitioning back to normal editing levels and Matthew was busy. For a "broken" process, FLC faces a much brighter future thanks to your efforts. You will be missed whenever you step down. And so we proceed... Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
actionXresult=merged
in the ArticleHistory of the merged lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Mr Bergstrom.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sit Down, Shut Up.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. Two GAs and three FAs should easily qualify the topic. I will ultimately dig back into the fourth history article to bring it up to FA status, but I tend to leave failed Fx noms for a while before starting fresh, so that is a bit down the road. I'd say we could go for it. Resolute 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia_talk:FCDW#FLC_suggestion, would you be able to start something at WP:FCDW/FLCChanges, bring in collaborators, and aim to have it ready by April 17? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
ME didn't do the closures for a reason. :| iMatthew : Chat 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Left and I are in IRC if you wanna come CTJF83Talk 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at WT:PW#List of Raw Episodes to create a list for episodes of wrestling shows, which I don't think would be a good idea. You were involved in one of the original discussions, and as the FL director, can you place your input there? Thanks.--Truco 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! I noticed that you had bountiful experience with the Simpsons Featured Lists, so I was wondering whether you could help collaborate with me to get The Simpsons (season 10) to Featured List status? Thanks for your time! Cheers. I'mperator 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, I've just conducted a GAN review for Homer Goes to College and placed it on hold so you can address the suggestions! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 04:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been giving this question you asked me some thought and I am really not sure. You may have to simply acknowledge the source discrepancy in the article itself somehow, perhaps with a "However..." type of thing. Cirt (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Not a big deal, but I don't appreciate the dig you made at me in the the Oleg Prudius article. TJ Spyke 02:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Scorpion, I know you're busy, but it's been a a week, and Wikipedia:FCDW/FLCChanges needs to be started; Sandy indicated that she wants a rough draft in about 6 days. I'd be willing to help, but you should probably start it. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Please .. leave a summary the next time you make a "fix". Like maybe add a note your removing links? A small request, but would be helpful. -- A talk/contribs 03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You nominated it, you handle the {{ArticleHistory}} mess. In the future, let's keep the nominations separate, 'mkay :p — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you've reverted the images I added. Since I'm kinda new here, I was wondering if you could tell me why. The images were used in other Wikipedia articles, so I thought I could use them in that one. Thanks in advance! --TheMightyFanboy (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
updated YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
No probs, looks good. What with college and all, I wouldn't have got around to that for a long time. Is it just Shearer to go with main cast? Gran2 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that this FLC failed, what I'd like to know is why because I didn't see anything that wasn't solved, the only outstanding issues was one reviewer who left some cryptic comments that I could not figure out what meant. I've had two other FLs pass and I can't see that there is any significant difference between this one and the ones that passed so I'm very curious as to why this one failed. Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me Mr Scorpion, but I don't understand why you have reverted the version, that Homer Simpson was 41 years old in one episode. And why there is no field for age in the template? I'm really displeased with the article, you can see the Ukraine article (it is better and longer). And Homer's personality is only a 1-page thematics? In Ukraine version, his personality is already described by his realtionships on 22 screens (about 17 pages A4). And what about his trips to different countries? I am sorry but article 'Homer Simpson' must be much longer and to describe his personality in 20-40 screens (like in Ukrainian, it is only a half that will be in the future uk:Гомер Сімпсон). How did it get featured?--Anatoliy-024 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
We had a small discussion in Ukraine wiki about pictures in Simpson episodes. I've proved to state shots of some important events in the series, but you put promcards , that do not feature the plot of the episode like Homer the Moe (a promocard featuring stars and nothing either) and uk:Гомер стає Мо in Ukrainian (that features Moe's new bar and Homer and friends ib a self-made bar). Why not shots? It's easy (I think you have some DVDs with series - stop the record - shoot on a mobile - decrease size and upload to the Inet). And are these promocards free or not ('cause shots are not free but this is not resticted to use them in Ukrainian Wiki). I'm just interested in this.--Anatoliy-024 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Stop acting like you are the dictator of these lists. I don't need your approval to format it correctly. If you disagree you should bring it up on the talkpage instead of acting like you have the right to decide how the article is written. TJ Spyke 03:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to me that putting the discussion in a higher traffic area might be more beneficial toward gaining a consensus. Shouldn't this be at someplace like WP:FLRC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much. I hope my leave doesn't put to big of a burden of reviewing for others :/ Its just something I have to do right now, I hope to return this summer, however. So I should be back reviewing by late-June/early-July. Thanks for the experience Scorp, even though we had a rough start, I want to thank you for all you have taught me and the experience I've gained from you :)--Truco 03:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel it's best to move Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes to WP:PR instead, and simply not record it ever being at FLC in its articlehistory. Nominator is new to FLC, and I think it may be a genuine mistake. What do you think? If you agree and I don't get to it soon enough, will you be able to move it? Matthewedwards : Chat 07:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
This is just for all the incredible things that you've done with WP:FL, and for the work that you've done with WP:SIMPSONS, WP:HOCKEY, WP:OLYMPICS, and many more. You are an inspiration to other (new) Wikipedians like me, and I hope you continue your journey on Wikipedia. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
I just edit conflicted when trying to fix that filename! Thanks :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you want the plot summaries to be so short? They're way to stubby, and miss out on some important information. Cheers. I'mperator 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
This is for your tireless contributions and work on the List of The Simpsons episodes article. . |
Why, haven't you responded?--Michael (Talk) 04:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just catching up with the developments. Looked at your audit. Agree with much of what you write. Disagree with "List of Norwich City F.C. Players of the Year - Could go into List of Norwich City F.C. players. Also should be sorted chronologically." Taking the easiest first, the last statement is odd, because the list is sorted chronologically. Now, onto the main point: even if the latter wasn't a redlink, the two lists shouldn't be merged, as the former is far more specific. Someone interested in the Barry Butler trophy won't want to trawl through what would be a simply enormous list of players to find who won it, when. The main List of article would not include the specific text that includes details of how the award originated, who it's named after and why, information about other awards and statistical highlights regarding the winners. In short, the two are (would be, if the redlink existed) very different in raison d'etre and utility and both should exist. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.