User talk:Scorpion0422/Archive 14

List of defunct World Wrestling Entertainment championships

Since you created the "current" FL version, do you think it will be suitable to create a list for defunct championships?--₮RU CӨ 22:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reliable sources for all the defunct titles. There is a website which publishes the info from the Wrestling Titles book, and verifies almost every title in professional wrestling history (including its history). So the reliable sourcing is not an issue. Do you still want to merge it?--₮RU CӨ 22:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it would because the topic is about current championships. Sure I'll start it and see where it goes from there.--₮RU CӨ 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I'm at a roadblock. I can't find a reliable source to verify the existence of the

WWWF United States Championship, and my source doesn't verify it, or the first/last reign (which all I need). Dammit.--₮RU CӨ 00:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing. I searched all over, I found one book about Bobo but it spoke about the NWA version's US Title. That WWE.com ref is the only one I can find, but it doesn't directly state that he was the first champion. Eh.--₮RU CӨ 01:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. User:MPJ-DK has the "Wrestling Title Histories" book and they gave me the listings for the WWWF US Title, and it matches nothing what Wikipedia has, so I need to fix that in the WP article and make the fixes accordingly in the list I'm making.--₮RU CӨ 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the lead look so far?--₮RU CӨ 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Nancy Kavner

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)[reply]

Maybe try to work on the other image in the body in the future, but I won't hold up the GAN for it anymore. I'll pass it tonight (at work right now). Also, you had asked about whether I had any GANs you could review for me in exchange for the Nancy review. I do have one out there now, the
2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver
, which passed a GAN the other week.)

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)[reply]

Absolutely no problem, take your time. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A humble suggestion

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)[reply]

Thanks

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.--₮RU CӨ 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I finished the lead for the List of defunct championships of World Wrestling Entertainment.--₮RU CӨ 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look?--₮RU CӨ 01:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was just a copy from the main

World Wrestling Entertainment article, I'm currently revamping the table.--₮RU CӨ 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Obama Tennessee plot

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)[reply]

I got your comment about the photo. I suppose I would argue the revolver one should be dropped altogether, and the one with two merged images should just stay how it is, simply because the revolver one conceals the guy's face and the other doesn't. I dropped the revolver pic, and I kinda think it should stay the way it is now. Let me know if you agree; if you don't, I'm open to making the photo merge. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks man. Much appreciate the review. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Union member states by accession

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)[reply

]

DYK for Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

On March 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, 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) 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hartman

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)[reply]

Not necessary, no. But in the absense of a free image of Phil I thought it'd be good to decorate some otherwise empty sections, which is fine, considering they are free-use. Gran² 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

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)[reply]

Oh and also making it a DYK candidate as well. Fantastic work! H1nkles (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from H1nkles talk page to ensure receipt:

You're welcome. I absolutely think the article could be an FA and it's a great goal to have it on the main page during the 2010 Games. I'll respond to your question here and copy it to your talk page. I'm currently sifting through the article enhancing the prose, adding references (a glaring problem), adding photos etc. One thing I need help with is determining what other topics to cover in the article. It's basically a synopsis of each of the Winter Games, then a table of sports followed by discontinued sports and a list of demonstration sports. I feel that more could be added. Perhaps a scandals section, maybe a list of athletes with the most medals, perhaps a politics section. I will need to get some input though because this article's structure will likely determine the Summer Olympics structure as well. If you could give some suggestions that would be a good place to start. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone on vacation

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)[reply]

Hey Scorp, I'm finally done the defunct championships list. Is it ready to be moved to the mainspace you think? If so, under what name (take in mind I use the term "retire" in a lot of areas).--Best, ₮RU CӨ 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the mainspace under

List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment. I don't know if a merger is good because that would ruin the featured topic, and the two subjects are broadly related (just by the fact that they are titles in WWE).--Best, ₮RU CӨ 18:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

So do you think its good for FLC, or you still feel edgy about it and the merge?--Best, ₮RU CӨ 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've never seen lead size being a problem at FLC. In addition, I will ask at WP:PW, but I don't know why you would want to merge these two.--Best, ₮RU CӨ 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legislators

What's wrong with my USNA legislators list? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't promote it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 12:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC) by

talk

)

WikiCup Newsletter

17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for In the Name of the Grandfather

On March 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article In the Name of the Grandfather, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Cartwright

I'll try to take a look soon. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed

Sure thing. Gran² 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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)[reply]

The Weekly PPV article has to be re-written. It was under a delete discussion a while back, and was kept only if it was converted to a format like TNA Impact!. So, all the results will have to be removed, and re-written, I just do not have the time to convert the format. I also can't find reliable sources for the event's results. PWTorch.com has a few results but half the time I can't find the results of the event I need. WrestleView.com have results for the events, but for some reason they are off limits at the moment, and I can't get to them. Most of the stuff I've copied off of other featured list articles. Like the Key, and the templates in the reference section. If I'm overlinking I didn't know it, I thought every mention was supposed to be linked in list. That is what Truco has told me, but I can't seem to get ahold of him. Thanks for the advice.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who shot Mr Burns

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)[reply]

Well, that was an utterly closed-minded response, and serves to demonstrate my point: if that sort of infobox would have been better, then why not have modified it to that sort rather than reverting mindlessly to your preferred version, a course of action that would have encouraged compromise rather than stubborness. There is no past discussion on the article talk page about it, and there is no discussion on the subject on the subject on the Simpsons wikiproject talk page or its archives, other than one merge discussion in Archive 6 where you yourself acknowledge the potential need for a custom template rather than two infoboxes, so claiming that other editors have discussed it is a fabrication. And if that was in anyway discussion in favour of two infoboxes,

past discussion is always open to challenge. You clearly have ownership problems with this article and mean to block any changes away from what you alone think is best; your attitude in this regard has frankly been despicable and entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Therefore, there isn't any point in continuing this discussion. Good day. -- 139.222.233.188 (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

1988 Olympic medals

As requested, here they are --> Reso lute 04:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt tell you what all of them are for. The left nine are all games medals, and the pair at the top right are from the Opening Ceremonies, not sure what they were given out for. The bottom right couple I am not sure of. There wouldn't be Paralympic medals there, as Calgary didn't host those. Reso lute 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The middle set shows curling and aerial skiing on the face, so those would be what the participants in the demonstration sports got, imo. The third set shows what appears to be braille on the front, but the 1988 Paralympics were held in Austria that year. If I remember correctly though, Calgary did featured some events for disabled athletes as demonstration sports. Perhaps that is the third set? Reso lute 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ice Hockey World Championships

On March 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ice Hockey World Championships, 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.

Ice Hockey World Championships "Did you know" on the Spring equinox! Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Just... wow ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson filmography. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, see User:Dabomb87/Drafts#Potential featured lists to be merged/delisted. I'm not sure what the criteria for consideration would be. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to User:Sumoeagle179, and I think it would benefit all of us if we could just step back and understand each other's POV. He raises good points, even though they could be phrased better. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

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)[reply]

I see. Do you mind if I list more lists on the talk page of the page for consideration? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] (the latter part, namely Sephiroth's long comment). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PR and FLC

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)[reply]

The table on my talk page is nice, but might cause problems at FAC. Sandy doesn't like collapsable tables; there's something in the Manual of Style about them. While I'm here, did you mean to remove the Nation column from the key you moved? I saw the PR and will try to add a few sentences on Rebagliati later today. Is there anything else that should be taken care of before I nominate? Giants2008 (17-14) 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The

This subpage is less clear-cut, but still discourages their use. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Request for classification of TV show articles

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)[reply]

It's okay. :-) Stargate SG-1 is so close to GA (and actually FA apart from copyediting) now that I was confident enough a few days ago to personally re-tag it as B-class despite my potential conflict of interest. Stargate Universe still seems to be stuck without a reception section, so I'd like your input there. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of related to the FL audit

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)[reply]

Yes, possibly being a bit hasty. I think I'll wait for the current one to finish, then just nominate the main list, because if that gets delisted then all the other "sublists" will pretty much become a no-brainer at FLRC. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scotland international footballers

Your point has been addressed, sir -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking in refs

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)[reply

]

Okay to keep everyone happy I have remove this overlinking, and won't do it in the future. That said though, for now I am not going to go through and remove it from the already promoted lists and the other lists I am working on because it is a bit of a ball-ache to remove. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USNA Legislators q

Replied to your comment there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My .02/100 of a $

You asked for my thoughts on User:Scorpion0422/State of the FL process...

See for comment on the FL removal proposal
People will naturally take the low hanging fruit, it's human nature
Not every article can become an FA though they in theory can
I think the level of FL notability needs raised. Some FLs are really rather useless
There is indeed a disporportionate representation in FL of sports, cartoons/tv/characters/etc, and music
part of the reason for the above is that FLs seem to attract wiki's younger crowd and I think the reason is that lists are easy to write and easy to review
All featured pages have a shortage of reviewers, it's only natural, it's tough work
separate pages for length should only exist when length is an issue (my USNA lists are a perfect example, USMA is an even bigger topic)
length--face it, if something only has 10 or less members, does it really qualify for a separate page? No, it should be a table in an article
Hope this helps

Overall, you make several great observations and are headed in the right direction. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It might be time to update those pages now. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey

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)[reply]

FLC

Thanks for your inquiry. The 1,000 lists I am referring to are indexed

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 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

List of Silver Slugger Award winners at first base

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)[reply]

I saw your comment at Matthewedward's talk. Scorpion, you've been the one constant at FLC. Matthew has had Internet issues; TRM has been away, but you've always been there. We all make mistakes. Please don't step down. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Also, take a look at this. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to thank me, I enjoy what I do. Well, you're the expert with Olympic lists, so I thought you would want to check out the newer format. Since you have already looked at it, I guess there's nothing else to check on then. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPoTY list

Better? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 18:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seemed tetchy. It is because I am hungry. Anyway I found a solution which I quite like. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images on List of Nobel laureates in Physics

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)[reply]

Olympic hockey

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)[reply]

Silver Slugger Award

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?

Phils) 19:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Understood, I figured that might be an issue. I will remove them from beside the tables. For a list like this, though, I wonder if it might not be beneficial (since there are so many good-quality free images available) to have a gallery available of current holders (i.e., the 2008 winners from each league). Thoughts?

Phils) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Lists currently being considered for FLRC

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)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Iron Maiden

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)[reply]

Forks and FLs

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)[reply]

Yep, I thought that

when I reviewed it. Would it still be considered as a list, or as an article if it was merged? Woody (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk:Nancy Cartwright

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

chat) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Question about list format

Despite all that is going on with FLs at the moment, I have an unrelated question about formatting. Basically

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)[reply

]

Ah yes, I suppose that would work. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that suggestion, it solves my problem and I was previously unaware of {{Flagathlete}}. Because it was easier to implement than changing each template from {{sortname}} and {{flagicon}} to a strange combo of {{sort}} with {{flagathlete}} I just added the span bit of flag athlete on the end of each entry. Hope that's okay, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD review

Posting to several FLC regulars, maybe this program would work, see [2] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why did you retract your comment here? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USMA Astronauts

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)[reply]

told ya — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this, but there is a bit before that and a whole lot after that from him, me, and Julian. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not, no need for FL Director action. I had got the wrong end of the stick and misunderstood a comment by SandyGeorgia at a current FAC to refer to all ISO dates in citations, instead of malformed ISO dates in citations. <wipes egg off face, get back to work>. Regards,

Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

FL drama

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)[reply]

I'd be interested in FLRC. But knowing me, I'd end up spending my entire life saving each one. Perhaps you should float the idea to the community? See what they think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Heading to the criteria as we speak. Just got up and running yesterday with home internet, not doing much at work at the moment, got a bit of a telling off before I left last year so keeping my nose clean. I'll add my comments there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully things are almost done. :S Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! :) Hopefully the next one won't take as long... Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Springfield's state's flag.jpg)

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)[reply]

742 Evergreen Terrace

Speaking of their house, why do we not have a picture of it?....from the show I mean, not the real one.

Talk 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The Simpsons GACs

I was wondering if you are still interested in getting episodes up to GA quality?

Talk 08:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Couple of list notes

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)[reply

]

Re:Another delegate

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)[reply]

See my comment here. Would it work? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swimming World Swimmers of the Year FLRC

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)[reply]

Nancy Cartwright

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)[reply]

That's a little bit better. I'll let you know if I come across any additional information. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did have one comment at the talk page that wasn't addressed. I'll just copy it here:

Wasn't there a specific episode in the Simpsons' second season in which the voice actors' names in the credits were matched with their characters? Was that the first time it was publicly revealed that Bart was voiced by a woman? If so, that might be worth mentioning somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Never mind, then. Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see some tighter organization in the Simpsons section of the article. The ideas still don't flow well together. Unfortunately, I don't have any quick fixes in mind. Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly better. The one part I still don't like is the "Eat My Shorts" section, which is just sort of hanging there. Zagalejo^^^ 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel images

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)[reply]

Ok, I just had a look at the FL nomination. Basically it is possible that some of these imags might have incorrect licenses. The nomination was in November 2008. In that time no one, including you, has put these images up for deletion on Commons? Also, if many editors keep adding the images, why couldn't you post a hidden message on the article or a message on the talk page. Both of which I checked before I added the images. This instead of continous reverting. To paraphrase from your edit summary "That would have saved a lot of time so users could read and say "gee, that is the reason why these images aren't already included" Garion96 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or talk page, some editors do read them, or nominate the images for deletion. At least something. You did nothing except snarkey comments in edit summaries. Garion96 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

Thanks for taking care of FLC these past two weeks; I appreciate it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 12:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC) by

talk

)

Hi

Can you upload picture World U18 Championships Gold Medal.JPG to Commons? 88.112.59.27 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism

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)[reply]

Please look

See User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Hello_TRM — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood FLC

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)[reply]

I have responded to your comments again, let me know if you notice anything else. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New FAC instructions

Should we ask Gimmetrow to do this with FLC too? See

Wikipedia:FCDW/FACRollout. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, your math was off here. No harm done though. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delivered for the

GARDEN at 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Queries to my talk.[reply

]

Another potential fork

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Blackhawks captains/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think this is close enough to keep territory? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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)[reply]

As a second note, it is uploaded by Fox's official channel. -- A ^talk/_contribs 14:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the main LoE, as to note they've already begun recording? I wasn't entirely sure how to (and if we could) cite it. -- A ^talk/_contribs 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania

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)[reply

]

Going away...

Just to let you know I'm going away and won't have internet for 2 weeks.

I haven't got many active FLC reviews for that reason, and for the ones I have commented on I have tried to strike what I think has been done. I have no current support or oppose !votes so I am happy for you to either ignore my comments completely or stike them if you feel they have been addressed.

I have one

open FLC

, which at the moment looks in a good state. If any minor issues (for example typo's etc.) are raised before its (possible) promotion, could you do me a favour and fix them (or assume I will) as I won't be able to do it for a couple of weeks. If anything major is raised (unless there is someone feeling helpful) you may have to archive it (but I hope that won't be the case after 5 reviews).

If the
List of universities in Nova Scotia, because there is already a consensus to merge
so IMO these can be sort of "speedily delisted". I don't know if you want to do this, or just wait.

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)[reply]

Input requested

Please comment on my latest suggestion

another list unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

IRC

If you're here, could you pop on for a second, please? Matthewedwards : Chat 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

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)[reply

]

Wikipedia:FCDW/FLCChanges – you up to it? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You ignited the change, so I'd rather you started it. We can wait on it though. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you do the merge of the Canadian university lists into List of universities in Canada, I believe you can use actionXresult=merged in the ArticleHistory of the merged lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not, it will show up in Category:ArticleHistory error. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thank you, Scorpion. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XI

Delivered for the

WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply

]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mr Bergstrom.jpg)

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)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sit Down, Shut Up.jpg)

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)[reply]

NHL History FT

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. Reso lute 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! I'll try to start it sometime today then, depending on how busy I end up with work. Overall, I think the project has done a wonderful job with this one, and your and Maxim's summary of the entire series is great! Reso lute 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or hell, lets just do it now:

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/History of the National Hockey League. Reso lute 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Not any more. The two people I turned to most for copyedits just retired or semi-retired. I'll try to take a look myself, but I am not a great technical copyeditor. Reso lute 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC Dispatch

Re

WP:FCDW/FLCChanges, bring in collaborators, and aim to have it ready by April 17? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, can you be sure to at least have a draft along by the 17th, with the idea of it being finished by the 24th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada

On April 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the FLC talk page

ME didn't do the closures for a reason. :|

Chat 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, okay. Your edit summary made it sound like you were confused.

Chat 14:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

IRC

Left and I are in IRC if you wanna come

Talk 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK nomination of List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada

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)[reply

]

Input please

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.--Tru co 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

So much for being neutral,
Chat 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

How is this canvassing? He was involved in an original discussion, and he has the experience to state his opinion whether its an ok or not an ok to create the list. Taking a quote from you Matt "stop stalking my edits".--Tru co 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we're not doing this here, XD. It would be perfectly neutral to ask one to participate in a discussion. But "Can you come comment here, I don't like it" is giving your opinion, de-neutralizing the statement. Stalking your edits? Scorpion's page is on my watchlist, and seeing it being edited reminded me I need to talk to him on IRC.

Chat 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, only I'm allowed to start fights on my talk page. I don't really see the point in starting an episodes list, but it doesn't matter to me. Also, I don't think I have IRC access at the moment. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll be on a bit later. Going out soon. Btw, I love the new SoxBot stalking, and yesterday I was asking if you wanted him (meaning SoxBot) in your channel.

Chat 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

My bad Scorpion. Okay, I respect your decision/opinion. --Tru co 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada

On

List of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada, 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) 13:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 17:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC) by

talk

)

Help?

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)[reply

]

Homer Goes to College

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)[reply]

I passed it. I may try to review some of your other GANs later this week too, and get that backlog down a bit. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Nancy Cartwright

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)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XII

Delivered for the

WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply

]

Edit summary

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)[reply]

I didn't take shots at any specific editors, so No. TJ Spyke 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder

Hi Scorpion, I know you're busy, but it's been a

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)[reply

]

I added a bit to the first section. I think it's balanced pretty well, I tried not to dwell on any one point too long. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for René Fasel

On April 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article René Fasel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Lists of universities in Canada/archive1

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)[reply

]

Only problem multiple nominations would present is having people !vote on five nominations, which isn't that big of a deal compared to the hassle of updating the {{

ArticleHistory}} for five different lists. In any case, I'll take a look at the dispatch. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"Not that bad", huh? You forgot to move the old FLCs to archive pages. I took care of it anyhow. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you Dabomb87 forgot to update the talk page ArticleHistory links of those moves. :p Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the article, List of Nobel laureates in Physics

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)[reply]

Swimming World FLRC

updated YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for why you didn't do promotions? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scorpion0422. You have new messages at Rst20xx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCup Newsletter XIII

Delivered for the

WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply

]

Year-dley

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)[reply]

List of Mexican National Trios Champions

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)[reply]

To Simpsons

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)[reply]

By the way...

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)[reply]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 11:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC) by

talk

)

WikiCup Newsletter XIV

Delivered for the

WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply

]

List of WWE Champions

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)[reply]

I don't feel like getting into a whole argument over a trivial thing. As for the revert on PPV, I think that has more to do with everyone trying to be the first to edit a article when a title change happens. TJ Spyke 03:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been around long enough to know how 3RR works and you blatantly violated it because you think you can decide what goes in the article. Instead of discussing it you just kept reverting. I have reported you for 3RR violations. TJ Spyke 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 reverts, still pushing it and you chose to just continue reverting rather than discussing. TJ Spyke 19:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just some brief responses: I only reverted it twice, so I didn't "keep reverting". I am not a regular editor to Simpsons season articles. I was just there making an unrelated edit when I saw your edit, reverting unsourced information is not a problem and is allowed. I didn't order anyone to revert, I basically just gave my approval to anyone who wants to put it back in. I will discuss this more if you want, but I am just gonna do a little more editing before I log off and get some sleep. TJ Spyke 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply people need my approval to put it back in, just stating I support putting it back in and won't revert anyone who puts the info back in. TJ Spyke 03:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FL mergers

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:LOTM) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

O.K. Since it is the offseason and most people who care about these articles are probably not watching them, I am going to notify all FLC discussants for these three lists to drum up some traffic.--

WP:LOTM) 05:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

People at the discussion want to see a draft of a merged article. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:FLC

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 :)--Tru co 03:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, what's going to happen when I leave? :p Dabomb87 (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be a sad day. With truco gone, I guess Matty and/or I will have to start doing more reviews, although I might be able to get TRM to throw some in too. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to press Tony1 into doing a couple too. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of good people leaving WP at the moment, whether they're Crats, admins, GA/FA/FL writers, Gnomes, or reviewers. WP is turning into something a lot of people don't like, and they've been leaving in the dozens. Current state of affairs with regard to contributors, and their feelings, is not good. :(

The thing is with Scorpion and I doing reviews, I think it comes across as a bit COI-ish. We're the directors of the process and I think if we start giving in depth reviews, people might think we're moulding FLs into how we envision

WP:FL

to be. I think it might be okay to point out Policy, Guideline and blatant MOS infractions, but if we stray into getting sentences recast, trying to alter table content or layout, or stuff like that, we'd be overstepping the mark. I think this is the same reason Raul and Sandy don't review at FAC.

Ideally, we need an incentive to get people to review, but then on the other hand, that just results in poor reviews. Perhaps we should have nominators tell relevant wikiprojects about FLCs? We'd have to be more alert and expect some drive-bys, though. It might be worth looking at who was reviewing 6 months and a year ago, and giving them a nudge on their talk pages to come and start reviewing again. There's a page of users willing to review at FLC, too, somewhere (I forget the link). We chould give those people a nudge too. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's best to move

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)[reply

]

The editor withdrew ST:TOS. I removed the transclusion, and was going to follow the latter of User:Matthewedwards/FL#Withdrawals (move to /archive1 etc.), but thought I better let one of you make the judgement call, as me doing it would probably be overstepping my bounds. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG! A BARNSTAR!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This is just for all the incredible things that you've done with L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you, I don't know if I'm an inspiration, but I do what I can. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh

I just edit conflicted when trying to fix that filename! Thanks :-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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)[reply

]

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This is for your tireless contributions and work on the List of The Simpsons episodes‎ article. . Keep up the good work!- --Michael (Talk) 00:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, haven't you responded?--Michael (Talk) 04:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome--Michael (Talk) 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

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)[reply

]