User talk:Scorpion0422/Archive 11

5546:

to keep in line with wikipedia's policies, the proper thing to do when there is disagreement on the criteria for having an article is discussion. Which is why I have requested that you state on the contestants template discussion page the current criteria for why a contestant can or cannot have their own article. Thus, there may be discussion the very criteria that I am contending. I will not break wikipedia's rules. So in regard to this issue, I am pushing for discussion. That is the proper way in line with wikipedia's guidelines. One does not nominate an article for deletion in defiance of the status-quo criteria. That is against the rules, as you probably know.

7861:

more like characterization info. You're talking about characteristics of Homer (his age, the choice of job for the character ) What is plot is presented in a tone that suggests it really happened. It should be clearly stated, "In episode X" or "In season Y", it is revealed that Homer did..." Also, analysis generally goes with the character's reception, as how people receive the character plays into how they are going to analyze his presence on a show. I would also drop the "gender" from the infobox. Unless it was controversial (like a male looking character that was really female), his gender is obvious from the picture above where it is listed.

7889:, which it currently is. I would say, "In a flashback, it is revealed". When you say something like, "In the mid-1960s, while Homer was six years old, Mona went into hiding following a run-in with the law." - I assume you mean literally, because you already stated that the show runs in the current year. It needs to be better clarified that you are referring to something revealed in a show, and not something that actually happened. As for renaming the section, I think particular things belong in other sections. I think the way you just restructure works better. You could probably expand the "Role in show" section. 10244: 9985: 4823:(as my subsequent reviews show) sub-FL-standard. I've directed him to you for all future discussion about his list of Assyrian Kings because I feel I can no longer remain neutral about it. Incidentally I think there's plenty wrong with his list too but since we've got plenty of other lists to review, I'll just get on with those. Hope you don't mind and hope you're enjoying the 'lympics, particularly that absolutely incredible men's relay for Phelps' second gold. Wowee! 10908: 10877: 9115: 9084: 6483: 6452: 3841: 3810: 1822: 1791: 623: 592: 10276: 8563: 5935: 3384: 1316: 63: 8045: 7752: 5735: 5674: 10072:"Past episodes have provided details about Homer's youth and young adulthood, though the series does not maintain perfect continuity. In earlier episodes, it was established that Homer fell in love with Marge while they were high schoolers in the 1970s, and that he married her a few years later when she was pregnant with Bart. However, the recent episode "That 90's Show" asserts that Homer and Marge lived together without children in the 1990s." 10940: 9147: 6515: 3873: 1854: 655: 7408: 5354: 3064:

my position as FL director shortly. I don't wish to waste the time of the community and do Knowledge any harm. I think there's a tendency to migrate back to what is comfortable, i.e. that someone else will do our job for us - ie. blame the community if we promote something that isn't 100% perfect. I hope, in your absence, I didn't cause too much damage and I wish you much luck in the future.

3178:. A user/IP (same person) seems insistant on not having a tablified list and including every single minor and one-time character (differing from the proposed, although not yet implemented, design you can see somewhere near the bottom as well). They also seem against debate and just want to ignore/react angrily to, the majority of things Maitch and I have said. 7647:, truly reflecting what exactly the source says. If it's not a quote, it needs to be explained what else it is. "DVD commentary" pretty much sounds like a quote from the DVD audio commentary track. If you know the source, please clarify. Otherwise, the current caption must be removed as original research. 5520:

everyone somewhere so that people know how to implement policy correctly when an article is nominated for deletion. So do you think you could please state the outlines what makes an article appropriate to exist for a contestant on the contestant template discussion page? It would be helpful to everyone.

10126:

Sorry if I hastened into this. I did not mean to distract editors. The only reason I did it it was because I saw that there is a season 10 drive which has few GAs already. I thought that the two I added are significantly closer to completion and I thought users might want to focus on those instead of

8515:

I must say "no" to any more new copyediting for a while. I'm deep into a couple of research/writing projects; I'm trying to do at least one peer review a week, and I've promised another editor that I'd copyedit his/her long, complicated article. You might be able to find someone through the volunteer

8253:

I was wondering why you deleted 'Demonstration sports have not been allowed in the Olympics since 1992, so any inclusion of netball as such will likely require permission from the IOC' from this article? Although slightly erroneous (I beleive demonstration sports were removed in from the '96 games) I

7549:

In the lead it says "His catchphrase, the annoyed grunt "D'oh!", has been included in the Oxford English Dictionary since 2001.", but later it says "D'oh! was first added to the The New Oxford Dictionary of English in 1998". I think we should mention the year it was first added to a dictionary in the

5443:

seem to have corrupted the dates of all the Games, for example you show Beijing as being from August 08 to December 08 and Athens from January 08 to May 08. I tried to revert the edit but the first line was missformatted so I wonder whether you've changed a template somehere? I'll leave you to sort

3149:

Hope you had a good holiday. As for TRM, I was looking to expand the reception section a bit, before I nominated it. It's not really necessary, but for such a "hyped" episode I can't actually find any more reviews. Not even viewing figures (apart from on Simpsons Channel). As for Oakley, any image is

3063:

I'll go back to my pre-FL director role of just reviewing lists. The director position seem now seems pointless with us in conflict over minimum number of votes to support promotion (despite the community voting against the 4 vote promotion rule). So, just to let you know I'll be look into resigning

2686:

way from being done, but it's something you might want to incorporate into your list someday. The idea is to create three or four line summaries of the families (what they look like, what sort of habitat they prefer, etc.) so that someone unfamiliar with the birds—and potentially without a reference

8448:

I'll have to work on it later, to many edit conflicts. In the opening paragraph it say "he has had a number of remarkable experiences" perhaps a few examples in the lead also? Also, "the only time a Simpsons character has been in the real world in the series", what about when Bart and Lisa fall into

7520:

Well, I really don't feel comfortable writing about philosophy, since I know very little of it. I would prefer if we could find someone else. If we can't do that I could take a stab at it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone would remove everything I write. It can't be before the end of September

7192:

Matthew said he'd be able to take over full time in about three weeks from 22 August - he's on holiday. I don't think there needs to be any pageantry associated with the hand-over - just change the FLC instructions as of, say, 12 Sept to remove me and include Matthew. I'm happy to keep going until

5545:

I cannot nominate Todd Herzog's article for deletion, as you have clearly liaised to me that there was at some point in time a 'consensus' that winners should automatically have an article just for being winners. And I can't nominate Rupert either, because "winner" has not been clearly defined. Now,

5038:

I'm mostly concerned about stopping these nominations early so that nominators know that they shouldn't do this. In almost all of these cases it's because of new editors who think that FAC is a process where the whole community works together on articles, or something similar, and so if we let these

2712:

You had a couple comments on the FLC I submitted but I wasn't sure what they meant. You said numbers under ten should be spelled out but the only place I see numbers less than 10 are in unit names and in dates. What do I need to change? Also, in a few comments you said no full stop, what does that

10165:

It's not the MOS--references can be done pretty much any way you'd like, as long as it's somewhat sensible. That template isn't used much, but I think it is useful in articles like this one where there are only a few book references, so it doesn't make as much sense to separate out the books into a

9873:

Scorpion, I would encourage you to mind your conduct when interacting with your fellow editors, most especially in cases where another editor makes a change that you do not agree with, or reverts one of your edits because he or she does not agree with it. Blocks have already been issued in response

8351:

Hi Scorpion. Hope you're well. Are you now back on "full-time" FLC director duty after the various commitments and holidays you had? Matthew is unable to take over from me for another week but I need to start winding down my contributions to the process a little so I was hoping you could confirm

7675:

of either a primary source or a secondary source. Consider the current statement in the article (which is unsuited for a caption anyway and should be incorporated into the prose): "Lisa's pageant costume ran into trouble with the censors, so it was later added that she was wearing a flesh tone body

9855:

article, but I can say you are pretty much wasting your time trying to discuss the images with him. He's not going to listen to you, he's not going to justify his actions, and I would not be surprised if he tries to throw the images up at IfD when he doesn't get his way. I'd say you've done more

5463:

Hi, sorry I don't log in often enough to WP. Not to labour the point, but surely a few words mentioning the fact that U.S. news sources rank according to totals could be added (wihtout passing judgement). Surely this is noteworthy??? Would have saved your and my time? I have stated the same on the

4822:

Hey Scorpion, can you do me a favour and talk things over with the above user. I closed his FLC today as little interest had been shown in it, and no support at all was forthcoming. Subsequently he's made two joke supports (he calls them "fan supports" to justify them) at lists which are clearly

4662:

useless by wiping out any credit due to the editors who created the list article. Also, it seems to me that the merge proposal was a means to circumvent the lack of consensus to delete the article by very selectively merging the information deemed appropriate and leaving the rest in the history of

2642:

And, to be honest, by saying you need 2 supports, you're just reinserting the old "minimum of x supports" criterion which we voted to get rid of. The point of us being directors is that we are capable of deciding when a list is suitable enough. Hell, if it's not, you'll soon be told, it'll be up

7860:

The "Personality" info is really "Characterization", which generally goes with character development information. It seems odd to have characterization info with the plot information, when you have all the other creation things in another section. It also seems weird that the biography info looks

5519:

I believe the criteria for what makes an article legitimate and illegitimate as it stands is not clearly defined, to say the least. Maybe it should be placed on the actual contestants template discussion page, rather than you trying to explain it to me as an individual. It should be made clear to

5511:

There obviously isn't "consensus" that winners of the game are automatically worthy enough for having a wikipedia article if they haven't done anything noteworthy outside of the show, when evidently I do not agree with such a idea. Todd Herzog's article for instance looks like nothing more than a

4671:

is a GA and that unsourced fancruft lists most certainly don’t belong in a GA. Therefore, I fail to see a useful purpose in the proposed merger other than getting rid of the list article which, by the way, would not have hurt Homer’s article if it had remained as a standalone article. But, like I

3055:

Since you and CrzyCheetah are so concerned that my promotions are compromising the process, I'll leave it to you to promote lists once again. I was pretty pleased with reducing the backlog and increasing throughput but I completely understand the concerns that this may reduce quality. Right now,

2670:

in when someone first accesses it. However, if they then click one of the sortable column headers, there's no way to get the list back in taxonomic order. Is there a way to put numbers in a hidden column, which could be used to resort it taxonomically if someone wanted to see them in that order

2604:

The problem with letting lists drag on and on is that the backlog fills up quick. Right now we're getting around five new lists a day to FLC - say half don't get the support you're after, we'll have a permanent backlog of around 18 lists which is (a) unmanageable and (b) offputting to reviewers.

2588:

It's been a subject of some debate and the conclusion was really that no actual "supports" were necessary for promotion, just that all major points have been addressed and one of the directors is happy with the list. I have been concerned for a while that we get plenty of comments and not enough

1138:

I know that's a long list, but they all deserve recognition for their hard work towards the newsletter. So again, thank you to that list of people, and thank you to all of the newsletter's biweekly readers. If you have an questions, comments, or feedback about the newsletter, remember those links

10068:

In truth, I don't really see the need to go into so much detail about Homer's backstory in the first place. First because most of it has been totally contradicted, and second because we don't attempt to chronicle Homer's wacky adventures that occurred in the fictional "present", like the trip to

5643:

It seemed like something was missing (perhaps it was deleted before - I haven't had the time to check) between "promoted these Games" and "invested heavily" so I added what I was able to glean from the source. If you disagree with this suggest something else. I am editing for fluency and proper

4625:

external link with the same list which can, and I'm afraid will, also be deleted in the near future. I would support the merger in this case but not as an excuse to make deletion of it easier by selectively transferring info into an article and then deleting all of its components until the same

7666:

Do you know the source? Is it or is it not a quote from the DVD commentary? If so, it should be in quotmarks, if not, it should be explained in the prose what the nature of the source statement is, who said it in what context etcpp. to allow readers to evaluate it for themselves. It's original

7321:

available only when the show was aired and was never really 'online'? I am considering a seperate section called "ACCLAIMS AND CRITICISMS" where people will be able to post directly stuff that was seen in favor or against her. The fact that it has gotten to this point is rather laughable a

5486:

As per our earlier communication, you reassured me that the deletion of James Clement, Eliza Orlins and Shii Ann Huang's articles were done out of a wider initiative to ensure that only contestants of Survivor who have done something truly noteworthy outside of the show should have a wikipedia

7320:

Fair enough, but what about information that anyone whom watched SURVIVOR can access via having watched the show? There is plenty of information available that will dispute or confirm much of what was said directly on the show; and there are plenty of interviews that Survivors make that are

10166:

separate section (at least in my view, since they're not qualitatively different, and make up only a small portion of the references overall). You're free to change it back, but I think it makes the references perhaps a little bit easier to use, since you're not jumping between sections?

2507:

breeding - don't like the coloured boxes, also very info-minimalist. Why not roll that column and the notes into "status" so you can have "resident breeder", "breeding summer migrant", "accidental" "winter visitor" "rare breeder" - much more informative, instead of the unending yes/no

5574:

and I want you to know that I already archived the entire SHII ANN page a few weeks ago. Maybe I will wait a few month's before I put it right back up, with of course my own spin on Shii Ann. Or maybe I will wait a few days. Who knows? But I will put it back up eventually.....

8026:

is its own article. "The Good, the Sad, and the Drugly" and "Four Great Women and a Manicure" both have vague airdates (early 2009), while ToHXIX doesn't. Unless I'm assuming the reason ToHXIX has a page is because it has significant amount of information? Please clarify for me.

7545:

You should drop "The Simpsons has been recommended for use in the teaching of sociology to modern-day college students." in the cultural influence section when the philosophy stuff is moved to the analysis section. It is more about The Simpsons as a show, rather than about Homer

3359:

The backlog is well and truly back with nine lists now overdue without support or opposition (except for the usual Be Black Hole Sun supports which I'm tending to discount entirely because of the track record of supporting for supporting's sake) - what do you think we should do?

2985:

Some of the headings are still over-capitalised, eg first one should be "Ducks, geese and swans". The capitalisation in the TOC should match the article headings, otherwise the links don't work eg ] Otherwise looks pretty good. I'd tweak the intros a bit when you get time,

2627:

Well perhaps we'll promote with different criteria then. FAC doesn't work out like that and they have a smaller backlog than FLC. Also, as I said with the current influx, waiting 10 or 15 days will give us a permanent backlog of 15 or 20 lists which will kill the process.

9934:

Be mindful of holding a "trigger happy" approach to reverting others' edits, and of the appropriate responses to editorial and content disagreements on the encyclopedia. Please consider this a final caution regarding the standards of conduct expected of Knowledge editors.

3236:. I think we should be more selective the quotes we use. Not all of the quotes are particularly interesting an insightful. It seems like we just threw in whatever we could find. (I said something similar at the article talk page a while ago, but never got a response.) 5663:

Why not include Homer's musical talent? That's pretty much the only real talent he has and just for that is noteworthy. Homer has displayed over and over he is musically inclined (I even included the episodes as reference), so please reconsider putting that back in.

4616:

is currently deleted and in its place is a redirect. If the discussion defaulted to keep (even if it was with no consensus) and the accepted merger was not completed, I find the current solution the least appropriate due to the fact that all of the information from

2690:

Hope that helps. I'm off to Costa Rica later this afternoon, but I should have access to the internet sporadically over the next few weeks. Feel free to drop me a line if you have more questions—but don't be surprised if you don't hear from me for days at a time!

8367:

To be honest, who knows how I'll feel when (if?) I return. I certainly wouldn't expect to waltz back in and "own" the place. So, we'll have to play it by ear. So, if you're good with taking over for the interim, that'd be great for me, very much appreciated.

2608:

As for a new contest, I like the idea of a trio of vastly different topics, all good. Drewcifer was talking about setting up a Discog contest which is okay in principle but check out some of the discogs currently running (and the HUUUUUGE effort I put on the

9644: 9582: 9578: 6979: 6938: 4240: 4199: 2215: 2178: 2168: 990: 947: 10249:

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you.

7365:

Ah, and one more thing: I was planing to working on these three topics but I don't think I will be able to enjoy working on them since Garry will keep pissing on my talkpage. Keep an eye on the season ones ones once the Good Topics are implemented:

4890:

How dare you revert my constructive edits to this article?? Everyone knows that season 9 was the last good season. If you think Homer trying to make friends with some b-list celebrities is good Simpsons material, then you sir, are sorely mistaken.

3268:

I don't think the reception section should be a subsection of "Controversy", since not all of the reception details (like the ratings information) are directly related to the controversy. (People didn't know the episode would be bad before watching

7208:

Well I'm happy to do that but I think it's probably best that Matthew takes the role as soon as he can - my role won't change until I go away other than the fact that I won't close FLCs. I'll still be offering my "generous" comments to each list!

8146:

Well, I think the Homer Simpson connection is a respectable claim to notabilty. Plus, you must have been able to scrounge up at least a couple of paragraphs worth of information to make the article eligible for DYK. I would have argued to keep

3272:

To answer your other question about the Reception section, one quote that should probably go is the first one, from the Alberti book. That's not really critical commentary. It's just a statement of fact (which has already been discussed in the

3154:

anymore. Anyway, the Comic-Con panel included alot of the current staff, so I should be able to get some more staff images off Flickr soon. Ah well, I think we need to make getting those three episode articles to FA our current main priority.

2560:"*" means extinct, b better if it's only breeding or not - you could refine the system a bit if you wished eg R resident breeder, M migrant breeder, w winter visitor, A accidental, then you could have Rw for a resident breeder/winter visitor 9996:

I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you for your kind words during my RfA and even for saying you would have been my nominator I am honored by that. Thank you,

3288:. A lot of the phrases in the article are too similar to the passage in Alberti's book. We can't just change the order of the words; we need to use our own words as often as possible. (That, or use direct quotations from the source.) 10056:

To be honest, I don't think that's substantially different than what we have now. Even if you put the episode name in parentheses, you'd still need to explicitly state, in the body of the text, that those details are held to be true

7380: 7680:

since it omits the source from the wording and passes off as fact a piece of meta-commentary from a DVD. It needs to be formulated along the lines of "According to a statement by Person X on the DVD commentary of the episode, ..."

160: 11222: 11097: 10329: 9406: 9304: 8610: 6776: 6672: 4108: 2089: 890: 2665:

Hi Scorpion! Good on ya — we always need more bird article editors! ; ) The only potential thing I can see with your new list is that most birders are used to seeing things in taxonomic order, which is the order your list

7834:

I don't see anything that is "missing", so to speak. It's an interesting structure, might not be one that I would use but I don't do any fictional, cartoon, TV characters. I would change "biography". It doesn't really meet

4496:

The reason I added it was because I think NBC has only shown four medal events live (the four swimming from last night). Its fine like it is now. I just hope we don't have to go through the horror that we did last night.

11506: 9665: 8168:

I'll let you know if I run into any additional information. I think the article is pretty interesting. I learned a lot of stuff I didn't know before. :) It could use some copyediting in places, but it's not bad, overall.

5487:

article. So, as we discussed, other contestants' articles shall face deletion for the same reason. I have raised this clean-up issue on the Survivor contestants template discussion page. You should respond on that page:

3587: 5515:

And how does one even define "winner". Does Rupert count as a winner, since he won America's tribal council? If so, shouldn't James Clement have his article reinstated, considering he won a similar sort of thing twice?

9730: 9726: 3121: 2429:

as an FLC. I think I fixed all the problems with it. I am not sure what to do to the articles talk page or to the archived fail log as noted in the resubmission procedures. Could you walk me through how to do that.

2247: 1012: 4626:

result is achieved as would be by deleting the nominated article in the first place. Also, a properly performed merger should be mentioned in the edit summary as well as contain #REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}}, such as

3150:

good, and he'll probably be able to get us a few more in the future, if we ask nicely. What about the questions? In theory he should have some more time on his hands to answer them, considering he isn't involved in

3004: 1554:, date linking is not mandatory in articles. This mainly applies to the project's pay-per-view expanded articles. Please take this regulation in notice and apply it to the project's expanded pay-per view articles. 10075:

Maybe we could also throw in something about his mother somewhere. At the beginning of the section, we could say that both of Homer's parents are living, but that his mother went into hiding when he was a child.

3239:

In addition, I think the overall organization of the article can be better. There's no clear division betweeen "Controversy" and "Reception". "Controversy" should probably be a subsection of the latter (like in

3027: 8627: 7039: 6022: 8206: 6039: 5180:

That is incorrect, you will note that in the second reference noted at the part citing the 2020 bid time frame, Bill Montogomery, AOC second-in-charge, notes that 2020 will be the earliest that Brisbane can

4592: 2401:

right now, the backlog is virtually under control and we're heading for the highest number of promotions in a single month. Let me know when you're back. Oh, we've also had a few little discussions on the

3098: 2267: 1008: 7351:

After Garry left em a message I actually checked the second's nomination history before nominating it, but I seriously did not see your name in more than ~10 of the edits. Anyways I'll do as you wish.

3122: 7438: 7427: 7419: 7401: 143: 7623:? According to the quotation, it's either a literal quote or an indirect quote. Either way, it's meta-commentary by the creator and we cannot legitimately pass it off as canon based on that source. 4981: 4916:

work on it since its previous FL nomination. Why i'm asking you is because of your comment "Wow, it's nice to see a discography for a band that I'm actually familiar with". Thanks for your time. --

4814: 3005: 4658:

Well, I’m not really ready to argue over this one since it seems to be a touchy subject so I worry about opening up a can of worms. I just feel that the way the merge was done completely rendered

3028: 2704: 4559:

Pfft! Well regardless of the Laurier-ness, cheers for your work on the Olympic pages. Shame the Canadian page hasn't seen much positive action yet. Guess we'll wait until 2010 to make our mark.

9695: 11546: 11542: 8207: 3139: 11646: 9814: 8222: 7157: 4316: 3285: 2362: 1225: 7477: 7471: 3470: 3099: 3022: 2263: 11550: 4838:

Also, although the Lostprophets discog was withdrawn, should it be left to Gimmebot to archive it correctly? Will that just happen naturally or ought it be transcluded on the failed log?

3045: 10312: 8599: 5988: 2528:

I still think that the table will be very long, fine with the summaries. Yes, note endangered, make it clear on what basis (in Ontario, Canada or globally) I'm just in-lining your refs.

8284: 7009: 4832: 3116: 8493: 11650: 9818: 7161: 5523:

Well, I don't know which article specifically should next be targeted for clean-up purposes. However, I agree with your stance that it should be done one by one so as to avoid chaos.

4320: 2366: 1229: 5900: 1058: 11654: 11406: 9822: 8077:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 7784:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 7165: 5767:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 5706:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 4324: 2370: 1233: 11676: 2482:

I would add a bit of description to each family article, with refs. The Thailand article has descriptions and refs (77), but not all are appropriate to Canada, the featured list

8290: 4618: 4613: 4605: 4583: 2233: 125: 8073:

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 "

7780:

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 "

7562:

Other than that I can't think of anything. The philosophy book has some good stuff in it, which should be included. I'm not sure if Leaving Springfield can add anything new. --

5763:

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 "

5702:

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 "

11697: 10491: 7399: 6005: 5896:

to get it to FL, and it seems you have done some work in related areas for other shows. Since the number of FLs for such lists is increasing, do you think it's time to create

3436: 2722: 1377: 108: 4784:

sound subjective, certainly for supporters of the Chinese political system, but it is a fact, and I do not know how to say it in another way. Stop the censorship, Knowledge!

11519: 9673: 8341: 7469: 5070: 3542: 2259: 8038: 5161:

it lists the last rank number as 48, but on here we have it as 49. I tried seeing what number was skipped on the Wiki table, but I was unable to do so. Maybe you can help.

324: 9699: 7451:

this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click

7035: 7000: 5397:

this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click

337:

Immediately put into effect, our project has begun use of the List-Class rating. The List-Class rating is for list articles that are of less quality than B-Class articles.

10105: 7643:

I know quite well that and how things are to be sourced. The point is that this source is insufficient to support the current statement. It needs to be converted into a

7375: 7370: 4266: 7464: 5512:

summary of the Survivor: China season; explaining how Peih-Gee got as far as she did, what strategic moves Amanda made, and the logic of why each person was voted out.

11493: 11468: 11402: 10065:

difficult to do that without weighing down the prose with repetitive expressions. I put together a few drafts late last night, but wasn't satisfied with any of them.)

8050: 3128:

I was wondering if The Rambling Man is resigning as FL director and you shouldn't accept your own list as a FL, how are you supposed to have your list become a FL? --

3333:

Well, I've made a few big changes to the organization. I'm not sure if I'm satsfied yet. I'll have to sleep on it, and see what it looks like when I log in tomorrow.

11206: 9687: 9390: 7022: 6760: 4092: 2073: 874: 11677: 10849: 9056: 7256:

Just seen your message. I think Matthew can handle the whole shebang on his own. There's not much trade there, to be honest, and he handles it very well indeed. --

6424: 5887: 4262: 3782: 2229: 1763: 564: 4612:

and there is no evidence of the information from List of Homer Simpson's jobs currently being merged into Homer Simpson. Therefore, for all intents and purposes,

10859: 10854: 10844: 10287: 9722: 9066: 9061: 9051: 8574: 8377: 8237: 7495: 7441:, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at 7246: 7232: 7218: 7057: 6434: 6429: 6419: 5971: 5946: 5728: 5667: 5387:, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at 5226: 4900: 4853: 4847: 3792: 3787: 3777: 3420: 3395: 3092: 2652: 2637: 2622: 1773: 1768: 1758: 1327: 574: 569: 559: 74: 5920: 11515: 10100: 9669: 8094: 7745: 7542:

Quite a few sentences starts with "Homer". I can at least find one place where two sentences in a row starts with "Homer". Could you find a way to reduce this?

5740: 5679: 4877: 3205:

play a fluke and citing sources that are from blogs and not from respected news outlets. Any ideas on how to stop this besides just reverting what he's doing?

3129: 3106: 3035: 3012: 2988:

The procellariids are the main group of medium-sized 'true petrels', characterised by united nostrils with medium septum, and a long outer functional primary.

8066:

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 Knowledge (see

7773:

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 Knowledge (see

7757: 5756:

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 Knowledge (see

5695:

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 Knowledge (see

2275: 1533: 1278: 303: 8062:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 7769:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 5784: 5752:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 5723: 5691:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4371: 11021: 9228: 7801: 6596: 4885: 3954: 1935: 1255: 736: 316: 8505: 5882: 2605:

I've tended to be a little harsher with failures as well, I want to see people pushing lists through PR and not use FLC as a replacement for that service.

11489: 11145: 11072: 11047: 10116: 9279: 9254: 7730: 7704: 7685: 7651: 7627: 6647: 6622: 4005: 3980: 2295: 1986: 1961: 787: 762: 10185:

Well you'd better check with Matthew. Last time we spoke he had trouble with his web access. It was a couple of weeks ago so perhaps it's better now.

2806:

and listen to what you think it is, it is a minute in. My spelling is pronounced PIE GOW. If you still think it is Pigal, we can just leave it omitted.

2751: 2737: 10823: 10480: 9030: 8767: 8487: 7988: 7481: 6398: 6185: 5632: 4808: 4757: 3756: 3083:

to discuss my position. It seems pointless for me to continue in the role if the community disagree consistently with my decision-making. We'll see.

2097: 1737: 1077: 1047: 917: 538: 5217:

As the 2020 bid is still of speculative nature, and as the bid will be decided in consultation with the AOC, it is important to put the AOC's counsel.

11330: 11262: 10945: 10913: 10882: 9970: 9534: 9446: 9152: 9120: 9089: 7074: 6520: 6488: 6457: 4254: 3878: 3846: 3815: 3458: 1859: 1827: 1796: 1402: 1391: 660: 628: 597: 10996: 10970: 10513: 10447: 9203: 9177: 6571: 6545: 6196: 5862: 5057: 4258: 3929: 3903: 2569: 2555: 2537: 2523: 1910: 1884: 1522: 711: 685: 8254:

would argue that this is a valid point which warrents inclusion. Currently the article does not explain that demonstration sports are disallowed.

7620: 5410: 5010:; they were all withdrawn because he was not the primary editor for any of them. I'm letting you know in case you would like to just withdraw his 10469: 10458: 8196: 8178: 8163: 5210: 5145: 4576: 3531: 3342: 3328: 3314: 3297: 2287: 1038: 1016: 7740: 7637: 10502: 8778: 7953: 7876: 7714: 7695: 7661: 7013: 4925: 3214: 3011:

This nomination currently has 3 supports and has been reviewed for over 10 days. Can you please promote or archive this nomination. Thanks! --

2454: 1057:

As I'm sure you noticed above, this is the 20th edition of the WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter! It has come a long way since the

292: 11405:

has recently been revamped, and we will now have 6 collaborations at a time. The current collaborations will stand until they reach a certain

10050: 9581:

has recently been revamped, and we will now have 6 collaborations at a time. The current collaborations will stand until they reach a certain

8082: 7789: 5772: 5711: 5190: 5032: 3105:

This nomination currently has 1 support and has been reviewed for over 10 days. Can you please promote or archive this nomination. Thanks! --

3034:

This nomination currently has 1 support and has been reviewed for over 10 days. Can you please promote or archive this nomination. Thanks! --

9956: 8789: 8481: 8278: 8074: 7781: 7571: 7530: 5856: 5764: 5703: 4687: 4442: 4428: 3260: 2966: 2933: 2900: 2867: 2834: 2483: 2291: 1020: 48: 7929:

Hey, I noticed that the plots are extremely brief so I went on to bulk them up. Is it ok what i have been adding for the first ~4 episodes?

5196: 11214: 10284: 9398: 8622: 8571: 6768: 6017: 5943: 4100: 3392: 3182: 3169: 2706: 2426: 2256: 2081: 1324: 1004: 882: 71: 10552: 8824: 4652: 5293:

Ohh, never noticed that subpage with that discussion. Wish I was as active back then in FLC, congratulations by the way (I know late). --

4738: 2283: 10266: 8553: 5925: 5893: 5465: 4748:

section on the main article yet. (Although the overkill of citations gives me the feeling that we do not trust our editors.) Greetings,

4719: 3374: 2439: 1306: 1061:, and I'm sure it will only improve from here. I'd like to thank everyone reading this for continuing to read the newsletter, biweekly. 10175: 10090: 8397: 8312: 8302: 7031: 5315: 5288: 2279: 1034: 229: 4450:

Unless, I'm mistaken, the IOC sorts alphabetically by their respective national codes. i.e., Spain (ESP) is ahead of Romania (ROU).

1301: 1135:. His bot has to be the most important part of the process, because without it, the newsletter would not get sent to project members. 7607: 6174: 5604:

To my knowledge, we've always listed managers, valets and enforcers. Your edit summary didn't really give me much of an explanation.

5476: 5157:

I thought I'd bring this up with you, since you seem to be one of the more dedicated members who are editing the medal table; on the

4993: 4970: 4553: 4486: 4463: 2271: 10568: 7340: 2415: 53: 10822:. It still would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the 9990:

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an

9951: 9029:. It still would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the 7824: 6397:. It still would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the 5453: 5345: 5096: 26: 10036:

It's a DVD comprising a series of interviews with the staff, primarily about the movie, conducted and produced and distributed by

7908:) I did do that, but I guess I nominated a bit quickly. I'll renominate soon, with the article built like the other two. Cheers.-- 4998: 2598: 10136: 8033: 7288: 6150: 4409: 4360: 3190: 134: 10229: 10194: 9863: 8269:

Thanks for your reply. I've removed the speculation, sourced the statement and elaborated on the 'disallowed' bit. All is well.

8263: 7202: 5571: 5170: 4582: 4386: 3073: 2999: 332:

The C-Class rating has been introduced. The rating falls between articles that are more than Start-Class, but less than B-Class.

11589: 10085: 10030: 9773: 8383: 7919: 7116: 5653: 5440: 5116: 4307: 3369: 2337: 1200: 8140: 11689: 10113: 8361: 7938: 7724: 7613: 5868: 3755:. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the 3227: 2742:

I think I made all the changes you requested but could you take another look and tell me if I need to change anything else?--

1736:. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the 537:. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the 10258: 10069:

outer space or the climbing of the Murderhorn. If it were up to me, all I'd say about Homer's past would be the following:

8529: 8117: 5074: 1547: 11683:

Hi, I am wondering if you can close this FLC for me as a reviewer suggested me to bring the article to peer review. Thanks—

11637: 11458: 11355: 10721: 10547: 9893: 9888: 9805: 9634: 9544: 8894: 8820: 7973: 7554: 7514: 7336: 7148: 5613: 5594: 5567: 5557: 5535: 5500: 4867: 3198: 3175: 3159: 2796: 2699: 401: 152: 10097:

I think you should focus a little more back on being an FL director as there are articles deserving a promotion to FL. --

7315: 5585:- Do you STILL not understand that wikipedia articles are not a place for your "own spin"? It's supposed to be objective. 4522: 10541: 9897: 8816: 8329: 7452: 7394: 7360: 6238: 5429: 4793: 8439: 5337: 2803: 2499: 2486:

has shorter, less reffed summaries, but more appropriate for you area. It also has lots of relevant images you could use

10789: 10656: 10634: 10531: 10256: 10091: 8807: 8408: 7839:, plus it leaves it open to people coming in and adding tons of IU info since biographies are typically comprehensive. 7265: 6324: 6214: 4936: 4912:

Can you please take a look at the Pink Floyd discography to see if its ready for a Featured List nomination. I've done

3682: 3660: 3638: 3560: 1653: 1631: 1596: 3281: 2511:

Family table - Look how many families you have - imho, to have such a long table in the lead would distort the article

32: 10389: 9880: 8687: 7304:, it should be trimmed down to only the sourced info and further any addition of unsourced info is indeed a problem. 6885: 6116: 5619:

Hmm, I don't recall that. When was this. If I can have the month/year this was agreed on, I may be to find it in the

4468: 3578: 3512: 2420: 1508: 380: 366: 278: 224: 8548: 7854: 7667:

research to label it as something else than meta-commentary by the creators ("1.5. source") and to attribute it the

7602: 2589:!votes, but the general consensus was that a minimum number of supports isn't necessary. Welcome back, by the way. 10155: 9868: 8012: 8000: 7084: 5910: 5879: 5260: 4873: 1563: 10008: 4984:

that you opposed in Featured list candidates. Please provide as many references and sources as you can. Thanks! --

1570: 11621: 10486: 10412: 8835: 8228:

Can you do me a favour and cap your comments so they don't put anyone else off from reviewing the list? Cheers!

4975: 3202: 3191: 1442: 5822: 3251:, but I probably won't support it at this time. I'll take a look at the other two articles when I get a chance. 2682:

working on are a set of standard short paragraphs to run at the top of each subsection. Unfortunately, we're a

11573: 10307: 9757: 9566: 9513: 8594: 8054:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 7761:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 7100: 6891: 6360: 6145: 6139: 5983: 5744:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5683:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5175: 5141: 4940: 4930: 4905: 4724: 3572: 3537: 3277: 2321: 2128: 1184: 1160: 928: 522: 9902: 8067: 7774: 5757: 5696: 4955:" for these articles to have these tables? It strikes me as a rather "crufty" addition to these articles. — 11250: 9505: 9434: 7270: 6382: 4966: 4768:

Do you really think the Taiwanese bear the People's Republic flag because they simply like it? I think it is

4693: 4527: 4514: 3740: 1584: 1503: 898: 415: 10021:

I'll take a look. If there's anything I can't immediately fix, I'll post a note on the article's talk page.

2472:

Your headings are not MoS, overcapitalised, should be "Ducks, geese and swans", not "Ducks, Geese and Swans"

2465:

Good to see this list, I spent three weeks in Leamington and Windsor in May a few years back, great birding

2406:

but nothing major has come out of it, but it's probably worth you casting your eyes over it. All the best.

10423: 8920: 6000: 4703: 4682: 4647: 3718: 3431: 3302: 3248: 3233: 1675: 1369: 518: 100: 10818:

We have now reached our goal of getting the number of Stub-Class articles below 600. The current count is

9025:

We have now reached our goal of getting the number of Stub-Class articles below 600. The current count is

6393:

We have now reached our goal of getting the number of Stub-Class articles below 600. The current count is

4799:

I stop contributing at "source citation projects" such as that article. Takes a little bit too much time.

4710:

achieve GA status as well? One of the most notable steps will be reliable references. Thanks once again.--

11390: 11326: 10536: 10160: 9914: 8812: 8113: 6957: 6219: 5458: 4921: 4391: 4218: 3565: 2905:

NO! how are ex'es related in any way? not by blood, and not by marriage, therefore they are NOT related!

2675: 2193: 968: 207: 4419:

it says the placement. Strangely, it shows China first but that might be because it is the host nation.

4400:

I can see what you mean but MSNBC is pretty reputable, and the newstation in question was owned by NBC.

11583: 11374: 10190: 10121: 9767: 8743: 8373: 8357: 8243: 8233: 8218: 7423: 7242: 7228: 7214: 7198: 7110: 6128: 6034: 5369: 5222: 5206: 5186: 4843: 4828: 4356: 4301: 3465: 3365: 3088: 3069: 2733: 2648: 2633: 2618: 2594: 2411: 2331: 1453: 1289: 1194: 9856:

than enough to justify the images. He simply won't be appeased as he believes his opinion is policy.

8389: 4763: 11692: 11605: 11386: 10612: 9789: 8721: 8710: 8017: 7895: 7806: 7132: 6915:

in his neck. Cena received successful surgery the following day, and will be inactive for 2-4 months.

6881: 6346: 5398: 5063: 3710: 2476: 2353: 1283: 1260:

Hey, I'm just curious, where do you usually go to find references for The Simpsons episode articles?

1216: 1105: 903: 346: 5658: 11631: 9992: 9844: 9799: 8732: 8699: 7332: 7142: 6081: 5563: 5449: 5158: 4861: 4451: 4416: 2610: 2120: 1431: 1420: 7430:

has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (

1551: 10876: 10749: 10630: 10016: 9558: 9083: 8023: 6451: 6316: 5481: 5102: 4896: 3809: 3241: 2980: 1790: 1297: 591: 218: 185: 139: 8305:

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

8127:

I was just browsing through the DYK suggestions page, and noticed you had written an article on

4852:

It should be transcluded to the failed log or Gimmebot won't see it. This is what happened with

10407: 10254: 10222: 10171: 10147: 9910: 8670: 8122: 8109: 8105: 7924: 7293: 6961: 6105: 4917: 4906: 4382: 4222: 3144: 3134: 3111: 3040: 3017: 2197: 1528: 1458: 1437: 1064:

I'd like to especially thank those who have helped to get the newsletter to it's 20th edition;

972: 298: 273: 234: 202: 174: 17: 10907: 9114: 8022:

You claim that an episode article must have a date to be an article; that doesn't explain why

6482: 3840: 2514:

summaries, nothing wrong with summary, I'd still add a sentence or so for each family section

1821: 622: 11579: 10557: 10186: 9884: 9763: 8369: 8353: 8229: 8214: 7984: 7969: 7500: 7271: 7238: 7224: 7210: 7194: 7106: 6226: 6134: 5638: 5628: 5609: 5434: 5425: 5218: 5202: 5182: 5166: 5152: 4839: 4824: 4804: 4789: 4753: 4734: 4715: 4397: 4352: 4297: 3501: 3495: 3361: 3084: 3065: 2759: 2729: 2660: 2644: 2629: 2614: 2590: 2407: 2327: 1479: 1473: 1190: 1109: 255: 249: 7505:

Sorry, but I don't have time for it right now. Perhaps some time at the end of September. --

5871:. I realised afterwards what i'd done and went back to change it but you'd beaten me to it. 5794:

Are we not able to use snpp.com for cultural references? Just respond here...I'll watch it.

11685: 11351: 10199: 9906: 8337: 7820: 7460: 7324: 7078: 6838: 6827: 5875: 5649: 5472: 5406: 5384: 5373: 5365: 5347: 5129: 5093: 4815: 4459: 4365: 4170: 4159: 2392: 196: 8453:? Also, where is a source that he is in LA? What happened to the picture of Castellaneta? 8: 11627: 11615: 11318: 11270: 10475: 10418: 9795: 9454: 8762: 8676: 8525: 8510: 8496:. If you are that bugged about unsourced things, just ask the person what his source is. 8450: 7595: 7449:

if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that

7328: 7138: 6831: 6794: 6180: 6111: 5590: 5553: 5531: 5496: 5445: 5395:

if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that

5050: 5025: 4948: 4947:

done that on any of the other ~3000 articles for past Games. It strikes me as a kind of

4857: 4491: 4163: 4126: 2995: 2565: 2551: 2533: 2519: 2495: 2109: 1485: 1467: 1271: 1093: 933: 7617:

The Simpsons season 1 DVD commentary for the episode "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire"

5420:

Please read the citation I put in the medal table article. It shows that I am correct.

446: 11670: 11567: 11338: 11291: 10807: 10735: 10141: 10081: 10026: 9966: 9860: 9838: 9751: 9475: 8501: 8402: 8244: 8192: 8183:

I don't have either, unfortunately. The only heavily analytical Simpsons book I own is

8174: 8159: 8136: 7346: 7277:

Thank so much for your help with this article, especially the Production info. Cheers,

7181: 7094: 6845: 6801: 5333: 5308: 5281: 5253: 5137: 5112: 5039:

editors know that this is not the case early on, then they will be on the right track.

4892: 4573: 4550: 4340: 4177: 4133: 3338: 3324: 3310: 3293: 3256: 3210: 3080: 2613:- it was reference-hell) and that worries me a bit. But the more the merrier I guess! 2583: 2475:

I would force the table width so all are the same, looks better. In the featured list,

2403: 2386: 2315: 2156: 1592: 1293: 1249: 1178: 1157: 4856:

when it was withdrawn. I happened to see it a month later so I archived it yesterday.

3280:, and I'm a bit concerned about what may be considered borderline plagiarism. Compare 2687:

book to refer to—might still have a chance of narrowing down what they're looking at.

11418: 11255: 10508: 10442: 10384: 10251: 10205: 10167: 10132: 9928: 9920: 9594: 9520: 9439: 8738: 8682: 8008: 7949: 7934: 7901: 7871: 7849: 7812: 7734: 7708: 7689: 7655: 7631: 7437:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting

7390: 7356: 7261: 6861: 6820: 6808: 6342: 6229:

rating has been incorporated into the project's assessment. It's intended use is for

6191: 6123: 6099: 5966: 5620: 5383:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting

4960: 4699: 4508: 4375: 4346: 4152: 4140: 3751:

Our goal is to get the number of Stub-Class articles below 600. The current count is

3489: 3415: 2747: 2718: 2450: 2435: 2149: 2135: 1732:

Our goal is to get the number of Stub-Class articles below 600. The current count is

1517: 1497: 1491: 1448: 1351: 533:

Our goal is to get the number of Stub-Class articles below 600. The current count is

267: 261: 8213:

Hey Scorpion, could you revisit this and let me know where I stand please? Cheers.

7964:

Aren't those reigns unofficial? If so, I would think they shouldn't even be listed.

4780:

but you will find that even more subjective, I guess) bear the communist flag. This

11277: 10753: 10699: 10673: 10464: 10453: 10372: 10348: 10234: 10180: 9876: 9845: 9550: 9530: 9461: 9014: 8992: 8984: 8938: 8876: 8831: 8716: 8705: 8664: 8477: 8435: 8274: 8259: 8059: 7980: 7965: 7959: 7914: 7905: 7766: 7567: 7526: 7510: 7187: 6943: 6378: 6302: 6280: 6230: 6093: 6064: 6058: 5852: 5818: 5749: 5688: 5624: 5605: 5599: 5421: 5323: 5266:

Sarcasm? But really, were you appointed or did you just make yourself a director?--

5233: 5162: 4989: 4800: 4785: 4749: 4730: 4711: 4678: 4643: 4622: 4438: 4424: 4405: 3736: 3616: 3526: 3050: 2962: 2929: 2896: 2863: 2830: 2792: 2696: 2543: 1097: 1069: 958: 482: 384: 356: 117: 89:

Thank you for reading WikiProject Professional Wrestling's 20th Newsletter Edition

10243: 5107:

Any particular reason you removed my trivia section on "Jazzy and the Pussycats"?

4935:

Why do you think it is useful for this table to appear (someday) on articles like

2397:

Hi Scorpion, hope you had a great break. Things are moving along quite nicely at

11450: 11345: 11295: 10575: 10497: 10378: 10360: 10324: 9626: 9479: 8970: 8956: 8773: 8727: 8694: 8652: 8605: 8544: 8534: 8494:

Talk:List_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment_employees#Carlito_.26_Primo_Col.C3.B3n

8333: 8325: 8090: 7836: 7816: 7797: 7672: 7480:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

7456: 7446: 7415: 6949: 6918: 6869: 6272: 6087: 6076: 5872: 5780: 5719: 5645: 5468: 5402: 5392: 5361: 5082: 4702:

article achieve the GA status. Would you mind helping me improve the articles on

4627: 4455: 4433:

I was talking about the overall place. I'm sorry if it didn't come out that way.

3678: 3507: 3354: 2938:

Why don't u discuss it here before just reverting everything like you always do!

2542:

You can define and combine statuses as you see fit - for example, in the UK, the

2460: 2101: 1426: 1415: 1065: 921: 496: 287: 243: 43: 7431: 5377: 4672:

said, I’ll leave it alone even though I disagree with the way this was handled.

11611: 11334: 11246: 10826: