User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 36

Please help with the Apple Inc. collaboration
Monomium (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver GA review
I have fixed most of what you brought up in the Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver review, and have comments on some of it. Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PresN RfA
Would you be interested in co-nominating User:PresN with me? I'll probably have the nomination draft up tomorrow. RfA has clearly shown the desire for more prominent content-oriented nominations, as they demonstrate raw ability to judge, deal with dispute and consensus building, and follow policy, thus making reasonable candidates as long as they demonstrate understanding of Admin-related policies/guidelines in the RfA. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let you know when I'm done with my nomination. You can write your co-nomination right under it or something. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here it is
I just typed out my nomination. Requests for adminship/PresN. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it's up. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kk, here's what I ended up doing to Golden Sun yesterday: . &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Noticed you haven't posted your nominator support yet. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Offer to review
Thanks Per this, you're interested in looking at Everything That Happens Will Happen Today, and I'd appreciate your feedback. I'll work on for a third round. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Everything_That_Happens_Will_Happen_Today
Thanks I've done a little of what you suggested on this talk page, but some of it is difficult for me. Generally speaking, I am weakest at prose--which is to say that I'm usually better at categorization, templates, citations, adding media, structure, etc.--and I've gone over this page so many times. It's honestly exhausting to consider going over it again, but I really want this to be FA work.

As far as the media goes, it was under review during both of the other FA nominations and passed those times. I'm not saying that your concern is entirely unfounded, but it's been defended already to others' satisfaction.

Anyway, I will be happy to amend the text as you require, but it will probably take a little hand-holding and the input of someone else at a peer review, because I've amended this text so many times that I honestly don't know what more to do here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I have no anticipations from you and you've already been helpful. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves
Hi, and thanks for taking care of the Template:WikiProject Biography move request. When closing move discussions, remember to also remove the movereq template from the talk page so that the bot knows to delist the discussion from WP:RM. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I also thank you for moving the template and its talk pages. You fulfilled my prediction at what became the end of the discussion of the move and made it almost mandatory that the discussion be closed as the move had been made leaving nothing to discuss.  JimCubb (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox video game
I think something went wrong when you moved the italic title template down. The last field of the infobox now has some additional blank space at the bottom. Prime Blue (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm an admin now
Thanks for nominating me for adminship! I'm happy to have been selected; any rumors that I'm working on ways to delete the main page and not leave an edit summary while doing so are greatly exaggerated. -- Pres N  07:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections!
Dear David Fuchs, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Lar, stick the questions where you wish and I'll try to get to them as soon as possible. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, and thanks for the quick answer. Sorry for the delay in actually posting them, I've just been flying home from SFO all day... ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Balls
I see yours are bigger than mine, by a considerable margin. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Spreading the abuse around is always good. Well, good luck to you. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirill's comment
Hi David. Could you point me to the comment of Kirill's described here? I'm not sure where to look. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was mostly referring to the comments such as "An ever-increasing fraction of our workload consists of 'behind the scenes' work—hearing appeals, responding to questions and complaints, investigating allegations of sockpuppetry. Managing this is less visible and glamorous than case work." from the interview itself; I've tried to make my response a little clearer in that regard. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the interview I linked. I feel a bit sheepish. Thanks for getting back to me.--Chaser (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

LexisNexis
Hey. Hate to bother you about this, but—following your suggestion about a week ago—I sent you an email request for LexisNexis sources. The most important one was a Boston Herald article about Looking Glass Studios audio; I believe the others were System Shock reviews. I just wanted to make sure you didn't, for example, miss my email due to the dissimilarity of my email address (johnadkins256) and Wikipedia name. No rush, though; just looking for a status update. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you're running for ArbCom; sorry about the above. There is no hurry whatsoever on this. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! You have no idea how helpful these will be. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Populous-stage.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Populous-stage.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

House Pilot
I did quite a bit of copy-editing a couple weeks ago in preparation for today, but I don't have time to make further adjustments. It's already on the main page anyway! &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh
What'll you give me if I bring Thomas Kinkade to FA? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Question on Afd
In your close of Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series (5th nomination) you didn't state whether you saw consensus, you restated one arguement that was made with a !vote to delete. Why do feel their was a consensus to delete rather than a "no consensus" close? You can reply here as I will watch the page. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that opinion was based in policies and was not refuted by any who supported keeping the article. Consensus isn't counting heads, it's about strength of arguments, and the delete opinions were far stronger than the keep's. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your position. In that case I was wondering if you would be open to userfying the article into my userspace, so I can work on it, trim it down alot, and hopefully reintroduce it to the project when it is ready, farther down the road. Outback the koala (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * David, I have not heard back from you. If you are not open to userfying the article could you explain your reasons why please? Outback the koala (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! it may take a while but it will likely help the project. :) Outback the koala (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronology of the Harry Potter Series
I understand, though disagree, with the reasons for the deletion. However, I wonder if someone who wanted this deletion so badly should revisit all the HP articles to remove references to birthdates and links to the page that was deleted? Or is this something that will be done gradually? Ccrashh (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chronology of the Harry Potter Series
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chronology of the Harry Potter Series. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Outback the koala (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

New comment at South Park (season 13)
Hey David, it's Hunter Kahn from over at the South Park (season 13) FAC. I was hoping you could take a look at the new comment I made over at that review and weigh in with your thoughts. I posted it because there seemed to be a growing movement to take a tally of the yes/no votes regarding the image, but I didn't want it to come to that because I felt it would be disrespectful to you and Fasach. In the spirit of compromise, I made two suggestions. However, I would like to add that I personally feel the FAC discussion does indicate there is a WP:CONSENSUS for the image, and hope that you will at least consider suggestion #1 and consider not opposing the article based strictly on the image, even if you disagree. After nearly a month at FAC, I'd hate for this one issue alone to sink the nomination. Thanks, and sorry to be a pest! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

.hack FAC
As someone who commented on the previous FAC, perhaps you'd be interested in taking a look at Featured article candidates/.hack (video game series)/archive2? Thank you in advance, Axem Titanium (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lara Croft images
David- The images in the Lara Croft article are being discussed at the FAC. Hahnchen suggested a different main image. I also removed one image per comments from Fasach Nua, but other comments suggest that the matter could do with further discussion. I asked Fasach Nua to comment further on the removal rationale. Could you please weigh in as well? Full disclosure: I disagree with the removal, but will follow consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Multiplayer online battle arena/Dota (genre)/Action RTS
Hey, So, I figured it may be time to solve the debates with the Multiplayer online battle arena and Dota (genre). Will it be possible to provide administrative input or action for this debate, since it seems the creator of the latter feels ownership over his article and considering Valve and IceFrog's own words, the genre would be best described as an "Action RTS". D arth B otto talk•cont 21:53, 01 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, neither of the primary editors vying between Dota (genre) or multiplayer online battle arena seem ready to see their contributions condensed into one page. Dotaveteran appears to feel ownership over the article he created and User:User:Immunmotbluescreen has been on a serious defense, reverting my edits, sending me warnings and spreading bad word about the fact that I quoted the genre from the Dota 2 blog, which he says is from an "evil corporation" and shouldn't be stood for. I appreciate both of their levels of enthusiasm and would be for seeing their original work remaining, but when we have two articles saying the exact same thing, something has got to give.
 * My proposition, which they have been both opposed to, is that we merge the information of both articles into "Action RTS". It has been stated by DotA's longest-serving, official and current developer, backed by the company that has a trademark that is in its final processing stages. I think it would be perfectly appropriate and would spark the least debate. There will be debate, but that's the way things go with this kind of forward motion. D arth B otto talk•cont 00:57, 02 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposition, which they have been both opposed to, is that we merge the information of both articles into "Action RTS". It has been stated by DotA's longest-serving, official and current developer, backed by the company that has a trademark that is in its final processing stages. I think it would be perfectly appropriate and would spark the least debate. There will be debate, but that's the way things go with this kind of forward motion. D arth B otto talk•cont 00:57, 02 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC
We could use your input at the Roger Waters FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I pinged all previous commentors who had not yet supported or opposed the article's promotion. — GabeMc (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Good job on this, the state of these articles a year ago was shocking and the improvements are appreciated Fasach Nua (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Shout-out
Thanks for the kind comments. I saw you got Voyage Home to GA status. Keep up the good work! -Mabeenot (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In the news today


... David Fuchs condemned to serve on ArbCom. Film at 11 (and congratulations now). &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well! I look forward to working with you in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too! Good to have you on the team. I was going to tell you that I'd sent you an email, but you've already responded. :-)  Risker (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats, just don't forget to find time to finish your Star Trek series so I can read them. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done, and I echo Ed's request. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

* insert cabal joke here* In all seriousness, I hadn't realized that the results were in. Congratulations! I'm sure you'll be an excellent member of the committee. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13) image (again)
To Fasach and David: I wanted to let you that I've restored the infobox image to South Park (season 13). It was suggested by one of the two objectors to the image that my compromise attempt was not the best way to go; that it circumvented the FAC, constituted forum shopping, made the article unstable, etc. etc. It was suggested that it would be better to either add the image or not, and then let the chips fall where they may with the FA delegate, so that's what I've done. I wanted to let you know so that you can weigh in and restore your oppose vote if you like, which I fully respect. (I also stated on the page that I expect this would lead to the restoration of that oppose vote, and that I'm sure it will be considered by the delegate.) Thanks, and please understand I mean no disrespect by readding the image despite your comments, nor did I mean any disrespect by proposing my compromise idea. I was simply trying to reconcile the conflicting comments about the image. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations from me as well. I look forward to working with you during the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Halo: Reach GAN
While I'd agree that almost everything looks great, the Reception section is extremely short given the amount of coverage it had. I just don't see any way of it passing GAN without expansion there, especially when it only talks about one aspect of the reviews. --Teancum (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

.hack
In your copious free time, before the rest of it gets sucked away at ArbCom, could you take a peek at Featured_article_candidates/.hack_(video_game_series)/archive2? I'm not altogether convinced that it's been thoroughly research, but then I could probably be easily persuaded that is has if I get a second opinion from you. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a gentleman and a scholar. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Master and Commander-The Far Side of the World poster.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Master and Commander-The Far Side of the World poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Blurb on you
Hi David, I wonder whether you'd mind reviewing the short blurb on you at The Signpost's "Election report", which is due for publication in not much more than 24 hours. I cobbled together the information from your RfA, your userpage, and wherever else I could, hoping it's not a plain repetition of the information about you that was part of the election process. Some of it might be a little out-of-date, and please check for balance, inclusion, tone, etc. We are happy if you edit it yourself, if necessary. Thanks. Tony  (talk)  17:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a rumour being passed around. I heard it the other day. If it's untrue, or you'd prefer to remain anon. on that count, please tweak it out of the blurb. Tony   (talk)  17:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, reads nicely now. Tony   (talk)  17:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Plateosaurus
Hye David, is (or more correctly will be) a first-timer at FAC with Plateosaurus and I am looking to different people to nag to give it the once-over before hand (nice to have a paelontologist get into the swing of things...). I think me and firsfron have looked at it quite a few times so a new set of eyes'd be good. Even a brief look-over would be good (I actually think it looks in pretty good shape). Be the first dino article for a while - have also reactivated the collaboration to see how it flies in Jan...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi David, appreciate your rather thorough dealing with Plateosaurus! Thanks! Please go through all the way :) So far all you changed looks perfectly fine, but one of the inline questions leaves me with a reply question:


 * how much detail should be given in general for complex terms that are wikilinked? I think "taphonomy" is a pretty good example of a term that encompasses much more than can be summarized in less than five words (although I will try). Because there is a perfectly good article on the subject, I fear that giving an incomplete summary will lead to readers to whom the term is unfamiliar not clicking through, and thus "taking home" the insufficient explanation. This often may not be a big problem, but in biological sciences, where we fight the eternal defensive war against intolerant religion, this may be an unnecessary partial defeat. Essentially, we miss an opportunity to teach, and give an oversimplified, and thus potentially misleading answer instead. As you probably noted we tried to give many in-line explanations, and I will add those for cervical and caudal, too (because there is no potential for misinterpretation), but I still want to have the links in the text as an invitation to dig deeper, and go from "knowing about one genus" to "understanding an extinct animal".


 * I'll be quite busy and away for a few days now, but will try to address the issues you raise as quickly as possible. Please hammer me hard and ASAP if changes are not what you expected or wanted to trigger with your remarks! HMallison (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your points and agree, thank you very much!
 * Another thing: when I formatted references I copied the style I found, then later someone altered it a bit. I never made sure it conforms to any guidelines, because on de.wikipedia I made the nasty discovery that they demand everything formatted in a style typical for language studies, but totally uncommon in natural sciences. I therefore closed both eyes and left things the way they are natural to me, and common in the discipline. When you get to the ref list, and find things not in order, please don't yell ;) HMallison (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)
Hey. You had weighed in at the first FAC for South Park (season 13), which got hung up largely because of the image. Now there is a second FAC discussion ongoing, where once again the image is dominating the conversation. At the FA delegate's suggestion, I am asking everyone who participated in the first FAC to weigh in once again, if it's not too much trouble, but please comment on the full set of FA criteria rather than just the image fair use rationale, so we can work toward a consensus on the overall FAC. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hey. When Halo: Reach is reviewed and passed, could you give me a ping? This way I can note that on the featured topics list and I won't have to worry about that one. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know as you asked;
Regarding this question, the user who made the edit was, seen here. They have also made other questionable edits.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Humpback to the Future
I could be a bit dense since I still could not figure out the statement about the panning (and I just re-watched the scene). Regardless, that may not matter in the grand scheme of things. What I am more concerned about (and makes me hesitant to support) is the un-sourced cameo list. Note: I am about to go on vacation in about 24 hours, so I might leave a "conditional support" (that the list be cited or removed) before I leave, just in case you have not the time to respond. Jappalang (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia)
Hello! Your submission of Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried an alternative hook and would like to know if I understood. Please also look at the first line of the article, and I think to mention the hook fact twice in the article is enough. I found it three times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Trent Reznor
Hey David. I need help. I noticed that Trent Reznor was at GAR for over a year and after being allowed to close it, I don't know to delist it or keep its GA status. Can you look at the article and give your opinion? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, David. I delisted the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Hi, congrats on FA, didn't actually see that it was at FAC but clearly it didn't need my support to get the bronze star -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia)
Materialscientist (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It rhymes
How would you like to review TVC before I send it to FAC? If its not up to stuff, you can treat it as a GAC. :P « ₣M₣ »  01:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:William Shatner.jpg
Hi David, congratulations on the election, can you check the OTRS on File:William Shatner.jpg, it seems too good to be true Fasach Nua (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your work on the previous image is appreciated, and perhaps you could weigh in on the ST templates Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_2 Fasach Nua (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)