User talk:Fourthords/Archive 8

Re: rollback
Rollback is really a simple and uninteresting tool. Considering how long you have been around here, you should really consider going for adminship.&mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hee. I didn't want to denigrate your opinion of my contributions by pointing out that rollback didn't really seem like that big a deal.  I mean, the navigation popups script can essentially do the same thing.  But since I enjoyed having somebody look at my contributions and award me something based upon them, I thought telling you that "jeez, that's not really a big deal" would have been kinda a kick in the huevos.  I do though, appreciate the "thank you" that your awarding verbalized for me.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from 1988–1989 United States network television schedule (late night)
Hello Pd THOR, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 1988–1989 United States network television schedule (late night) has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary ' (not an uncontroversial deletion) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article toAfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
 * Well, I certainly thought it uncontroversial in light of the Verifiability policy, but mayhap has plans to expand and source the article.  Thanks.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Star Trek: First Contact NFC
I try and find images that show multiple elements, and aren't just images that aid the text in a simple sense (i.e., "oh, that's what the enterprise looks like") but also provides a bit of scene deconstruction. File:St08-uss enterprise e.png shows the Enterprise and the blend of computer-generated imagery with traditional model shots. File:S08-first contact borg queen assembled.ogv shows the Borg Queen andthe "signature" visual effect of the film, as well as providing a glimpse of the Borgified sections of the ship. I still have to do some tweaking before I take that article to FAC; the enterprise image is a mite too large, but it will be interesting to see what the consensus is on the video (didn't get much of a response on WT:FAC)—if people agree it's allowable, it will make for some much better coverage (try explaining how you blew up a couple of models and superimposed explosions without this, for example.)-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, please don't think I'm taking you to task for the NFC currently in the article, I just wanted to know if it had been your discretion to use what is currently being used. That being the case, I wanted to give you something.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) continued at User talk:David Fuchs

File:Guffaw.gif
Thanks for the FYI - I've renominated it on today's listings. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of USS Emily
Hello! Your submission of USS Emily 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! Javért  &#124;  Talk 05:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! —   pd_THOR  undefined | 05:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm just sorry that it didn't work out. Regards, Javért   &#124; Talk 05:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles
Hello Pd THOR, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
 * PROD removed from Badger (Farthing Wood), by User:DGG, with summary '(consider how to merge a little more of it into the list., preferred to deletion.)'
 * PROD removed from Barry Barker, by User:DGG, with summary '(fixed)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you -SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, isn't he ... active? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of the screaming
People have been trying to get the Adobe icons converted to SVG for years. This is an extremely bad idea. There is no way that an SVG could visually match the icons exactly enough. Shadows alone are extremely finicky here on Wikipedia. It's just frustrating to see people falsely tag these icons again and again. TKGD2007 00:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would probably just go over a little better if you made such an argument in the edit summary, or left one on the image's page (or talk page) to explain it. Just saying.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the nice welcome. Very appreciated. It did take some time to dig up the outcome of the lawsuit, as the case is decades old!Fragma08 (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I can
It was an image of a copyrighted graphic, and I'm paranoid about that kind of thing. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  05:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually wasn't copyrighted; if you check, it fell under PD-textlogo and was only deleted because it's now on commons (commons:file:SGUTVlogo.jpg). Furthermore, I just want the talk page, not the image itself please.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 05:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. Seehere for more the new discussion. Dale10:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your tenacity. —   pd_THOR  undefined| 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be rude. Just a nice reminder; they're rather commonplace on Wikipedia. Dale 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I wasn't being rude!  I honestly appreciate it when somebody goes out of their way to remind me or make me aware of happenings that I may be interested in.  But to do so requires tenacity on the notifier's part; I appreciated yours.  More to the point, I appreciate it because it's not terribly commonplace.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I do apologise! The word "tenacity" can hold negative connotations (school teacher used to use it that way) so I misinterpreted what you typed. The beauty of the internet, eh? Dale
 * No worries! —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name fromthis list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Amanda in costume.jpg
Could the sourcing of this image possibly be updated? I'm a little dubious about a free image of an actor in role, and the source links are dead...J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that the Commander, Submarine Force's website is having difficulty with all of their media; the link fromthe main page to their own official photo gallery (http://www.sublant.navy.mil/Photo%20Gallery) doesn't work either. Here is an Internet Archive link to the original source page, and it references the image (the filename and sizing should prove identical), although the file itself obviously isn't there in the archived version.  Will that suffice?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Florina Museum prod
Hi Pd THOR, I removed the prod from Florina Museum of Modern Art because from all the mess of Greek Museums this happens to be a valid and notable enough one. I was slow getting to it as it's not on top of my/WP Museums cleanup list (User:Hoverfish/Sandbox). You can see the ones I sent to the bin somewhere near the bottom of the page. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 14:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No complaints from me, given you've added some references which is what the article was dearly lacking! —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Imcome
You're in the US Air Force. I want to ask how much money one is paid per month if he/she joins the US air force. Qajar (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service's website, new enlistees are currently earning $1399.5 per month as an E-1, $1568.7 per month as an E-2, and $1649.7 as an E-3. Freshly minted officers on the other hand&mdash;provided you're already in possession of a bachelor's degree&mdash;earn $2655.3 per month.  Hope this helps!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 06:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that depending on circumstances, you may be entitled to more. Most commonly, if you're married you'll also draw down Basic Allowance for Housing and basic allowance for subsistence, both of which vary in amounts depending on where you're stationed.  —  pd_THOR  undefined | 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is locatedhere, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed1719:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

File:2.9 Ludachristmas.png
I have responded on about your issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyxaus (talk •contribs) 10:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Noley Thornton
Hi! I'm a little confused as to how my edit on her page had numerous violations? Everything on it is from IMDB.

Youropheliac (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're referring to my reversion ofthese edits? Myverifiability and reliable sourcing concerns principally stem from consensus that information from the Internet Movie Database does not qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia.  You also removed formatted citation templates in favour of nigh bare urls to the same sources.  Lastly, I replaced the tabled information (without regard to its verifiability) with the wider site-wide consensus for filmography lists (WP:LOW).  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi Pd THOR. Regarding this edit, I just wanted to let you know that it's usually not necessary to change links to avoid redirects. See WP:Do not fix links to redirects that are not broken for more information. Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it onWikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew andThe ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Image
What's the issue? C T J F 8 3  chat 02:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The copyrighted image has no non-free rationale for its usage in that article, since it is neither the subject of the article, nor does the article discuss (and provide critical commentary on) the image. For every copyrighted media on Wikipedia, it has to meet thenon-free content criteria for each and every time we use it.  —   pd_THOR undefined | 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The race is about him, I fail to see the problem, other than it wasn't rationed on the image page C T J F 8 3  chat 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, you say you fail to see the problem, and then list it immediately afterward. WP:NFCC requires all images be rationaled for use on the pages where included.  File:Bix Beiderbecke 1924.jpg does not explain why Bix 7 Road Race and Memorial Jazz Festival needs to use the copyrighted image to depict the individual after whom it is named.  That's all; if you can make such a rationale, that's what it needs.  —  pd_THOR  undefined | 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will this be a commons available file. C T J F 8 3  chat 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent idea, but unfortunately that particular picture has been restricted to "non-commercial" use; only CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licenses on Flickr can be uploaded to Commons, otherwise they have the same standing as regularly copyrighted content. I have two suggestions though: (a) This search will list all pictures tagged with "Bix" and "Race" that can be uploaded to the commons; unfortunately, currently there are none.  (b) You could contact the user through their Flickr account (Flickr msg is better than leaving a comment) and ask them to re-license it as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.  I've done option b several times with surprising success!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Wikipedia, being free, was non-commercial. C T J F 8 3 chat 03:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! You're right, Wikipedia is libre-licensed under a CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license, meaning that you can do anything you want to with it, so long as you (1) attribute it to Wikipedia and its contributors, and (2) keep it licensed under a CC-BY-SA license.  You can even print it out and sell it, so long as you're doing those two things.  The confusion is that Creative Commons' "non-commercial" license means that youcannot use it for commercial (money-making) purposes.  So, Wikipedia can be used for money-making purposes, but that image's copyright holder says they don't want it being used like that.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. I asked the user about changing his license, worst case scenario, I'll wait till July and take my own free image. :) C T J F 8 3  chat 03:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would, of course, be awesome! Good luck!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, back to the original issue, if I add rational to the photo of Bix, I can add it back to this page? You can see how it is relevant here. C T J F 8 3  chat 03:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reading up at WP:RATIONALE for the whole thing, but yeah, that's really what you needed. If it makes any difference, if I hadn't caught it, there're bots that would have soon enough.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Talk page banner
Good Morning I noticed that you removed the talk page banner from the David Lakin article with a rather ambiguous link to the template page. Let me explain my logic for doing this. I am in the process of buidling up the content, classess, etc for the Medal of Honor recipients and this includes the talk pages. Additionally this is only the first edits of what will likely be several to build up and cleanup the banners on the Medal of Honor recipient pages. I am adding this template so that I can more easily add the banner shell (because every one of these articles will have between 3 and 8 different banners when I am done). I am also going to be adding project banners, adding criteria such as the B class checklist, which ones need a photo, removing the needs infobox (because they all have one, removing the needs persondate because if they don't have the persondata I will add it, add/expand article history, etc. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. --Kumioko(talk) 14:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't see the correlation between having a lot of Project banners (inside or outside of the shell) and thetalk header template. The latter doesn't actually say anything about banners at all, it's just for "particularly active talk pages that attract commentary from inexperienced editors, and/or high levels of debate from everyone."  It also specifically notes "This template should be used only when needed." and "Calm talk pages do not need this template."  I certainly laud your dedicative interest in working on Medal of Honor recipients' articles, and don't mean to dissuade you from doing so at all, but where do adding Project banners overlap with needing the talk header as well?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your pessimism and in fact I only recently started using my time to work on them, and heres why. I have found that, if I utilize all possible banners, task forces and criteria (no persondata, infobox, image) that the article tends to get more interest and edits due to the number of different projects that go on. Know one could argue that why don't I just update them one at a time with all the chanegs before moving onto the next article and that would be a good question. I have noticed that it draws attention to the article and each time I edit the article, someone notices and very often make a couple significant but incremental changes, to the article or talk page (as this example shows in a way). Of course it doesn't happen to every article every time but it does increase the articles visibility over time. Another reasonn is that what I have noticed is if I periodically make relatively small changes (or sometimes even large ones), I can more easily make the change using an automated or semi automated tool like AWB (the more edits I do at the same time the more they tend to interfere with each other).  The reason I started with the talk page addition is because it nearly always comes on top and then banners (with the exception of article history) and once I add the talk banner I can look for that and the look for the banners for Biography, Milhist, and United States (the first 2 are most commonly on top). Other wise I end up with multiple hits all over the talk page and have to click around to undo them before moving on. Aside from this it also standardizes it and gives it a structure that is consistent between the various recipient pages which I believe in general will make it easier for inexperienced users. Rather than only putting it on a page after they are already confused I am trying to be proactive instead of reactive.  I hope this helps and I apologize for the Novel. --Kumioko (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:57635031 25ae6f0642 o d.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:57635031 25ae6f0642 o d.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on thefile description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Self Made Man/GA1
I have reviewed the above article, and placed it on hold. J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads-up. —   pd_THOR  undefined| 02:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I swear I didn't look at the section above this one when I typed that. I'm so glad I'm awesomely original and not repetitive at all.  —  pd_THOR  undefined | 02:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you forgot to watchlist, replied. I hope we can get this passed soon, so you can claim the points for the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Actually, when it took so long to get this article looked at, I kinda mentally dropped out of the Cup.  You prompted me to look again, and based on the numbers right now, if we can get this through, it'll put me in the top 64 for the next round!  Ooh!  Neato!  Thanks!  —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied again. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks again. I do plan to be on all day, so you can just rely on my obsessive watchlist refreshing if you'd like.  :^)  —  pd_THOR  undefined | 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Promoted :) J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Lakin
I appreciate that you were taken back by my comment but your edits removed the infobox, the portals and see also links, the persondata and adjusted the Medal of Honor section into the lead. Im not sure how else to define it. I do admit though that you added a lot of good references and added some good info though. --Kumioko (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh... You weren't referring to this edit from 65 days ago, you were referring to this edit from 174 days ago?  I naturally assumed you were referring to the more recent minor edit, not the prior one.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping atWikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupid error
Thanks No, I did not mean that, and I have fixed this stupid error a few times (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judgment_%28Star_Trek:_Enterprise%29&diff=prev&oldid=350504015 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desert_Crossing&diff=prev&oldid=350499868 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dawn_%28Star_Trek:_Enterprise%29&diff=prev&oldid=350499551 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damage_%28Star_Trek:_Enterprise%29&diff=prev&oldid=350499507 ), but I'm glad that you saw one of my errors that I didn't catch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk •contribs) 01:16, 18 March 2010
 * No prob! —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Space Oddity
Whereas I have no great feelings whether this should be dab page (not withstanding that the two major 'Space Oddity' articles are Bowie-related and the other 2 are merely sub-titles), I wish you would now at least move the 250 odd articles which are now wrongly pointing to the dab page. At the moment you have only done the smallest part of the job! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies! It probably won't be until late this evening, but I'll definitely clean that up.  I didn't do it at the time because class was over, and my need to kill some time was sated.  ;^)  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, following up allowed me to catch all the instances where the song was incorrectly linked instead of the album. I left a few linking to the DAB page since I can't differentiate whether they're supposed to be linking to the song or the album.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're a gentleman & scholar. I jumped too soon and should have given you the benefit of the doubt. Too many editors think they only have to move the page. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group)this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and, who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round-competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome atWikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal at WikiProject Star Trek
Hi Pd THOR, I have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek and thought you might be interested. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Antitrust (film)
About this edit which you reverted & commented: "not a minor edit, please leave in original formatting for the time being per WP:CITEHOW;". Watch out for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWN --Lexein (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It's quite usual to use note/reference for repeated, verbose citations, to ease the reading of citations.
 * 2) It's a minor edit, because it altered no article content, and no information was lost, not even ref name=.  But I can see how it might seem major. No need to revert over a checkbox, however.
 * WP:CITEHOW does not defend verbose, cluttered, bloated citation styles, nor demand consistency over usability. Don't be a slave to style.

Here's good. We can at some point move the results of our discussion to the article talk page. --Lexein (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the wider sense of things, I don't have any complaints or problems with switching up the footnoting stylature at Antitrust (film). I have myself looked at the repetitive footnotes and known I was going to do something with them eventually.  Principal among the reasons I switched it back is because I have a collection of prosy bits for the article all cobbled together on my computer, and they're all still maintaining the preceding style of verbose citationing.  Secondly, WP:CITEHOW talks about how if an article consistently uses one manner of citationing, not to change it up, or to stick with the original, or something like that (I'm not looking it up right now since I'm on the iPhone, sorry).  Lastly, you're right, "minor" marking isn't something worth reverting over, I just wanted to mention it. All-in-all, I can't say whether I would handle it similarly again.  After a ridiculously long day yesterday I'm sorry if I was a little quick to revert without thinking it through and cloudy in my explanation/rationale.  I agree that the article could probably benefit from the double-sectioned manner of citations, but I would humbly appreciate it if we could discuss it beforehand before reverting or anything.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of articles with double-sectioned cites which are mixed in the upper section, due to many "one-off" cites. I'm not recommending totally converting to double-section, and don't prefer double sections by any means, but it's just needed for some oft-cited sources.  I'm going to suggest that in WP:CITE talk.  Going forward, I suggest keeping my changes, then pasting in your prose.  Don't make me reconvert what I've already done, just because you were holding back on your edits.  If your changes are that many in number, I'll convert some of them for you.  --Lexein (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard back from you, so I'm just about to put back in my changes, before a bunch of intermediate edits makes that impossibly annoying. --Lexein (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did it. As you boldly roll in your changes, I will assist in formatting cites where needed, and pretty quickly.  I suggestsandboxing it under your user page - we can work there relatively undisturbed.  --Lexein (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Weird Al" Yankovic
Any chance you're gonna work on any of the other "Weird Al" Yankovic albums, because if so, I would be more than willing to help you.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not immediately. "Weird Al" Yankovic in 3-D is probably third or fourth on my list of planned articles right now.  But since you're interested, I'll try to move things along and will let you know when I'm prepping to start.  That cool?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A), (B, and the round's overall leader), (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 andWikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

Citation templates at Molly C. Quinn
Hi there! I noticed you "undid condensing of citation templates for readability purposes" at the Molly C. Quinn articlehere. I was wondering if there is any guideline regarding this? When I first started doing references last Winter, I did them in the expanded version, but always found people would collapse them. (Just like the "fix" to your edit at that page.) Sometimes, the "collapsing" of my refs would even be accompanied by a not-so-nice edit summary about my method. :( (I definitely think the expanded version helps a newbie. I was under the assumption that was the "way they were supposed to be", because it's how they are listed at WP:CT.) I have since started doing mine "in a line"--with experience, I can now remember the parameters I need for the line, but I still liked the spread out version for clarity.  Are there any guidelines on this?  Just curious.  --Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. However,  is currently blocked for edit warring, and has only had the account for less than a month; I'm not going to fret about him or her. You asked about any guideline about whether citation templates should be tall or condensed, and I'm afraid there isn't anything explicit (that I've found!).  However, what I usually point people to is WP:CITEHOW, which states "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected."  If I established the citations in an article, that's usually my first line of defense.  If I'm going to work heavily/a lot on another article that already has the condensed fashion in-place, I'll first ask at the talk page if anybody minds if I use the other.  If I'm just dropping in a cite or two to another article (like a drive-by citationing) I'll usually stick with the vertical style regardless, and the regulars at that article can condense it or not. I heavily prefer the vertical layout for a number of reasons.  (a) I find it phenomenally easier to find where the citations end and the prose begins.  When they're all condensed together, it takes me a lot more time and effort to trace the text until I find the appropriate symbols/etc. that indicate the beginning and end of the tags; when they're left expanded though, I can simply jump from block-to-block of prose text and ignore the skinny text preceded by pipe symbols until I find what I'm looking for.  (b) They're presented to us&mdash;like you said&mdash;in that fashion, and whenever you need to C&P a blank one into an article, its more work than not to then go back and remove all the carriage returns after the fact.  (c) If you leave blank variables in your citation templates because you don't have the information yet and either you're waiting to find it or hoping somebody else has it, it's impossible to see those empty equals signs in a condensed template, and nobody'll ever realize that variable is empty and waiting (and you may forget it yourself). Was that tl;dr?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, thanks, and no, that wasn't WP:TLDR. (I've never seen that page before!)  I appreciate the link to WP:CITEHOW.  I knew I had seen somewhere the "follow the style already established in the article" comment, but hadn't been able to find it recently. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Weird Al" Again...
I've started to overhaul In 3-D, Off the Deep End, Alapalooza, and Bad Hair Day. In addition, I've started tweakingDare to Be Stupid. What do you think so far?--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ceia.gif
 Thanks for uploadingFile:Ceia.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WP Star Trek in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Star Trek for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and remember to sign your name. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Bucket
I understand your deletion of my picture. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added byDrStrangelove64 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't worry. I started using Wikipedia back in 2005, and I uploaded dozens upon dozens of copyrighted pictures for articles.  After a few of them were deleted and I realized there wasn't any malice intended, I boned up on the (sometimes really minor and niggling) rules and processes, and now have a much better understanding of how copyrighted imagery and articles go together.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

thecheesykid
Please do move the redirect to the other version. I was trying to edit or rename the original article Template:House episodes but there was some sort of problem and it wouldn't let me edit anything so I had to recreate the article, calling it Template:Navbox House episodes with the info that I had in Notepad (I pre-create all my articles in Notepad) but, curiously, it still doesn't work for some of them. Look for the third episode in season 5, Adverse Events on the templates, sometimes it isn't there, other times it is, with the same exact name underneath. I'm buggered if I can figure this one out. —Preceding unsigned comment added byThecheesykid (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 July 2010
 * Well, right now, whether you use House episodes, Navbox House Episodes, or Navbox House episodes they'll all show the properly formatted box into an article. The third one I listed it the correctly titled one, but the other two redirect properly so there's no need to go back and change any articles.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't work though. Go to the episode Fidelity (House), it doesn't include the 3rd episode of season 5. When you try to edit, it says that it is a redirect meaning one edit has to be undone.
 * Oh, okay. Sorry, I see what you were saying.  What you're seeing is a delay in the Wikipedia servers; the changes we've made just haven't propagated throughout the various pages and are still showing slightly old versions.  This will correct itself automatically and soon.  If you'd like to force a page purge and see that all's well, click on this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidelity_%28House%29&action=purge) and check again.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers muchly dear Wikipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added byThecheesykid (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 July 2010
 * No problem! Be well!  :^)  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (, and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Carbonite
What do you mean by unverifiable? Why should it not go in that page, where else should it go? —Precedingunsigned comment added by Plasmic Physics (talk •contribs) 05:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages do not discuss any particular subjects, they simply link to articles with similar names. There are three articles that deal with "carbonite", so the page carbonite is simply a list to help the reader find the specific subject they're looking for.  Previously, the page had a fourth item listed at carbonite (polyatomic ion), which is what you're trying to discuss.  However, that article was deleted on 16 August 2010 by  because it was "unverifiable"; presumably it had no references to any reliable sources as required for all articles by the verifiability policy. The essence is that (a) article prose does not belong at disambiguation pages and (b) the information you're talking about/wanting to present specifically used to be at carbonite (polyatomic ion), and you would need to discuss its deletion with .  —  pd_THOR  undefined | 06:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey...
I wish to tell you that after a few months of experience, I realized my mistake with the charlie bucket file, and have uploaded it as Non-free content.  The Doomsday Machine!   (Blastoff!)  23:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad you've stuck it out and are still working on the 'pedia! I've begun trying to get ahold of Dr. Ostrum via a friend of mine in New York state; I've left a note that I'm working on getting a libre-licensed image from him, but it may take a while.  I also took out the "doctorly bits" from the article, but noted there that WP:CREDENTIAL is the pertinent style guide.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily onmilitary history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion aboutjudges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalistshere- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome atWikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Awilda
I found three citations. She was probably not a real person, and even if so, she'd be 560 years old by now, so WP:BLP would not apply. So I removed your Prod. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)