User talk:ImperatorExercitus/Archives/2009/August

Reply
Not really. I don't think the hook is funny enough. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride and An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig
Sure, I'd love to help out and get these up to GAN. I think it should be pretty easy to get it up to the standards. However, this week is going to be a bit hectic because it's my last work week before I go on vacation. I should have Internet access on vacation, and maybe I can help you work on it then? If you'd rather finish it yourself in the meantime that's fine, but if you still need help in a week I'll be happy to jump aboard... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  02:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD closing
I've noticed that you are now closing AfDs by putting {{subst:afd top}} below the section header (e.g. Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism). I've updated the template using span id to create sections, so that is no longer necessary. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD closing
I've noticed that you are now closing AfDs by putting {{subst:afd top}} below the section header (e.g. Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism). I've updated the template using span id to create sections, so that is no longer necessary. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

DYAO
Hi! I would like to request this page to be deleted. This is a hoax station. Raven Broadcasting Corporation is a FM-only radio network here in the Philippines, with most of their stations based on key cities and they do not own any AM stations, especially this one. Thanks. -danngarcia (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

PTV GAn
I've fixed your comments on the "PTV" GAn.-- Music 26/  11  13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Towelie
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Towelie, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please make sure you include reliable, verifiable sources when adding material to articles. If you have any other questions about editing, just let me know. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not citing that information, but the truth was I was sorta busy that day. The intended reference is here : :) Could you please re-add the information with the reference? Again, I apologize for not adding the source. Cheers,  I 'mperator 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some more references for the article, especially for the bit about Alien.  , et cetera. Cheers,  I 'mperator 17:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Adoptee
Look in the adoption place please. I have section. It explains it. It should be the bottom one. Mhera (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last
Considering there was a lack of sources about the show and all the keeps appeared to be from the subjects website, I was expecting more of an explanation than just a 'keep' and why it isn't a WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the primary reason I didn't place an explanation for my vote was, while the majority of the users whom turned the sway to "keep" were from the website, their arguments were perfectly valid. Also, I felt that this debate summed up the AFD pretty well:

Keep or Merge: lonelygirl15 is notable for being the first widely recognized web series; its article has a list of 40 references asserting its notability. As such, LG15: The Last is notable in at least two ways:

For being a spin-off of a famous franchise. Take a look a Star Trek: The Animated Series - it has a mere 22 episodes and was considered "decanonized" for decades - The Last has 45 episodes and never had its canoncy disputed. Both are spin-offs of popular franchises. TAS is allowed to stay. Or The Lone Gunmen - canceled after 12 episodes. Why is it notable? Because it's a spin-off of a famous franchise. Hell, look at The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang - that's a clear precedent for inclusion of LG15: The Last; it has the exact same format: It's a spin-off of a famous series with little content on the page. The difference is that The Last is relatively fresh, with, as this discussion demonstrates, active and eager fans who can improve the page - in other words, there's still a vast potential for improvement. Can you say the same about The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang? And yet, TFatHDG is allowed to stay. For being yet another ground breaking narrative concept by the same people who already redefined the way online entertainment is done once. Compare Microsoft's Project Natal - so far, it doesn't even exist for consumers. Yet, it's notable - why? Because it's a new, ground-breaking thing by a company which has done ground-breaking things in the past. The only difference is that Microsoft has billions of dollars in marketing money, and thus could place Natal in conferences and magazines, whereas EQAL doesn't have as deep pockets. Or compare the original iPhone page. At that point, the phone was merely an announcement - why was it notable? Because Apple had already revolutionized the MP3-player market, and now targeted a new sector. A company which previously revolutionized an industry set out to do it again. The situation is the same: EQAL has revolutionized the way web entertainment is done (frequently being described as a "pioneer"), and now they are going one step further, basically revolutionizing their own revolution. That is a notable decision in the history of this young form of entertainment, and, as such, deserves mention.

In addition the The Show Is Yours contest has been reported on by NewTeeVee twice, by Tubefilter and other sites. NewTeeVee and Tubefilter are primary news sources in the web series segment, with NewTeeVee hosting the industry event NewTeeVee Live, which lists Google, Yahoo, MySpace, Amazon, Apple, AT&T and countless other high-profile technology and media companies as its attendees, and Tubefilter hosting the Hollywood Web Television Meetup, among numerous other things both are involved in. All three sites linked were co-hosts of the Streamy Awards, testimony to their leading position in the industry around web entertainment. As such, at least the The Show Is Yours contest qualifies for WP:WEB under criterion 1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.".

WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that, in order to not be regarded as an indiscriminate collection of information, "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." - LG15: The Last has information about the show's background, concise descriptions of the characters, as well as a plot synopsis. As such, it clearly fulfills the necessary standard to not be considered indiscriminately collected information. In addition, as mentioned above, the voters above me signify that the page is not abandoned in any way, so, as said, the page can always be improved to be even less indiscriminate - but only if it stays.

Summary: There is at least one clear precedent for pages of this type, as well as several precedents for short-lived spin-offs of famous series who get their own page. As such, the page should be kept simply by virtue of equality, based on precedent. WP:NOTPAPER applies as well, so given the obvious number of people who would like this page to stay, deleting it would serve no purpose and lead to a detrimental experience for users interested in the franchise. (Especially for the last part of the sentence, WP:IGNORE of course applies as well.) Beyond that, even if LG15: The Last as a series should be deemed not notable, the The Show Is Yours concept is most definitely notable, as the canonical continuation of a franchise that has already been deemed notable - lonelygirl15. Not listing The Last anywhere would be like having a page on Buffy, but denying the existence of Angel. As such, even if the decision is made that The Last on its own is not notable, the information on the page should be merged into the lonelygirl15 article, rather than simply be deleted. ~Renegade - 80.171.83.58 (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Only one of the sources you have given is about the show, the rest are about the competition. So it would be appropriate mentioning the competition in the lonelygirl15 article. And the only one mentioning the show name is a duplicate of the one I mentioned in my nomination [1] is the same as [2]. So we still have 1 non-trivial coverage source mentioning the actual show name, the rest are just about talking about the competition. Like I said above, if it is notable then why do we only have 1 source talking about the winners of this competition? Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off.--Otterathome (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, wrong: [3] mentions "The Last" even with a link to their pilot. If you want to count mentions, at least count correctly. Secondly, just ignoring the multiple precedents for this kind of page I pointed out is not going to make them go away. It is very obvious that being a spin-off of a famous show is notable enough to gain a page or at least mention on Wikipedia, and no one doubts the fame of lonelygirl15. Logically, The Last deserves its page. You also try to ignore the fact that The Last is the canonical continuation of a series that has already been deemed notable by Wikipedia. Removing information on The Last would automatically render Wikipedia's representation of lonelygirl15 incomplete. Deletion is out of the question. Deletion would be akin to having pages on every season of the Simpsons, only to then randomly delete The Simpsons (season 21). Or writing about The Lord of the Rings and deleting the page on The Hobbit. lonelygirl15 is notable. That is undisputed. The Last is the canonical continuation of a notable franchise. Keeping information about it is required for the accurate representation of the LG15 franchise. The only question here is whether to keep or to merge.

So let's see: You nominated the page for deletion. I provided several precedents for this type of page, as well as a logical argumentation for its inclusion based on its nature and creators; I pointed out that the page includes information that is necessary for the accurate description of a phenomenon already accepted as notable by Wikipedia. I directly cited the policy stating that the page does not count as an indiscriminate collection of information, and provided references that show that at least the competition this show embodies is notable, and that, as such, The Last deserves mention. And what did you do? You ignored everything I said and tried to get rid of it anyway, with a (false) count of phrases, culminating in "Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off.", which is pretty much just the experienced Wikipedian's version of WP:JNN. It's your opinion, about notability, based on a conveniently narrow subset of the argumentation that looks like the policy you cite could work with it. It ignores a variety of other factors that speak for the inclusion of this information, be it as an independent page or merged into lonelygirl15. 9 votes to keep versus 3 votes to delete. Multiple arguments based on both notability as well policy to keep it. And yet you insist on deleting it, disregarding all points made, disregarding general inclusion-friendly policies like WP:NOTPAPER and WP:IGNORE, disregarding the effects this deletion has on the completeness of other pages, and not even accepting merging as an option.

Scrolling up, it looks like you're the only one actually arguing for the deletion. Sure, Joe Chill and Atama dropped in to voice their opinion, but the only one who goes around and tries to dismiss other people's arguments is you. Out of 40 revisions for this page, 17 (42.5%) were made by you. What's your agenda here? Why exactly are you so hellbent on getting rid of this particular page, no matter what? ~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because one show is notable, spin-offs of it don't automatically bypass WP:NOTABILITY, see WP:NRVE, which is what most of your argument appears to be based on. And it's WP:1E because of the lack of sources. [4] talks about the competition and spin-off's in general and mentions 'The Last' right at the end. And the publish dates between the two articles are February 6, 2009 & January 28, 2009. You'd think since then there'd be more sources? But no, it remains a big WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Still rehashing the same arguments, still ignoring everything else I said (including precedents), still refusing to reveal why exactly it is so important to you, and apparently only you, that this page is gone. You're the only one actively pursuing a deletion, and the only two supporters you got provide no valid argumentation - Joe Chill did a textbook example of WP:VAGUEWAVE, and while Atama is a little more elaborate, s/he provides no argumentation why the cited resources supposedly fail WP:RS, and is guilty of WP:GOOGLEHITS. The only one actively pursuing this deletion is you, and you're rehashing the same arguments over and over again with no willingness to discuss the actual points made or even discuss a compromise like merging. Seeing that, in combination with statements like "I guess after so many spin off series of the show, people have completely lost interest and nobody even bothers reporting it." or "Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off." it's easy to see that you don't really care whether the information on the page is Wikipedia-worthy or not. You want the page gone, no matter what. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether you're one of those who lost out in TSIY1 and is trying to get some kind of revenge this way, or if you're just bored and trying to show force by getting a random article removed. Either way, you're the only deletion supporter with anything close to a valid argumentation, and your constant cries of WP:N! WP:N! do not change the fact that the information on the page in question is integral to lonelygirl15, and will end up on Wikipedia one way or another - the only question is if it happens on its own page, or over there.

And for whatever Administrator who ultimately decides over this: "There are some subjects that are only known to a handful of people in the world. There may only be a limited number of people who are interested in reading the articles, and very few if any GHits. But this is not grounds for deletion." -> Wikipedia:MYTHS#Articles on obscure topics. Even if you decide that there's nothing suspicious about Otterathome being the only one pushing this deletion, and even if you agree with the notability issues cited, WP:AQU still applies, and the article should be given a chance. Especially given that Otterathome is the only active supporter of this deletion, and his entire argument sums up as "Not notable! Not notable!", WP:NOPE should imo be given a thought as well. Deleting an article just because a single user is pushing his personal opinion of a series would be unfortunate, and even if the independent page should be deleted, merging is still a valid and much saner option. Total annihilation of information due to a single user's vendetta should not happen. ~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're suppose to be proving how the article is notable, not discussing the user nominating it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - "s/he provides no argumentation why the cited resources supposedly fail WP:RS, and is guilty of WP:GOOGLEHITS." As to the first one, the sources are blogs or the show's own web site. It should be pretty obvious why they aren't reliable, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. As to the second, that's bogus. I was showing that I had made an attempt at finding sources, I wasn't basing my entire argument on a Google search, which is what WP:GOOGLEHITS is about. And you're quoting WP:MYTHS, an essay, as some kind of counter to the WP:N guideline? -- Atamachat 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am, because it shows that not everyone has the same extreme deletionist views as Otterathome. Besides, while it may not have the same strength as a guideline, it would hardly be saved and shortcut if it wasn't considered worth a thought. Of course, since you're already contrasting "essays" with "guidelines", you might as well just go forth and compare the meaning of "guideline" to "rule"...maybe after reading the very first box on WP:N, which clearly states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - emphasis mine. Don't pretend that WP:N is an unbendable command of the universe that knows no flexibility and whose applicability is solely decided by you and Otterathome. As I pointed out multiple times before, the vast majority of users on this page voted keep, and so far, neither of you has addressed the numerous points for inclusion I made. As for Google...your argumentation was thus: "The sources listed are not reliable. It is clear there are no reliable sources, because I found none on Google.". I would say you pretty much based your entire argument on Google search. You may not have done so intentionally, but it boiled down to "I found nothing on Google, so it's not notable.".

@Otterathome: Thank you. Every single time you refuse to address the factual points I make only underlines how little interest you have in actually achieving a consensus. As for your cheap attempt to put the burden of proof on me - the page existed for three entire months before you started your little crusade, there was a consensus about the page at the time of your nomination, and not only that, but your nomination is based on a vastly outdated revision. So if anyone has to prove anything, it's you, to show that your nomination even still applies to the current page.

As for both of you, since you are such big fans of WP:N - go read the introduction. It clearly says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Even if a WP:N test failed, nothing would speak against inclusion of the same information on the general LG15 page - in fact, it would be required to appear there, as, as I pointed out countless times before, The Last is the canonical continuation of a series already deemed notable by Wikipedia; simply dropping the information would unnecessarily mutilate Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Nothing speaks against giving a complete overview of a notable franchise. Failing WP:N does not mean the information itself has to leave Wikipedia. As such, the question here should be whether to keep or to merge - deleting the information serves no purpose and renders Wikipedia's coverage of LG15 useless, as it would be incomplete and missing the large majority of the franchise information of this year.

And Otterathome's constant refusal to even acknowledge the option of a merge into lonelygirl15, despite the clear relevance of the information to a notable topic, betrays his intention to remove The Last from Wikipedia at all costs. ~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you appear to be discussing my motives for listing this for deletion, which isn't the purpose of AFDs. The way you speak about the subject makes it sounds like you are somehow connected to the subject. It is your WP:BURDEN to prove it is notable, not mine. And the AFD still applies to the current revision as any third-party sources in the article have already been listed here. And I didn't say it shouldn't be mentioned in the lonelygirl15 article. All I can see is that you are unable to find anymore sources to make it pass WP:N, so have resorted silly/weak arguments. I suggests you read the top of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Otterathome (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I'll second everything that Otterathome has said, and I'll also state that I'm not opposed to a merge. I don't see why this show can't be mentioned at the lonelygirl15 article, it's clearly related. If that's a satisfying compromise then that's probably what should happen. -- Atamachat 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I also would like to respond to your statement, "You may not have done so intentionally, but it boiled down to 'I found nothing on Google, so it's not notable'." Your analysis of what you think I'm saying is not only incorrect, but offensive. Do not put words in my mouth. You clearly are unfamiliar with WP:PROVEIT or are simply ignoring it. All that I needed to do to make a reasonable argument for deletion was to state that there are no reliable sources in the article. However, I am not a deletionist, and before I declare something notable or not I will make a sincere attempt to find sources, and if I find them I will argue for an article to be kept no matter how poor of a state the article is in. Demonizing editors for making good-faith attempts to find sources, along with your other personal attacks, only sabotages your attempts in this AfD. -- Atamachat 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't even that old, it was created on April 24th and the series hasn't even finished yet. It does seem a bit premature to be deleting an article on a show before it is even done! Can't the firing squad be postponed until the series has at least finished? KindredPhantom (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC) There's no time limit on deletion. Many articles are deleted right after creation if the subject isn't suitable for an article. If you feel that the show might gain more coverage after it's done, great, the article can be recreated at that time. -- Atamachat 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC) The article says it ended on July 28th 2009 which is sourced from the official website.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

@Otterathome: Yes, I am indeed questioning your motivation, and that is fully and entirely within both the writing and the spirit of the AFD:

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.

WP:AFD clearly states that the goal is not "delete, unless someone can prove there's no reason to", but a discussion about the merit of the content with a multitude of potential outcomes, including, but not limited to, improvement or merging. Therefore, it is very relevant to this discussion whether you are acting out of the desire to improve Wikipedia and are open to all options that will lead to that result, or because you have a personal vendetta against The Last and the sole goal to remove it from the Wiki. Your original deletion already included language implying a personal distaste for the subject matter, and after I have suggested merging six times now, and even Atama has spoken in favor of it, you are still refusing to even acknowledge the existence of that option. Even after the large majority of participants has voiced support for the page, you have still not shown a single sign of willingness to achieve consensus, or even anything close to a compromise. From everything visible on this page, your only reason for nomination is to get rid of The Last. That is not what the deletion process is for, and your refusal to discuss or even acknowledge alternatives is hindering both the process of this discussion and the ultimate improvement of Wikipedia.

Pointing out that you're refusing to participate in a factual discussion and show no interest in consensus or compromise is not a personal attack, it's an observation that is of high relevance to this process, considering you're the original nominator. Trying to paint that as "personal attacks" is weak at best.

@Atama: I apologize if I offended you, but that's how I understood your statement. I was not trying to demonize you, it just sounded like all you had done was a Google search and then deemed it not notable. No offense intended. I'm not sure why you're pointing at WP:PROVEIT, as it is a content policy for text-additions, not a guideline for the deletion process, and thus not relevant to the question at hand. Ironically, it would support my statement either way, as it states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material., and the relevant material added would be the deletion template, thus putting the burden of proof on Otterathome.

Nevertheless, since you seem to be more interested in consensus than Otterathome, how about we stop trying to club each other with policy links and try to find a compromise instead? :)

Currently, lonelygirl15 is one giant page with everything about the series and forms sort of a central page, linking to multiple smaller pages about the continuations and spin-offs. According to the Creators, the term "LG15" is to be used as a general term for the entirety of the franchise-universe; alas, a page of that name got deleted as a dead end redirect. Would it be acceptable to you if we created a central portal-style page LG15, which keeps general information on the franchise and its smaller series, until they cross the necessary threshold of notability to gain their own page? We would then have: LG15: Housing information on The Last, n1ckola, as well as a general overview of the background and mythology of the franchise, its impact, viewcount variances, media response and treatment, etc lonelygirl15: Purely housing information about that particular series LG15: The Resistance: Purely housing information about that particular series (has been mention in the LA Times blog, CNET and other places...definitely notable enough for its own page.) KateModern: Purely housing information about that particular series (While the references on the page are lacking, a quick Google search ;) will show you a number of mentions on places like The Guardian's site, The Sun's, NewTeeVee, Tubefilter, etc. The page just needs someone to add them.) EQAL: Giving an overview of the company behind everything, its history, key personnel, business endeavors, market position, etc. This page should probably be created anyway, given that they're working with people like Anthony E. Zuiker, Paula Deen and CBS, and have a leading position in the web series market. And yes, they do have enough media mentions to be notable.

Would you support such a merging/reorganization effort, rather than just plain deletion? :) ~ Renegade - 213.39.158.142 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I would support such a reorganization effort. It's a common compromise to make when you have a series of related articles that lack evidence of notability, but are themselves related to an article that does have notability. I don't see a problem with something like that. -- Atamachat 05:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers,  I 'mperator 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reply is no help at all, what arguments are perfectly valid? And which part of all those paragraphs sum it up?--Otterathome (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the last bit...about how we should try to clean it up? Specifically, the end of the debate. Of course, if nobody bothers to clean up the article, then it could easily be re-entered for deletion. Cheers,  I 'mperator 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll send back to deletion at the end up of month. That gives editors plenty of time to dig up any sources so it passes WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA !vote (Headbomb)
You opposed !voted neutral on my RfA based on a lack of nomination statement. Due to several people raising this concern, I've placed one a couple of days ago. I'm letting you know that your !vote might be outdated and I would appreciate it if you would reconsider it. If there's anything unclear or that you would like to have additional information on, please feel free to ask me a question. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I voted neutral, not oppose :) I'll take the time to read over the nom statement late Cheers,  I 'mperator 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh yes, yes neutral my mistake. Thanks for being willing to review your position (no matter what option you end up picking). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

AFC/R
Thanks for the comment, I've replied. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

TB

 * Replied. Cheers,  I 'mperator 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

South Park GAN
Sorry about that, I had Internet access on vacation but no Lexus Nexus, and ended up not having as much time as I hoped I would. I'll try to get to them in the upcoming week. Sorry again! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know problem
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Art LaPella (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Move
hehe i hate it when redericts are made while a move a page. Avono♂ (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agaricus benesii
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Agaricus benesii, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mykoweb.com/CAF/species/Agaricus_benesii.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed; statement about habitat was too close to that of source. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers,  I 'mperator 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi ImperatorExercitus. While patrolling WP:SCV, I came across Agaricus benesii and took a look at the link provided by CorenSearchBot. In my opinion, the article seems to be a very close paraphrase of that link. Are all fungi articles like that, or can this one be rewritten to sound less like the source? Regards,  The left orium  21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More or less, yeah. Especially this bit on Close paraphrasing: "GFDL-compatible sources may be closely paraphrased, and limited close paraphrasing may also be permitted as fair use. Attribution is always required." That, plus I reworded it more since the warning (the main concern was about the habitat and the introductory paragraph, which I both changed). Thanks for the heads up. CHeers,  I 'mperator 21:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is not GFDL-compatible, though, but I guess it can be considered fair use. Anyway, I have another question. You uploaded File:Agaricus benesii.JPG under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License, but this is not stated in the source. How do know its released with that license?  The left orium  21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:ImperatorExercitus/Archives/2009/March for a related issue. The copyright rights from the website "Information from this website (such as wildlife reports) may be listed in articles, websites or other sources, but ONLY with full credits to www.wildaboutdenmark.com." and this. Cheers,  I 'mperator 21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is only for text. "All photos posted in the gallery are the property of the original photographer and must not be reproduced in any format without the express written permission of the photographer."  The left orium  21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Must have missed that. Could you please ask Paul via e-mail (http://poulevaldhansen.dk/) Thanks. Cheers,  I 'mperator 21:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know a lot about image copyrights (yet). Perhaps you could ask someone with a bit more experience? You need to get him to send it Wikipedia via OTRS, I think. Regards,  The left orium  21:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been slow
I've been slow to do that review on you, but I'll make every effort to do so this evening... I started looking last night.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. I was afraid you'd forgotten :P Cheers,  I 'mperator 16:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride
Hey Imperator. Ok, I've done some work on Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride. Unfortunately, things have been hectic lately and things will continue to be busy in the next few weeks (my wife's birthday, my first anniversary and my sister-in-law's wedding are among the items on my calendar :D) but I will try to keep working on this one and An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig where I can. (I'll try to work on Best Friends Forever too, but I want to focus first and foremost on the other two since the South Park featured topic drive is currently focused on season one. Please take a look at my recent contributions to the Big Gay Al article. Your stuff was really good and the article was already better than most South Park episode articles before I even started working on it! But in addition to adding some new content, I also made a few minor changes. Some were grammatical and others were structural; for example, I moved Reception to the bottom of the article and split part of "Cultural references" into a Theme section, which is consistent with other SP episode articles. I know there are more sources out there on this episode and I plan to add them in the near future, but I did want to get a bit of a start on it. Let me know what you think! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, two questions for you. 1) You mention someone named "Gardiner" in the article, but you don't mention his full name or who he is (he's not in the source citation either). Could you drop that in? Also, I get the feeling Gardiner's thoughts belong in Theme, not Reception. What do you think? 2) In the Chan bit, you mention that this article was rated the second best sports episode. Out of curiosity, what was the first best? Do you think we should add that in? Something like "was the second best sports episode, behind "Title here"? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, no problem! Don't worry about it :P Thanks for the great work you've done so far. For Q1, I'm not exactly sure myself :/ However, if you want, the source is here, so you can determine it for yourself. It's probably mentioned before the page I provided. Also, now that I look at it more closely, I agree; it does belong in the Theme's section. I'll move it right away. As for Q2, it was "Up the Down Steroid" (I've added it to the article already). Again, thanks a ton! Cheers,  I 'mperator 13:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and could you get another image for me? The current one is just...hideous. Thanks. Cheers,  I 'mperator 14:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You meant the infobox image? Sure, I can get to that later today or tomorrow... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Eric Edwards/Иван Богданов
I know it will be harder for another editors, but it is my own name and it means a lot for me. Thanks for your concern, anyway. -- Eric Edwards (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA
Hi! I shall try not to get discouraged and heed your advice. Hope to make the cut some other time. Thank you. -- Altruism T a l k - Contribs. 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons
I'm being lazy, so if you wanted to work on Brother, Can You Spare Two Dimes?, that'd be great too :)  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem :) Just as soon as I finish the production section for Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk. Cheers,  I 'mperator 01:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, great!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 02:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the articles. Did you get the DVDs? :) By the way, you should try to avoid big paragraphs.  The left orium  09:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did! :P Thanks for the advice; I'll keep it mind for next time (I'm breaking down the paragraphs as I type :) Cheers,  I 'mperator 13:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, let me know when you are going to submit it for GAC, and I'll do a copyedit for you :)  C T J F 8 3 Talk 17:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did a copy edit, and it looks good! Is this necessary for this episode page "Though Nancy Cartwright usually provided the voice for Maggie Simpson, her daughter baby, Lucy, voiced Maggie once in "Lisa's Substitute""?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Co-nom?! Thank you! I don't think I did enough work though. Do you wanna work with me on Smithers or a Family Guy episode?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll help you with season 10 :)  C T J F 8 3 Talk 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi ImperatorExercitus. :) Not to sound rude or anything, but I don't think Brother, Can You Spare Two Dimes? meets the GA criteria yet. I could find several problems just by reading through it quickly. If I were you I would withdraw it and submit it for a peer review first (where I could leave some comments for you). The decision is up to you, though, and I'm not going to force you into withdrawing it.  The left orium  18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you just tell us here, instead of peer review? :)  C T J F 8 3 Talk 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll post them on the GA review page instead when I have time.  The left orium  18:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I reviewed the changes that you made, and...they seemed more of a preferential opinion rather than a (lack of) compliance to WP:MOS. That, plus I've fixed the tag. With all due respect, the current article does seem to comply with the GA criteria. Sorry if this seems a bit blunt... Cheers,  I 'mperator 18:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * +Fixed concerns on review page (so far). :) Cheers,  I 'mperator 19:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)