User talk:Scorpion0422/Archive 9

List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross
Hi, you were one of the few to have commented on the FLC review. (check Featured list candidates/List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross). Since not many people seem to be interested in this topic could you be so kind and have a look if your issues have been addressed and if so support the FLC request. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Homer Badman
Only one thing of the "over information" is in the cultural references section. I am reverting it back, sry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.118.2 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

East Carolina Pirates football seasons
I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers when I told JKBrooks about the article going to FLC. I knew he is a college football editor with FA experience. But, I respect his opinion and wanted it. I didn't want a blanket support, since that would invalidate the whole FLC process. One question though. User:B has added comments to the FLC and I have completed that task. Can I ask the user if they would support, oppose, or have no vote to the article? I don't want to step out of line and wanted your opinion on this. Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks,  P G Pirate  18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could I type "I am asking if you could officially take a stand on this list?" on his talkpage or should I do it on the FLC page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PGPirate (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Debarted
Yeah, thanks, I'll watch it. The Dominator (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

TSW
May as well merge it to the season pages, it looks a lor more informative on the season 7 page than it does on its own. As for TSW, what you've done so far is a real improvement so I'll have a lot around when I've got a bit of time. Gran2 07:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V PR
As you helped to get Treehouse of Horror (series) to FA status you may be interested to know that I'm currenly working on getting Treehouse of Horror V to FA status. It currently having a PR. Any help or feedback would be much appreshated. I've given this a small c/e and exspanded the lead as best I can. Unfortunately the DVD of this episode that I own does not have any commentary on it so I can't anymore info from it into the article.

Cool, just letting you know. I've expanded the prodution section now. Still a major issue with the prose though I think. Buc (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to nominate this soon so anymore would be a big help. Buc (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame - Main page
Well done! I'll make sure I have it on my watchlist for Friday. Risker (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it must be a lot of fun defending the article today. I'll look in too as I can and keep it honest.  RGTraynor  17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fans vs. Favs coloring on Template:Survivor contestants
So a few days ago I added orange coloring for contestants that returned to appear on Survior:Micronesia "Fans vs. Favorites". This seemed like something that was logically missing from the Template when I first saw it given that the green coloring was being used to designate contestants who returned for Survior:All Stars. Clearly you disagree since you reverted my changes. You didn't however, explain why you disagrees. Please help me understand why returning contestants for Survior:All Stars should be designated with a color while returning contestants for "Fans vs. Favs" should not. --Skotywa (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: An FT question
Do you really need to take it out? Remember that as an encyclopedia, we are very interested in historical records of things, not just how they are today. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Promoting List of autonomous areas by country to FL status
Thanks for promoting List of autonomous areas by country to FL status! But, I'm curious, are you one of the people who are authorized to promote articles? Or, how does that work in terms of who is allowed to promote articles?

P.S. I'm a student at the other school in the same city where you're a student. I'm sure you know which one that is... ;) Gary King (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you check out Featured list candidates/List of countries without armed forces, Featured list candidates/List of unrecognized countries/archive1, and Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States to see if they should be promoted? And if not, then please let me know why. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States please and promote if it is acceptable? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima
I added info to all of the recipients and also did a lot of other cleanup. Could you take another look and see if there is anything else that needs to be done?--Kumioko (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/BBC Young Musician of the Year
Replied there.  Sunder  land  06   06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:2007 WWE Draft
Well you mainly opposed it because you thought it was cruft and not notable, and Colin opposed it because of 2 (of what she thought) were unreliable sources. So if I renominate it, these 2 problems will stick out again and it will fail again.

I barely participate in FL/FAC's because this project barely has any, and I will admit I dont really participate in any outside the project, but I will in the future. -- T r U C o  - X  15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Info on category merger
If you combine the info there with Jan Werner's statements at the actual induction ceremony itself (where he DIRECTLY stated that the "Lifetime Achievement" category was being renamed the "Ahmet Ertegun" award, during his opening remarks) and its clear that the two are being considered one "category" now under the Ahmet Ertegun award. Other sources I have come across (I'll dig a few up) have also called the Lifetime Achievement award the "Ahmet Ertegun" award, but ALL sources indicate that Gamble and Huff received this award... Its a bit confusing, I will admit, since there is some lack of clarity as to the difference between the two categories, the "non-performer" category and the "Lifetime achievement for a non-performer" category. My best interpretation, based on the availible evidence, is that the two have been condensed into a single award, the Ahmet Ertegun award. Gimme a second to dig up some better sources. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's one that says "All non-performing inductees" will be given the award (implying the merger of the two non-performing categories) (see second article on this page). If you think, we can add this link to the article as well for an additional source.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima
Good Afternoon, I was wondering if there was anything else that needed to be done om this article for it to get promoted? I think all issues have been addressed and I am getting ready to list 2 more for review so I wanted to make sure this one was good before I do.--Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to take another look and see if there is anything else that needs to be addressed. the 16th is the end of the 10 days.--Kumioko (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok sounds good thanks, I just wanted to make sure it didn't need anything else, because I am going ot nominate 2 more (I already made the changes according to the comments from this one) I just have a few more things to do to them and you should see them start showing up in the next couple days.--Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All issues addressed
I've addressed all the issues you raised at Featured list candidates/BBC Young Musician of the Year now. I thought I'd drop you a note incase you didn't realise or the page isn't in your watchlist. If there is anything else I can do to improve the list, leave a note on the candidate page and I'll see what I can do. Qst (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Task Force
Hey there! User:Shapiros10 began promoting a possible Survivor Task Force today, and I decided to continue spreading the message. I figure this may help us gain a more standard MOS, which can benefit all related articles. As you are a frequent visitor to the Survivor pages, I thought you might want to help. If yes, then follow the link above (or to the left if your screen is really -really- long!) and help us start something great. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured List
Hey man I sdee that you updated List of Wikipedians by featured list nomination on the 1st of March and you put Slipknot discography as nominated by User:Burningclean when actually it was me who nominated it (as you can see here), could you please change this?  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  10:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Lost
I wasn't aware about the promotion for the most recent episode. I don't think it's yet verifiable regarding Jin though? The typical assumption after watching the episode is that he is dead after the survivors are off the island, and that's as far as assumptions can go so far. Gary King (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think you can't assume anything. For instance, the grave could either not contain his body, it's just a marker for him, or that he died on the island and body was transported off. Anyways, this is just a casual debate for me - no big deal. I'm just a big Lost conspiracy nut :) Gary King (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of billionaires (2007)/archive1
Could you take a look at Featured list candidates/List of billionaires (2007)/archive1 to see if it deserves a promotion? Gary King (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And this too Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States. Gary King (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And this Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Toronto. Gary King (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Toronto, you probably chose not to promote it because of the Oppose, but the person has not been active on Wikipedia since March 9 and any attempts to get any more information as to why the person opposes the list has failed. I have posted more on the page, but specifically: "Just an FYI to everyone, this user has not been active on Wikipedia since March 9, 2008 (same day this message was posted here), so I have been unable to get any more information on why this person has chosen to oppose this list. I assume that the list now meets style guidelines, considering that below has given his support to the list and is a member of the WikiProject Skyscrapers.". Gary King (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination has garnered more support now. 5-1 (including me). Gary King (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States is 5-1 for support/opposes, just to summarize. It's one of the older nominations right now. Gary King (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks again for all your help with the article, comforting to know you and others will be watching over it if I'm away. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, TFAs usually aren't protected. I suppose if vandalism is real bad after the TFA day, then a semi-protect request might be in order.  Cirt (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your help today. Please, don't edit-war with, he's a good guy - I'd encourage you to discuss stuff either on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Streetcar
I'll have a look. Thanks for the update. Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the information on deleted/modified scenes really essential to the article? IMO, it's a bit trivial, and almost excessively detailed. (The exception being the info on the two Cajun characters, since that clearly relates to the real-world controversy surrounding the episode.)
 * But I won't fiddle around with the new sections before getting some additional opinions. Maybe we can discuss this in the project page? Zagalejo^^^ 03:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FL
Can I ask you to reply here? Thanks, - Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of recessions in the United States
Regretfully, I have to communicate that my objections to this FLC have not been resolved. The list fails FL criterion 1B and possibly also 1C. I found authoritative information, in sources cited in that article, about recessions that aren't included in the list, and neither the article nor the FLC discussion has provided a reason for their omission. My principal unresolved comments are the following comments about apparent omissions from the list: --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Late 1980s recession is linked in the intro but not in the table. It probably belongs in the description for "Early 1990s recession".
 * The article Recession of 1958 is not linked.
 * Recessions on the NBER list from before the 1950s that don't show up on this list include 1860-61, 1865-67, 1869-70, 1882-85 (may be related to Panic of 1884), 1887-88, 1890-91, 1895-97 (the list dates two other multi-year crises as ending in 1896...), 1899-1900, 1902-04, 1910-12, 1913-14, 1923-24, 1926-27, 1945, and 1948-49.
 * Deflation discusses the "recession of 1836."

Hornetman
I've reported him to ANI, see here, so he can be blocked immediately. D.M.N. (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Super Bowl champions
Can I ask you to comment here? Thanks. - Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement
Hi Scorpion. Just wondering, whats your opinion on the WP:Simpsons advertisment? There is an ongoing disscusion here if you're interested. --Simpsons fan 66 23:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Scorpion...
Hey. Ok, regarding Bill, he did send me an email, which I looked at today. I was not present in the IRC when you came in sadly, but this is the best I can do. I am going to Washington D.C. on a school trip tomorrow until Saturday, so I am terribly sorry for that. But in his emails, Bill responded about some of the articles, which I will let you see in the screenshots in the link provided here. He also asked about the questions and what to do. I responded that I will be back on Saturday to tell him what you guys want to do, so until then, decide upon yourselves what. I am sorry for the bad communications, I hope you understand. I'll be back soon. Look at the screenshots here. xihix (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're getting all this input from him, WP:DOH really should work on the article Bill Oakley, at the very least fix up the sourcing problems (completely unsourced at the moment) and other glaring stuff. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you get the prize for "best thing to wake for, when logging on to Wikipedia" - "by the way, Bill Oakley thinks two pages you wrote are perfect." Excellent! Anyway, I'm on holiday for two weeks now, so I should have a lot more time on my hands for this place. Gran2 08:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Source help

 * Any way you could get access to this source somehow? Cirt (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cirt (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Canada at the 2008 Summer Olympics
About the references, I will do my best to find them. Oh, and you are right in saying that TSN's page is (horribly) outdated. Anyway, thanks for the comment. Fox334 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers
Hey Scorpion, any reason why List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers isn't promoted yet? 4 supports and 11 days now... Hope you're having a good Easter. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent FLC promotions
Hi. The recent promotions you did haven't been closed properly (unless it takes some time to update). Featured list candidates/List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers, Featured list candidates/List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, Featured list candidates/List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions, Featured list candidates/Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, Featured list candidates/List of WCW Hardcore Champions haven't been closed as promoted, and Featured list candidates/List of International Mathematical Olympiads and Featured list candidates/Maillot jaune statistics haven't been closed as failed. Also, Featured list candidates/List of International Mathematical Olympiads didn't seem like it was ready to close, as I think he was still working on it. I'd close them myself, but don't know how. -- Matthew 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Medal count
Doesn't the following referenced phrase cover this? "The ranking in this table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee,[3]" – Ilse@ 01:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal FC players list
Hey Scorpion, just wondered where we were with this discussion? Besides my latest comment, I think the whole thing has stalled... I'd be interested to hear what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re
I'll be going to the HoF and will be sitting close enough to the stage. I'll be at Axxess but the day of WrestleMania outside of the Citrus Bowl. I was planning on going to Universal Studios for Axxess but decided to blow it off when I found out that it was included in the admission fee. They should have had it at Universal City Walk... where its free... Good thing the Axxess outside of the Citrus Bowl will be free to WrestleMania ticket holders. I'll be sure to get some great Championship belt images there. On the 28th I think Batista will be having a book signing at the Virgin Megastore in Downtown Disney. I might head on overthere too. On the 27th at night in downtown Orlando there will be a WrestleMania block party hosted by Jimmy Hart and other superstars and legends that will go on till about 2 a.m. Don't expect any pics from that since I'll probably be drunk as hell! I'll also make the THQ superstar challenge that I'll hopefully be participating in. They'll have a fan tournament there also and unlike the Axxess SDvsRaw tournament they have where the winner gets a WWE spinner replica, in this tournament you can win floor tix to 'Mania! I'll have to ditch my section 108 tix but for floor tix, who cares! Its 5 bucks a pop to get in and hey, P.O.D. will play there live. Yeah my weekend's loaded. LOL. -- bullet proof  3:16 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FLC
Do you think it's time to remove List of One Tree Hill episodes from the FLC page? 6 days with no response from the nominator. Also KT Tunstall discography has gone 5 days without response from the nom. There's a couple more that have 4 supports also.

I'd do them myself but I don't know the process. It looks like they're simply removed from FLC, and added to FL, but there has to be another step somewhere, no? Or else how does Gimmebot get notified to close it? -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•  @ 20:55, 28 March, 2008 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions made by Google
I think Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions made by Google can be promoted now. Gary King (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy
Would you say that the FLC of this page is ready to pass yet. It has three supports, 4 if you include mine and a comment from User talk:EdgeNavidad. I have left a note on his talkpage asking him to revisit but he hasn't responded. This has been going on for a month now and I am hoping it can be closed soon. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it has received another comment. Woody (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Debate
As my birthday is tomorrow, I've been feeling more "giving" so I've started my project in cleaning, trimming, and sourcing all characters featured on the list of recurring characters list. The list, as you know, has begun to spin out of control and any character can be added to it now, but I'll prevent that, so just take a look at that page anytime soon k?- Yours truly,  S   (talk)   16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page's is decreasing from 82KB to 79KB so far!- Yours truly,  S   (talk)   17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As well, I'll go on the talk page for more detail, but should we split this page so that most characters would go on a new "minor characters" page? We could do a vote on the talk page, and see how many approve or disapprove. Recurring characters should be major characters, and should be on this recurring page while abandoned, hardly seen, or not-progressing characters could end up in the new page. I mean, look at the page, the Winfields moved away, the Veterian, Jake the Barber? Those have all been abandoned. Jack Larson, Lugash (whos appeared twice), the Vanderbilts? maybe Jebediah Springfield, I don't know. What do you feel about this, as it is creating yet another article relating to Simpsons characters.- Yours truly,  S   (talk)   22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Move?
I'm currently working on getting The Front (The Simpsons) to GA and I noticed that the name of the article doesn't really follow naming convention. Isn't the normal case (Simpsons) or (Simpsons episode)? What is the standard in this case? --Simpsons fan 66 08:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --Simpsons fan 66 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1976 medal count
Hi Scorpion0422, I'm wondering why you insist on the "General" and "Specific" subheadings in the references section? It looks odd to me, and I'm certain that I've never seen that style anywhere else. For example, see the documentation page for — in that example (Elephant), the two types just flow together, with numbers or with bullets as appropriate. Also, why do you think the same reference needs to be included twice? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oakley
I'll see if I can add some later. Have we decided where we are going to publish the responses? Gran2 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gladly, but I'm afraid tis not actually free-use. "Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic" allows no derivative works and therefore cannot be used here, which is a shame. Sorry, Gran2 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The image itself would not be a copyright violation if it was used here, but the current Flickr license (Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic) it is under means it cannot be used. You need to get the Flickr user to change the license to one of the two free-use ones. Gran2 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations
Do you update the list manually or is it updated by a bot? Also, if it's not updated by a bot, I don't see why it shouldn't be – it'd make it a lot easier to keep updated! Gary King (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that could be adapted to do it, as it is already doing WP:WBFAN. Gary King (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Krusty
I'll take a look, and leave some comments on that article's talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Promoting FLC prematurely
Hello Scorpion0422, you have promoted Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Bears head coaches prematurely, since there were only 3 supports including the nominator. My guess is that the nominator tricked you by supporting his own nomination 11 days after nominating. Next time just add your support as the 4th one, even though User:Gonzo fan2007 doesn't like it.-- Crzycheetah 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/Wisden Cricketers of the Year/archive1
Hi. Spotted your nomination of the FLRC for this, so wondered if you'd review the article which has been polished and taken to FLC once more. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already there... and your prediction is accurate, lol. Feel free to chip in at the FLC. --Dweller (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Gotcha. --Dweller (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

convert and sorting
Yeah, these templates aren't great for that sort of thing. Have you tried embedding it inside a sort? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Billionaires
I've updated my comments on the current (2008) list. As for 2007, I can't nominate it for FLRC since (a) it has been promoted recently and (b) it doesn't fail WIAFL. Instead, I believe it fails WP:NOT as I don't think it is WP's purpose to hold (potentially) 20+ years of Forbes annual rich list. While the other lists are at FAC, it isn't probably the best time to be considering AfD. Colin°Talk 20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics
Hi. Why did you delete my sourced references to the information about a possible Detroit bid? The city did hold first-round matches for the 1994 World Cup, which is placed in the same class as the Olympics as a major international sporting event. Detroit was also named Best Sports City in North America by the Sporting News. This information alone would help Detroit's case if they decided to bid for the Olympic Games. I'm placing this information back in the article. Thank you. Mdb1370 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize to you for my words that I said to you on the wp: pw talk page, I can only hope you forgive me for being a dick :)  Sexy  Sea  Squid   00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada park sorting
Great job. I thought that sort would be useful. And how cool to embed templates like that and have them work as you intended! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FLRC deadlock
What happens with something like Featured_list_removal_candidates where there's a sizable group arguing for delist and a (in this case, more) sizable group arguing for retention? --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ? I wasn't asking for it to be closed. Just wanted to know what happens when there's a group saying delist and a group saying keep it listed. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh. I guess it's normally clear cut, one way or the other. Btw sorry if I've been annoying at the national parks FLC. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you wanted me to do. But when I looked at the discussion, if the entry criteria was the only issue then I'd have to close with a keep due to no consensus for removal. However, I then found (as you did) that a good chunk of the list is sourced to a unmaintained one-man fan site. This is a serious breach of WP:V. Nobody has disagreed with you and me about that, in fact nobody has done anything to the list this month apart from argue about it.

Therefore you should have no worries about closing the FLRC as a Remove due to sourcing problems. You have the consensus that is WP:V behind you. I would only worry about you closing nominations you've commented on if your comments are being challenged or your opinion seems to be in the minority. It used to be quite common for the FLC closer to comment as well. Colin°Talk 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But be aware that closing as remove due to lack of sources completely avoids the discussion which has been ongoing for some weeks. And won't help Wikipedia at all.  It will just add confusion.  If that one source is removed and Soccerbase is used (which is often the case) then the list would be a keep.  Besides, Colin is the only person going for remove based on lack of verifiability, hardly a consensus is it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I'd be cautious closing as delist simply because most people won't read the whole thing. They'll just go on to attempt to delist all soccer player FL's and (probably as a reaction) all NHL season lists will be next (with the franchise thing)...  and all along Colin just had an issue with the verifiability.  So go with care.  It's clear there's no consensus and this is an individual project's view, but I bet it won't go away quite that easily!  All the best  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm only speaking for myself, but the keep side would most likely accept forking, as per the Medal of Honor article. It begs an interesting question with forks, when supporting promotion to featured, should all forks be checked with the same scrutiny.  It definitely doesn't happen right now.  As for a rename, it's awkward.  In my team's case, the FL has 100 appearances, club record holders, hall of fame entrants and players who have represented their country.  A defined set of criteria but nothing that could be snappily renamed.  User:ChrisTheDude has tried this with his team (Gillingham F.C.) and the suggested move was rejected.  It's a real challenge. It was interesting that Colin wasn't too bothered about the "subjective" criteria applied by WP:Football though... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Palmer-Ridge
Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I'll request a checkuser and see if we can root out a sock farm of some sort. Much appreciated! Tony Fox (arf!) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW Newsletter
Hello! I see that you have a newsletter interview scheduled for a future edition of the newsletter. Due to the fact that we have started the Editor of the week, we will stop the interviews. The EOTW will be interviewed instead. To be fair, you have one week to answer the questions in your interview, as all of the interviews will go out in next week's newsletter. Cheers! iMat thew   20  08  16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons template
Hi there. I saw that you reverted my change to The Simpsons template. You wrote that the template "looks better" at a smaller size. I did have a reason for the change. 75% width is non-standard—all templates should have a width of 100%, to prevent multiple templates of varying widths from looking weird when stacked on top of each other. Also, I suspect that you have a wide screen and your window is maximised, and that's why the narrower template looks better—for you. However, keep in mind that the majority of users will have smaller screens and narrower windows, making the template squished for them.

It's not worth the time for me to try to get a consensus with others or constantly edit war with you, so I'm not going to try. I'm just going to explain myself and leave it up to you.

(I am going to change the left-aligned text back to right-aligned, though—there doesn't seem to be a reason for the text to be left aligned.)

Thanks. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients
Thats fine if you want to close it. It doesn't seem to have any interest anyway. If its been out there that long then I guess it wasn't as important an article as I had previously thought. Additionally, I will start loading down the page with all the other recipients and maybe if the page gets heavy enough and takes long enough to open someone will realize that maybe having all 3500+ recipients on one page is bad and that maybe forking isn't. I mean if we are going to allow forking on wikipedia then it should be allowed to be in a Featured Article and under the same logic if forking can't be used in a featured article then we shouldn't allow it to be used. Sorry to vent but I find myself disappointed at the whole situation.--Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wealthiest list
It is not just that the other references aren't required. Some of them are for one or two years ago! So those references are just plain wrong. The problem I see with promoting the list as it is, is that other folk will be mislead as to what constitutes adequate sourcing. People look at FLs for guidance. It really doesn't qualify as "our very best" at this point in time, but would require so little change to fix it that I'm frustrated. Colin°Talk 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Intertoto Cup managers
Just as a quickie, will you be promoting this list too today? It's been 10 days has six supports (last time I looked). I only ask as its promotion will result in a bunch more work for me as I attempt another featured topic. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think this topic has created sufficient groundswell for it to be included in the dispatch, it'll be interesting to see if the wider community have a different outlook from those of us who could be accused of being too close to be objective. Let me know!  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After poking my nose in at TRM's page, I think it would be a good dispatch. Given that we could drag in the bias towards sports lists within the exisitng Featured lists, it could be an interesting topic. I have fingers in both pies so to speak: having done 4 Victoria Cross recipients lists and the Villa lists. I would be happy to help. Woody (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, never seen the need to. Shall we create a subpage somewhere to start developing it? Woody (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 28th looks good, I will list some ideas down in your sandbox tonight. Woody (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FCDW/April 28, 2008 is up. Woody (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for a copyedit
Hi Scorpion, I've mostly finished my work on the Calgary Hitmen article, and once I fill in a couple redlinks, intend to list it at FAC. Would you be willing to give this article a look over, as I am certain another pair of eyes reading it over will help deal with issues that I can no longer see after reading the text over about a hundred times, heh. Thanks! Resolute 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons Ride
Can we site any of the references I've posted under 'New Verifiable Information' on the talk page?--Snowman Guy (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you think we can add the verifiable information in the article?--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response!--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada parks
Sorry to be so anal pedantic. Well done on the imminent star. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the WikiProject devised an official thingy which had overwhelming consensus within it that said, say, such list articles are deemed comprehensive if they include all players with 100 professional appearances and/or international caps and/or club record holders, so long as a hat-note is included pointing to a Category, would that have any weight? Just because a WikiProject overwhelmingly backed something, would that amount to more than a fart in the wind when non affiliated editors disagreed at FLC? --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thought-provoking. Take a peek at User_talk:Dweller. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing a FLRC
I think I've done almost all the steps (check my contribs). Is there a "goings on" page to update for the Wikipedia Signpost or anything else? Perhaps you could document the "To archive a nomination" steps like for FLCs? Thanks. Colin°Talk 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FCDW
I have started expanding it, trying to get some basic points down on it. Do you think that Featured list criteria/Comprehensive long lists should be included or do we need to see how this pans out first? Woody (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons' signpost report
Are you still up for it? Rudget 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Cup
I'd be perfectly happy to support (assuming there were no other issues!) with it forking out to the old tournament. I'm sure I'll see when you list it! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New guest star
The promotional image page on FOXFLASH shows that John C. Reilly will also guest star in "Any Given Sundance".- one and only,  Superior   (reply!)   21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: FLCs
Well, I can't do anything in WP:FAC right now because I've got a nomination there, I've got no outstanding issues at any of my nominations at WP:FLC, I'm working on one WP:FTC right now, and I've got a few WP:GAN going on. I also do some maintenance work at WP:UNCAT and vandalism fighting when I'm not working on anything else. The only option I have is to work on WP:GAN, then, which I'd rather not because I normally want to go all the way to WP:FAC when I get something to WP:GAN, and that would therefore increase the backlog of items that I'd need to improve to WP:FA status. Gary King (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oakley
I added a couple to the list. Zagalejo^^^ 05:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like we've got 20 now, I'll add a sub-part to "Were there any episodes you reacted negatively to?" - relating to his opinion of the continuity destroying episode "That 90's Show", and other episodes generally disliked by fans (at the very least it could be used as a general reception section). Gran2 07:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my answers to Rudget's questions, would it be okay if I mentioned we got in contact with Bill? Gran2 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup champions
The source of the challenge cup era is mainly from the 'Trail of the Stanley Cup' book. I've also founded sources in the Globe and Mail full-text database that goes back to 1848. My library has a subscription. The sources are cited on the individual league season pages. The links to those articles are provided in the list. If you are concerned about the cites for that table, I can add cites, or a 'Source' line for the table, but not this week-end. I am out of town at the moment and only have dial-up access. Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what your concerns are about? The CBC, NHL, etc. are not interested in those early years. Are you proposing that I put in cites for the league championships in question? Those championships are listed in the 'Trail' book. As far I know, you won't find that info in media or NHL listings. Those are just year-by-year. I can put in cites, let me know which ones. I have the 'Trail' book with me today, and have broadband Internet today. The cites may be in 'Total Hockey' as well. Alaney2k (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that we have the various league seasons articles in Wikipedia. Click on the dates of the various challenges, league championships. Alaney2k (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1901 game was part of the MHA season. I got that from the Globe and Mail. I checked the 1901 MHA season article. I didn't add the cite there. I will do that, in both places. Alaney2k (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing the second place teams. Alaney2k (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1901 Winnipeg game was not a Cup challenge per se, (that is current champion vs. challenger) it was the game to decide the MHA championship. The winner would keep the Cup, as it wen with the league at the time. The Victorias defended it successfully. It is a recorded game. Alaney2k (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Cup win/loss record
Please read my justification in the article's talk section for keeping the old table as it was. Jmj713 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:MikeCraig.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:MikeCraig.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Principal and the Pauper
I think this is ready for WP:FAC. Why don't you give it a shot? I'm sure we can get skilled editors like and others to help out if things need to be addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay good idea. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Cirt (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

okay
but my sourde says they are working on season twenty. when did david silverman ssay he was working on it? could u please reply on my talk page ??? thanks

Suggestion
Scorpion, this happens all the time with FAC closures, so I created WP:FAC/ar and linked it in and, so Gimmetrow wouldn't get hit with so many queries and so I have a link to a quick response every time it comes up. Maybe you can crib a copy from it and do similar for lists ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches
Hi Scorpion,

Sandy pointed out you were preparing a Dispatches and I noticed you were focussing on the hockey/football list issues. My first reaction was that it was a rather negative topic to pick and wonder if perhaps you could cover another more supportive topic as well. (If you want, I'll have a look and see if I can find something). Secondly, I had some issues with the wording:
 * "it was decided that all featured lists need to be exhaustive in their coverage of material" -- it wasn't decided. A few people who happen to be vocal enough to add an opposing review comment isn't significant enough to make or change consensus.
 * "a number of biases" -- let's not accuse anyone of bias.
 * "This resulted in the conclusion that the soccer lists would need to be expanded or de-featured." only among some of the editors. There was no consensus.
 * "The keep side" -- best to avoid creating sides.
 * While I'm flattered at the quote, it may not be necessary.

I've had a go at redrafting the text, trying to give some background and rationale. I've also included a couple of lists, which is fitting don't you think? Feel free to use/modify/discard as you wish. -- Colin°Talk 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One third of all features lists are sports-related. The relevant wikiprojects encourage members towards featured status and establish a consistent format for lists within their domain.  Usually, the projects do not interact but a dispute over list entry criteria pitted the ice hockey project against the football (soccer) project. The general list guidelines and  featured list criteria require that the lead section of a standalone list must clearly define the entry criteria. While desirable, it is not always possible to pick a good title that accurately summarises the scope of the list.


 * The football player lists have traditionally placed a threshold on their entry criteria in order to keep the list to a manageable size, and focus the entries on those more likely to have a worthwhile Wikipedia article. Many football clubs have been around since the late 1800s, so a complete list of players could be huge. In contrast, the ice hockey player lists have traditionally been complete, which has generally not been a problem as the nominated clubs have not been particularly old. However, a recent nomination of the Chicago Blackhawks (founded 1926) ran into problems when it attempted to adopt a football-list approach to restricting the entry criteria. The nomination failed three times (1, 2, 3) with several reviewers opposing due to the list being "incomplete". The nominator (Teemu08) then nominated one of the football lists (Arsenal F.C.) for removal, to establish if we should "delist all sports-related lists that do not include all of the players that ever played for the club." A long debate ensued, with over 20 users commenting, but ultimately the FLRC failed due to no consensus. All of these lists meet the current featured list criteria on being "comprehensive" since they all cover the defined scope, which is summarised in the lead. However, based on the title alone, many football lists are incomplete, and some editors felt that made the title misleading. The advantages and disadvantages of having a complete or restricted list were discussed, with no clear winner emerging.


 * Colin, the FCDW is just prosified notes at the moment. We are hoping to use it to describe the current Featured list bias by using the current controversy as an example. I don't think it is a particularly negative topic, or at least it shouldn't be when it is finished. At the moment it is nowhere near finished. Woody (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but I wanted to catch any unfortunately choice of words before they get from notes to text. I've seen before (such as the "is it an article or a list" debates) where folk got a oppose or two and assumed those reviewers spoke with authority or had established some consensus. I'm not quite sure what this controversy has to do with "featured list bias", whatever that might be. Are you aware that "bias" can be viewed a negative term that most folk don't think applies to them? That there are a lot of sports featured lists isn't (necessarily) a result of any bias. Colin°Talk 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of systemic bias and it was in no way derogatory. I think it is rather pointless to talk about draft notes, lets wait until we develop the article, then by all means critique it. Woody (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion,

I'm surprised so much of my draft made it onto the current dispatches. But I'm now in an awkward position as I have some real problems with the other text but don't want to look like I'm trying to dominate things. Here's the text:


 * After a third failed FLC for List of Chicago Blackhawks players due to "comprehensiveness" concerns, it was decided that all featured lists need to be exhaustive in their coverage of material. In terms of sports lists, this was a concern due to the large number of Association football articles that use an arbitrary cut-off for their lists. A Featured list removal candidacy was created for List of Arsenal F.C. players; Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players. This candidacy was created in many ways as a test case. This FLRC has highlighted a number of biases within the Featured list structure and the influence of projects in developing a coherent and uniform structure to lists.
 * Much of this paragraph repeats the subsequent material, which I think explains the background before diving into the dispute.
 * I think "Dispatches" should be written like news, but this prose is passive and vague in saying who/what ("it was decided"). WP readers will think from that phrase that there has been a big debate and consensus reached. In fact, the issue was raised by hockey reviewers and limited to consideration of player lists. Saying that the FL requirements had changed ("it was decided") is wrong. They haven't changed.
 * "sports lists" isn't precise enough as most sports lists cover games and results. This issue concerns player lists. There are only seven football player lists that "use an arbitrary cut-off for their lists", which isn't a "large number". Again, lots of FLs use an arbitrary cut-off (think hurricanes) so readers will puzzle why this is such a problem.
 * "a number of biases" I still don't understand what you/Woody are trying to say here. You'll get complaints and folk might take offence. If you are saying sport lists dominate the FLs, then really that's something to congratulate the sport writers for, rather than (appearing to) accuse anyone (or the system) of bias.


 * While the majority of these lists are finite in their composition, several of them have inclusion criteria.
 * All lists are "finite in their composition" and all lists "have inclusion criteria". What are you trying to say here?

Sorry for being picky. If there's additional points you want to make, but are struggling to express them, let me know what they are and I'll try to help. If there are aspects of the text I wrote that you don't think are clear or you disagree with, let me know too. As you get nearer the deadline, I recommend pinging Sandy for an outside opinion to make sure the text makes sense to non FL readers.

Finally, I'm just catching up with the stuff on the FL criteria and the idea of a director. This "breaking news" has to find its way into dispatches too. Colin°Talk 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a non-list person, right now, I'm not understanding much of it. Because it's in the Dispatches, it needs to be aimed at a broad audience and written news summary style.  We need more definition of terms, and a basic introduction to lists.  I left a lot of inlines; when they are almost ready, I usually ask Tony to copyedit, but first we need to get an answer as to whether you all still want the 28th or want to postpone.  If you postpone, I need to know soon so I can round up someone else.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Or, do I need to wait to hear from Woody before I ask someone else to fill in?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, moved you to FCDW/May 12, 2008. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Homer of Seville
The page for "Homer of Seville", has been completley revamped. Page intro was fixed, guest stars, COUCH GAG, reception, and removed bullets from cultural references and removed ones that werent sourced. I've also uploaded the episode's promo, and removed one completly unrelated. Better? Check the edit before mine! - Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r reply! 01:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * but to be honest, I haven't fixed the plot. It seems to jump from scene to scene, not explaining the episode. - Yours truly, [ S ] υ ρ є r ı o r reply! 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/MJD86 (2nd)
I've asked for a little more input from you into the report above, please. Thanks. GBT/C 11:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject Matter Expert
I created a page in my sandbox to show an idea I have for creating a Page or project to identify wikipedians as Subject Matter experts or near experts on a given subject. Right now its just one big page but if it takes off it could be multiple pages and or projects. The basic concept is that if I am knowledgable about Math, Science, Wikipedia policy, speaking greek or whatever I can put my name under the category or categories I am interested in participating in and if someone has a question or needs help relating to that subject they can go to that page and contact one of them on their talk page. Obviously its more useful for popular or obsure subjects but in general I think that it would help to improve the public perception that Wikipedia content can't be trusted. Plus it will give new users or users who jsut need help. Its still a very rough idea and right now I based the page on the Logistics page of the Military history project but I see this changing into somethin much bigger. If you don't mind take a look and let me know what you think. I know that there were a couple of things similar for designating an expert but I believe that last thing that WP needs is another voting pool. I am going to leave this message on a few other talk pages of editors that I work with frequently to get some general opinions or ideas before I try and sell it to the WP as a whole. Please let me know what you think.--Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Chynoweth
Heh, I was actually checking legends of hockey when you removed him from the list, and it seems they've already removed him from their list as well. As far as your prediction goes, no bet here. Hell, its a travesty that he isn't already in the hall. I had been meaning to start an article on him for some time, being easily the most important person in WHL history. Resolute 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

TFA page
Re:this edit - please read the rules of the page. It specifically says that low-point nominations can be replaced by higher point ones. Raul654 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page requests
Sorry, but them's the rules: "If there are already five articles and if the article that you would like to nominate has a point-value higher than the nomination with the lowest point-value, you may replace it." Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons and hockey
I'd just like to say that you are really dedicated to both The Simpsons-related articles and hockey-related articles. That's always appears to be the common theme for your contributions. Hopefully they all become Featured Articles one day... I personally like to edit a wide range of topics to throw people off the scent. But that's just me. Gary King ( talk ) 05:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FLCs
Yes, this whole thing has rather sprung up from the blue! As with most things, like becoming an admin/crat, I'm happy to take responsibility but it does mean a detrimental effect on my reviewing. But then again it appears the process may be undergoing a bit of an overhaul anyway. I sincerely hope you don't feel this discussion is usurping your great work, no matter what happens I'd love to continue working in FLC with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FL Director
Hey Scorpion, thanks for the nomination. I'll still be around helping out as needed, but I didn't think I would have enough time (that and I would rather see you and The Rambling Man as our directors :-) Thanks again. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)  18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's cool, well like I said, you were the first person I ran into at WP:FLC and I think you have done the most Director work out of everyone so I would a little sad if you couldn't close noms anymore. Best of luck to you in whatever you decide, I'm still pulling for you and TRM :-)   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the reluctance to accept? I see, like me, you aren't necessarily convinced of the need (or see how it would change things). But if we have one, why not you? Would you prefer to go back to reviewing more? Or writing more? Are you feeling a little bruised by Tony's remarks? Colin°Talk 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit out of the loop, and am not really familiar with The Rambling Man or Matthew. I think Dweller's idea might work. If the director sees a nomination that just isn't working, then he can call on neutral help to look into it without himself getting caught up in the mess. It fails if the "help" doesn't, or start arguing among themselves! Colin°Talk 22:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey don't ever revert my stuff ever again!
Just kidding. You are a more established editor to the Simpsons Articles than I am. I have just been going through and using the Cite Episode tags instead of "As seen in so and so, Lisa is actually a goat." I put a section on the talk page of WP:DOH but no one has answered. If you could go there and give me your two cents, that would help out also :D. Thanks man.  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons
Im glad there are people who still appericate The Simpson's and their acoplishments. For being the longest running animated show in the history of the U.S I have so much respect for what you do on Wikiproject: The Simpsons

--Hippieslayer (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)HippieSlayer

Failed
Scorpion—I wonder whether you'd consider using the term "archived" as a euphemism in edit summaries—archived or promoted—since it's hard when your "failure" is broadcast to all who have FLC on their watchlist. I think (unsure) that's the term used in other featured content processes. In any case, I like to think of an archiving as merely a chance to work on a list for possible resubmission, rather than what a sensitive soul might take as a damning indictment by an official process. Better for morale. Tony  (talk)  02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to eliminate the word "failed" from FAC, although I may occasionally slip and use it, since it was used extensively in the past. I try to always say archive/promote.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Failure is a striking dagger to the soul. Gary K</i>ing</b> ( talk )  07:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Burns
I'll see what I can dig up. Gran2 07:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Scorpin
Scorpin- Hi im a friend of Hippieslayer He said that you care about the Simpsons I can really rexpect that, so any way if you can send me a message that would be really cool --Hippieslayer95 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Hippieslayer95

Episodes question
Scorpion, since you work on The Simpsons, are you able to figure out what the question is at User talk:SandyGeorgia, and answer on that talk page? I read it and have no idea what they're talking about or how to help. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, an update from me
Sorry for my extended away, but I should be back in early June or so. I'm sorry it's taking so long, but my real life stuff is conflicting with my Wikipedia time a lot, sadly. Also, I'm assuming this is what Mr. Oakley had been doing in his busy writing time and not being able to talk to us much. xihix (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Springfield's state
An article that you have been involved in editing, Springfield's state, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Springfield's state. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Terraxos (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you and your ridiculous reverting...
Not only did you make me look like a total jackass, you invited other trolls to criticize me on my page. Not only am I denying recognition to you, I'm going to make a request that you be banned from Wikipedia. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
I have made a thread at AN/I about ChrisP2K5. Feel free to add anything that you feel I missed and should be brought up. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents  &lt;3  Tinkleheimer   TALK!!  04:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons Ride
I really haven't paid any attention to the Simpsons Ride, but I'll take a look at the article eventually. Right now, I'd like to fix a few things at The Principal and the Pauper. I probably won't be satisfied with that until the weekend. Zagalejo^^^ 17:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons/PLOT
Seeing as it was brought up at WT:DOH ages ago: Homer's Night Out might need a polish. Sceptre (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)