User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday/Archive 3

Featured Sound
I think you're the active coodinator of the program (?), being helped and supported by the regulars, Kleinzach, and Durova. Honestly, I have not seen any opposition vote by you and them. Most of nomination are also done by you. I think you've tried very hard making a boom of the program, but well.....It seems like I'm a black sheep with a sharp tongue. But I think the standard for FS is too loose unlike other featured contents.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. However, the Mikado file is I think, over the acceptable range of "lower standard".--Caspian blue (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On a related note, when can we expect to see Today's featured sound on the Main Page? You have my support on this. -- Suntag  ☼  13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. I tweaked your archive name to a better system. I have my fingers crossed, hoping that you appreciate it. -- Suntag  ☼  14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again Shoe. I think we can add "Today's featured sound" below "Today's featured picture." Before adding "Today's featured sound" to the Main Page, there needs to be a string of pages that allow adding the content to the Main Page. Once "Today's featured sound" is properly set up to be added to the Main Page, then we should go and point out that consensus is to add "Today's featured sound" to the Main Page (not sure that will carry the day). Unfortunately, I don't know what is entailed in such an endevor. I started by copying some of the pages used to make "Today's featured picture" appear on the main page. First, there is script in the main page itself for "Today's featured picture." That script transcludes from . See Template:POTD protected/2008-10-12. Zzyzx11 added to Template:POTD protected/2008-10-12, so maybe you can get User:Zzyzx11 to help you with the "Today's featured sound". Also, Ed g2s might be a good resource to set this up. I attempted to do this by creating Template:SOTD protected, Template:SOTD protected/2008-10-12, and User:Shoemaker's Holiday/Featured sound sandbox. I modeled them after the "Today's featured picture" pages. I hope this helps. -- Suntag  ☼  15:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In summary of the above, we first need to have the system set up to add "Today's featured sound" then we need to have someone agree that consensus is for adding "Today's featured sound" to the main page so that they add the code to the Main Page that transcludes the "Today's featured sound" system to appear on the Main Page. -- Suntag  ☼  15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

self-ref
Have you seen this: Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory ? I was just looking at which is why I'm showing this to you. Doug Weller (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7 project
I just noticed that you did not nominate The Mikado. Was there a reason, or did you just forget to put it in your "little list"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. What do you mean it was already selected?  I see a Version 0.7 tag on the others, but not on The Mikado.  Can you explain more simply for the technology-challenged (i.e., me?)  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you check to make sure that it was actually included, and to see if a tag should be on the Mikado talk page, and also the ones for Gilbert, Sullivan and G&S? I'm not exactly sure what the Version 0.7 project is for, but if we are including The Gondoliers, we should certainly include The Mikado. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Ten Biblical Songs
Hello Shoemaker. I´ve left there a message for you. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ain't We Got Fun?
I reviewed your article Ain't We Got Fun? for GA and unfortunately had to fail the article due to my concerns outlined at Talk:Ain't We Got Fun?/GA1. Although I believe the article needs a fair amount of reworking, I can put the article on hold if you want to try to fix the article.

Let me know what you want. If I do not hear from you I will fail the article. I am also notifying your co-nominator.

Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIG
I've reverted your removal of this bullet point. While there are some neat things that can be done with subst'ed signatures, they're most often used to subvert the 255 character limit. Those that are clever enough to write neat signatures (i.e. randomizing ones) are similarly clever enough to ignore this rule; it should be left in there who simply want to have ridiculously long signatures through transclusion. Cheers, – xeno  ( talk ) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Contest Invitation
Hello there!

You have been invited to enter C4v3m4n's Contest!.

The contest is designed to provide users with a challenge while still having fun! This month's contest is focused on Movember, a month designed to to raise awareness and funds for men's health issues, such as prostate cancer and depression in Australia and New Zealand.

Follow the link given above to find out more information. Hope to see you there!

$\mathfrak{C}\mathfrak{4}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{3}\mathfrak{m}\mathfrak{4}\mathfrak{n}$ 04:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Sounds
I'm not really doing F&A anymore due to personal commitments from work. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thespis
See the talk page, please. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fairy's Dilemma
Please check this article. This also led to work on Violet Vanbrugh and Arthur Bourchier. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, P retzels Talk! 08:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your concerns regarding my personal proposal. Please see your comment on the poll, P retzels Talk! 09:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal: Opera - will be updated every 2 months
Starting from October, I will only update the portal at every 2 months. One of the main reasons is we do not have many quality articles and if I continue updating every month, I am afraid, someday we may have to "re-cycle" the very same articles. It goes the same with audio section. As for Puccini’s noted arias, let’s keep them for his anniversary on December. However, you can put those arias (audios) in Tosca article - Jay (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ballets by Arthur Sullivan
Is this new category appropriate? If not, can you try to work it out? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see you did some editing there. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that it was you until after I did this. Do you agree with my changes? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A further comment, just in case you missed the above in all the excitement. I've since read your text (which I had deleted) more carefully, and have now removed the two members of from the head Category:Compositions by Arthur Sullivan. The members of its other sub-category  were not also in the head category, so it was not disrupting the completeness of the info to have them categorised only in Ballets. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems exactly wrong to me. I think the old categorization was much more useful. People looking for Arthur Sullivan's works need these ballets to be in the old category. The new category, which just has the two ballets in it, seems useless. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm open to argument... I assume you know the general rule at WP:SUBCAT. Why categorise the operas differently from the ballets? I know there are more operas than ballets, but the category for ballets does make sense as part of the hierarchy in . - Fayenatic (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sullivan was known for his operas, but he wrote lots of other stuff. All the Sullivan-related articles make it easy to find the operas, but we want to make sure that people know about his other compositions and can easily find them all in one place. The ballet category only has only two members (Sullivan wrote only two ballets), and Sullivan was not known for his ballets, so putting these two things in a subcat does not seem helpful. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I see: you are suggesting that the new category should be deleted and upmerged as WP:Overcategorisation on the grounds of WP:OC. I suggest you ask the category creator if he accepts that it ought not to exist on the grounds of this guideline. If he agrees, then the articles can be upmerged back to Category:Compositions by Arthur Sullivan and the empty cat can be deleted after 4 days. If he doesn't agree, then I suggest you nominate it for upmerging at CFD. I don't think OC:SMALL is clear-cut in this case because of the large sub-categorisation scheme for ballets, very similar to the exception for songs given in that guideline.
 * Meanwhile, as long as the category is in use, I think the ballets should not be in the parent as well as the sub-cat; and I don't see the benefit of having them as parallel cats with "See also" links rather than a hierarchy. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While Category:Ballets by Arthur Sullivan may be of little interest to opera fans or G&S fanatics (I plead guilty to having performed in Pirates, Pinafore and Yeoman) it is of considerable use to balletomanes, despite — or perhaps because of — its small size. Nor is this a case of a choreographer making a dance on a pre-existing piece of music. These were written to be ballets, and Sullivan is not a minor composer. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ballets by Arthur Sullivan
I think that your deletion (without discussion or notice) Category:Ballets by Arthur Sullivan was a bit hasty; please see User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday and restore the category until the matter has been resolved. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not showing where I deleted this in the log for that page. I would be glad to review any deletion I made, can you please point me to the log entry where you saw be deleting it?  Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk  12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do show where I deleted an article redirect of Ballets by Arthur Sullivan --> Arthur Sullivan, after it was flagged for speedy deletion as recently created improbable search term. If that is the page you want restored, please let me know.  The category will be just as useful if searching for that title though.  Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk  12:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that redirect. The category now uses a direct link in . A lot of other similar redirects are up for deletion at Redirects for discussion/Ballet redirects. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bach request
Hmmm, my favourite Bach audio would be the harpsichord version of the Sonata in B minor for flute or recorder and harpsichord, the Italian Concerto (even though it sounds strange in places due to the temperament used), and the prelude and fugue in c-sharp minor from the Well-Tempered Clavier. Probably the first one would be the most suitable. Graham 87 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done at Featured sound candidates/Sonata for Flute or Recorder and Harpsichord in B minor, BWV 1030. Graham 87 02:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Otello
Could you find a PD file of Otello? Enrico Caruso sung the work in 1914 and I think there might be at least one record before 1923 since the work was composed in 1871. The reason I'm asking you for this is your nomination of the poster of the opera.--Caspian blue 02:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That request is no hurry, but I think any recording of Otello would be more helpful to link Othello and Otello as well as your nomination of the poster. Hmm... the Enrico Caruso's recording to which I was referring to is this ebay aution.--Caspian blue 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful fining! Hmm...We can try Morte d'Otello because it is the most famous aria of the opera.--Caspian blue 02:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I want the record, but I could not warrant to get the auction and it would take "time". I would highly appreciate you can clean the existent recordings in your finding too.--Caspian blue 02:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, the voice of the tenor is a bit similar to Placido Domingo. I like the file a lot.--Caspian blue 03:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid to say that the original is better at this time. As you said before, human voice is very delicate, but I highly think of your effort on this.--Caspian blue 06:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just saw this . . perhaps I can have my 2 cents worth . . . Caspian blue is right. The 'original' (presumably a 78) is better but even that doesn't sound good. It's been issued by Historic Masters . It's likely that their masters are in much better condition. There are many other famous Otellos. I'd recommend Giovanni Zenatello (1876-1949) and Giovanni Martinelli (1885–1969) - though I don't know the copyright situation for them. -- Klein zach  09:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Historic Masters
Kleinzach, I'm a student. I can't afford to spend £94 on a CD just to get a few recordings. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't leave comments like this on my talk page, OK? -- Klein zach  01:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

re
I just re-added a line that was removed, while the talk page discussion is ongoing. it was Levine's idea, really. I'd appreciate it if you'd undo your revert and take it up with us on the talk page. -- Ludwigs 2 23:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Glen Canyon Dam MC.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 7, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-07.  howcheng  {chat} 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Support
I want to support your efforts, although I'm often in opposition:)) Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rímur
You seem to know all about sound files, Image:Numa rimur extract.ogg is the only old one I've uploaded. Does that file/description look right to you? Haukur (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Foggerty's Fairy
Can you find any illustrations/photos from this show? Hope all is well. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case
Just thought I would point out that this motion was proposed by Charles Matthews not AGK as your comment suggests you believe. I accept that this isn't very clear from the way that section is laid out. WJBscribe (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:PPR question
Thanks very much for your comments at Picture peer review/Black Moshannon Cabin. Per your suggestion, I have added the image to the log cabin article as a relatively modern example of a log cabin. I have also tried to explain more clearly the history of the cabin and why I beleive it to be notable on its own as a CCC-built cabin in a NRHP historic district. If I read your comments correctly, you seem to think this image would have a decent chance at WP:FPC. I do not want to nominate it there without a second from PPR. If you believe it to be FPC worthy, would you mind seconding it? If not, my apologies for bothering you. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mozart clips
Last month I asked if you could help me find some Das Rheingold clips, to illustrate the arcle Rhinemaidens.There was no joy on that. I wonder if it's possible to ascertain if there are clips available for any of Mozart's early works? Since these would illustrate the article Mozart family Grand Tour, only the range K.6 to K.33 would be applicable. The ideal choice would be K.16 symphony No.1 or K.19 Symphony No. 4, but anything in the range would do. I notice that some of the later Mozart symphony articles are illustrated by musical clips, but not the earlier ones. Anyhow, any help you can give, even if it's just pointing me in the right direction, would be very much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very prompt reply. There are no piano compositions as such from this period, unless you mean the sonatas for harpsichord with (optional) violin accompaniment, in which case any of Ks 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 or 31 would do. The K.10 to K.15 range are a bit complicated because they have optional cello and flute parts. Anyway, I would basically be delighted with anything that comes from the tour period, K.6 to K.33. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Either - or both? - of these would be fine. If I can only have one, the 19d would be better - it's been described as a "jewel". Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to vacate Matthew Hoffman on arb page
Hi. I'd made a couple of insignificant changes, like to the title, and in adding the list of users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request at the top. Note: I'm not a clerk. That said, if you could fill out those details for anyone you think is relevant at the top of the request, that'd be awesome. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an editor, and not as an active clerk, you may want to strip some of the more personal details out, just for your own protection. If you do not wish to, I understand that too.--Tznkai (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Jehochman won't need to be seeing he responded there already. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, that was YOU??? Holy crap, I never would've guessed! Welcome back, anyway--and for what it's worth I always thought you got screwed into the ground on that case, though I was too new to feel comfortable saying anything. GJC 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

likely to repeat functionally equivalent?
Hi, looking at your user page I see that you are making significant contributions to WP's article on culture. I have no desire to distract you from your admirable work.

Unfortunately on 14 May 2008 you re-directed Structural Integration [diff] to Rolfing. I believe this functioned as a deletion without going through the required WP processes.

My question is this, "Are you likely to edit in a functionally equivalent manner again?"

If "no" I can go away satisfied that you are doing excellent work on culture.

However if you do plan to edit in ways functionally equivalent to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Structural_Integration&diff=prev&oldid=212433280 again, then we have some work to do to reach a consensus in the area of using redirection to, in effect, delete articles. SmithBlue (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mozart family Grand Tour
For your information, this article is now at FAC. I don't think the candidature will be dependent on the sound clips, it'll simply be nice when they come! Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:NASA Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 21, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-21.  howcheng  {chat} 05:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maths/homeopathy
The maths was not by me. Rather, pointing out that the assumption to start with a single molecule only is preposterous was (Homeopaths are not known to utilize scanning tunneling microscopes...). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC nr 3 bates method article scientific research.
Sorry to bother you, but the quality of an article is under threat. If you have time can you take a look at RFC nr 3 in the talkpage of the bates method article. See : []. It is about mention objective results presented by ophthalmology about the Woods results. These results represent perfectly why the Batesmethod / NVI is controversial. It presents negative, positive and neutral results. The scientific reference which confirms the BM / NVI is controversial : []. These Woods results have been presented for a while but aren now removed !!! Please comment if you agree or do not agree by providing your arguments on which it is based. See also the listed arguments at this moment. Appreciate your objective comment. regards, Seeyou (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:W. S. Gilbert
Please see Gilbert's talk page. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lunar_Roving_Vehicle Delist and replace
Hey shoe, I did a little clean on a featured picture of your that i saw on the main page. I have nominated the original for delisting and to be replacing with a corrected version at FPC here. Id be grateful if you could take a look and see if there is an improvement. Sedd&sigma;n talk 10:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Gentleman in Black
This new article is up. Do you have an image for it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mozart clips (sorry to be such a bore)
Mozart family Grand Tour is through FAC, but it would still be good to add the clips, if they can be got. No pressure, honestly, but they would ice the cake nicely. Brianboulton (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Christmas task force
Hi Shoemaker's Holiday. At Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know, you expressed interest in Christmas topics. WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force now has been created. Please consider joining and participating in that task force. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant
Just spotted this. Hats off to you. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thespis
I bookmarked a spot at WP:TFA/R so Raul wouldn't have to remember; it's up to you to finish up. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sprotect
I went ahead and semi-protected Natural selection for three months. I'll keep it watchlisted, and if the vandalism continues after that time, hopefully I'll notice or just let me know and I'll be happy to lengthen it. Ok for a starter? Dreadstar †  05:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock
((unblock-auto|1=194.72.9.25|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ashley kennedy3". The reason given for Ashley kennedy3's block is: "Edit warring: 3RR at Banias".|3=Elonka|4=1248271))

Can you please NOT block dynamically-allocated IPs of the biggest internet provider in Britain for established users?


 * Apologies for the inconvenience; you should be able to edit in a moment, if not already. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I know we have disagreed in the past (and hope that sometimes we've agreed too) - I just wanted to say that I hope that your arbcom problems are resolved constructively soon, and that you have a good time over Christmas, and that the New Year is better than the old one. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFAR
Could you please vote or abstain on Motion 1.3 in the Matthew Hoffman appeal? It currently has 5 supports out of ten, but the new Arbcom is going to come in in two weeks, and then everything will be thrown into chaos. It has been up for three and a bit weeks, the appeal itself is a month old. It would be nice to be able to get this over with and move on, instead of leaving it to the new Arbcom to sort out.

Thank you,

Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already voted (to abstain, which of course is what means that there are 10 active arbitrators on the motion and not 11 as you note). Perhaps my recent account renaming caused some confusion. --bainer (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Motion 1.3
would seem to be passing now :-) Merry christmas! :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pinafore?
Thanks for your message. Good to hear that you're feeling better. I already put most of Ainger's info into Pinafore. I'm pretty busy at work at least thru the end of the month. If you work on Pinafore, I'll try to help out, but I won't have a lot of time until 2009. One thing that I think needs to be done for Pinafore is to nail down some of the discussion of copyright piracy with better historical and legal references. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, could you please take a look at my various questions to you over the past few months (see above) and see if you can respond? Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Opera of the Month Template
Hi, could I take you up on your kind offer to re-format the X of the Month templates for the Opera Project? The consensus seems to be to keep Composer of the Month (for now), remove Singer of the Month, and replace it with a new one - Opera of the Month. We'd need them soonish as the new format will start on January 1st. I hope this isn't too short notice. If so, let me know, and I'll try to find someone else to change them. In the meantime, Merry Christmas and many thanks for the all the help you've given the OP this year! All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup notice
The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.

This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.

This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.

Questions or comment? Ask at the talk page or go directly to Garden or IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! --  aye matthew  ✡ and  Garden. 13:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup

 * Delivered by  neuro  (talk) for  Garden  and  aye  matthew  at 20:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fringe arbcom
Hi SH, regarding your comments on Martinphi it's fine to disagree on the issues but it really isn't helpful to personalize things. And doing so only drives sympathy toward the other fellow so it actually hurts your case. You might consider striking portions of your comments as a goodwill gesture. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Featured picture sets?
I don't believe it would be fair to award more points for more pictures as it's all one FPC. I'll get iMatthew to give his insight soon. Sorry, Garden. 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Christ on a bike! Well, don't you agree that 3,000 points is a little extreme for one FPC?   Garden . 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. I'll have to get iMatthew's eyes on this for you.   Garden . 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion in Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats on a successful case! -- Fyslee (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Balance" section from NPOV
During the recent "Clarification" ArbCom, a question came up about the "Balance" section from NPOV:


 * "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." (my emphasis)

The discussion is now listed here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FBarrett_v._Rosenthal

Here are some relevant quotes from that page (with highlights added):
 * First motion. This motion isn't necessary. Our existing policies cover this, and making a special case places Quackwatch in a bad light, while ignoring other commonly used partisan sources which hold the opposite POV (IOW pro-quackery and fringe POV). It is doubly troubling in that it cites a phrase from NPOV that is itself problematic and needs tweaking. It seems to require that sources used not only abide by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but give equal time to truth and error. If a website or source takes sides in the issue (QW sides with scientific evidence, wherever it leads), then it is deprecated. That's just plain wrong. That phrasing needs tweaking, and it shouldn't be used in a motion here. We are still discussing the stance of where SPOV fits into things here. Right now there is a movement to make the SPOV a part of policy regarding the way scientific subjects are presented. We are actually moving towards deprecating fringe POV based on anecdotes used by scammers and flakes. Deprecating sources that hold the SPOV is counterproductive to making Wikipedia a reliable source and a respectable encyclopedia. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Tony Sidaway


 * Very insightful comments! You are quite correct. The NPOV wording (and thus wordings suggested here) are unclear. What is meant by "balanced"? Do we mean giving equal weight to truth and error, mainstream and fringe? Do we accord the anecdotes, claims, and false advertising of quacks, scammers and/or unscientific practitioners equal weight with mainstream scientific sources, and those who side with them? Are we really to treat them as of equal value? Barrett is clear about how providing that type of "balance" is improper in this type of setting. He doesn't give them equal time. He deals with the issues and takes the side backed up by evidence. When it's not clear, he sometimes makes it clear that the method is experimental or untested. If it's been tested and found wanting, it declares that to be the case.


 * Basically this is not the place to be making such pronouncements. It should be done in the normal way - at NPOV talk. There a revision of the questionable wording should be proposed and debated by the community. This ArbCom setting should not shortcircuit the normal processes, especially when it isn't necessary. Let the community decide content matters. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Statement by User:Tony Sidaway


 * Some of the wording of the first motion looks a little odd.


 * The problems with some of the Quackwatch content are well known and I've no intention of defending that site. However the reasoning given in the proposed new wording seems to send a couple of confusing messages that could end up being badly misinterpreted.  From experience of previous misunderstandings, I think it's reasonable to expect that any infelicitous or insufficiently clear wording could come back to cause problems in future, so it's worth striving to get this right.


 * The proposed new wording is:


 * The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation. (emphasis mine).


 * The wording as it stands seems to imply two things:
 * that it is impossible to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies and misconduct by giving a balanced presentation.
 * that giving a balanced presentation of the field of frauds, myths, etc implies refraining from criticising such practises.


 * The problems with these interpretations are as follows.


 * Nothing in a balanced presentation can say anything about fraud except that it is wrong. A presentation that purports to defend the right to defraud, even if "balanced" by the victim's point of view, would be a sham.  "These fellows harm their customers by their actions, and they do not care about it.  On the other hand they make a lot of money which they may spend on philanthropic works."  Obviously that's a mockery of balance.


 * A balanced presentation of any field, moreover, would necessarily cover it reasonably comprehensively. If there are active fraudsters at work, a balanced presentation will say so in sufficient detail to enable the reader to recognise the kind of problems at work and how to avoid them.


 * If the proposed wording were interpreted in this way, it would tend to cause problems where any website explicitly states "we're here to provide you with the information you need to avoid the health frauds." I'm sure this applies to several very reputable and well balanced organisations in my own country, including statutory trading standards bodies.  The wording could be read to imply that such bodies are intrinsically biased, which (except for being against fraud and other crimes) they are not.


 * Please consider taking the time to clarify what you mean. The meaning is not clear to me. --TS 05:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if this is worth an attempted tweaking of the NPOV policy on this point? Is that part of the section unclear, or is it just me and Tony who think so? -- Fyslee (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Various uses of "Allopathic"
Hi! In November, you have tagged a compromise version of the page Allopathic medicine for merger with Homeopathy and allopathy. You have not explained this, e.g. in the talk section created for discussing it.

I went through the discussions leading up to the present version. As far as I understand, the reason for splitting the pages and making the former one to an "extended disambiguation page" was that "allopathic" also is used in other senses than as contrasted with "homeopathic", mainly in US and India (if I dare to use a word such as "mainly"; the field seems rather inflamed). There seem to be some major controversies as to what weight should be put to these other uses of the word; but as far as I can see no denial of the existence of such uses, from the main discussion participants.

If you retain your proposal, I think you should motivate it at the aforementioned talk section; and/or come with a merger suggestion. You should however be prepared for a longer discussion, which this time is not at all about the proposed value of homeopathy, but on the contrary on whether the term "allopathy" reasonably should be used in wp contexts dissociated from homeopathy. Good luck... JoergenB (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:NPOV/FAQ
I thought that might end up happening. Every time I looked at it I kept thinking I can clear it up a bit more, and a bit more, and .. :) A fresh pair eyes will be much appreciated. Cheers, Ben (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Valued images?
Sorry, I don't think that's too different from FPC - and I don't really want to change the WikiCup's scoring system again. Apologies, Garden. 15:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * Delivered by The  Helpful  One  for  Garden  and  iMatthew  at 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I saw this and then I noticed it has been taken care of. If you look here you will see that it has been deleted and protected so it cannot be reverted. I hope this helps. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sound templates
Hi there, I appreciate you are a bit upset about these templates and the formatting of them on pages. Could I just make a few points: Best wishes, Martin 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You should inform H-M about the ANI thread out of courtesy.
 * 2) I think the word "bot" in your post there will mislead. The edits were semi-automated using AWB and so not bot-actions officially. Maybe you could reword that.
 * 3) It's not as big a problem as you seem to think it is. I am sure we will find a solution satisfactory to everyone. I am happy to help out fixing the formatting in some of these pages. Please don't over-react.


 * Sticking my nose in here, I saw your post on ANI and checked out some of the pages you listed, and I have a question. I don't know if this would work on every article, but on Hungarian Dances (Brahms) for example, it seems to me that the sound template could easily be moved up into the "List of Hungarian Dances" section and the "Media" section could be removed, thereby solving both your concerns about formatting and Happy-melon's concerns about proper usage. Would a solution like this be acceptable, or am I way off base? (Incidentally, I would also be willing to help with cleanup duties, if a consistent format can be agreed upon.) Cheers, Hermione1980 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly explain this problem to the Classical music project here. People will probably be sympathetic, but the technicalities are difficult to understand. It needs to be laid out clearly without huge amounts of verbiage. -- Klein zach  10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano RFC
Good analysis in your view. I'm not convinced yet, but I'm getting there.--Tznkai (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Patience (opera)
Someone has added the full text of the Colonel's song (diff). Please comment on the talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Jane S. Richardson
Thank you for finding one of her original drawings for the article! When you inserted the image with caption, it looks like something went wrong. Would you mind taking a look at it again? I'm not sure how best to integrate the text that you've added. It seems to have jumped before the lead section. Thanks again.--Gimme danger (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Lohengrin - Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 22, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-22.  howcheng  {chat} 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture dispatch
There's a question about the accuracy of the Hogarth captions at Wikipedia talk:FCDW/TempFPreview. Wronkiew (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay detention camp
Please see discussion page at Guantanamo Bay detention camp for detailed discussion of current edits. TY! Edit Centric (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Vector space FAC
Hi,

thanks for your comments and criticism of the vector space FAC. The points you and others w.r.t accessibility of the lead section and motivational explanation have since been addressed. If you have a moment I'd appreciate if you could give your updated opinion. Thank you,

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Dante's Inferno - Hoarders and Wasters
Just to get the credit right here, did you also do some of the editing?

Mediation
Why did you remove my request to undelete the cold fusion mediation from the fringe science arbitration discussion? Is it not in line with the proposed remedy? 69.228.215.76 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I mentioned that it was privileged in the comment, but I suppose it's best to wait for the fringe science arbitration case to close first. Thanks, I guess. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Andreas Dippel
Hi Shoemaker, If you ever need a singer article to go with a sound file, give me shout and I'll see what I can do.;-) Best. Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Reminder
Looking at the number of people wanting to retract their clarification statements from using as a full-case request, you may want to contact ALL those that have commented and let them know. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: My FPs
Okay. Not really sure what on earth is going on. Really sorry about all this, it's getting rather confusing. Looks like everything will be okay though. Nice of Durova to volunteer to dock her points, but to me it's the bot. Garden. 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, have a good one.  Garden . 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mozart Sounds
A couple of months ago I contacted you about the possibility of some sound clips for Mozart family Grand Tour. You were obviously very busy at that time, and nothing came of it. I wonder, however, whether I could ask you again? This time, the article in question is Mozart in Italy, currently going through FAC. If possible I would like to illustrate this with music from Mozart's Italian journeys period, between 1769 and 1773.

I have checked WP:Sound/list and there is nothing appropriate listed there. The most relevant pieces would be K.165 Exsultate Jubilate, K.74 Symphony No. 10 in G, and any excerpts from the early operas Mitridate (K.87), Ascanio in Alba (K.111). and Lucio Silla (K.135). The Exsultate is so well known, I believe there must be a PD recording of it somewhere. If you think you can offer any help, I'd be pleased to hear from you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, much appreciated. I'll await the reply to your enquiries.Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal: Opera
I am ok with 6 songs and I dont have any preference for next month. Anything will do as long as the quality is good - Jay (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are really enthusiastic. Why not you list down all the arias in Opera talkpage? And let see which 6 that the members prefer most. I think 9 is too many - Jay (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not you pick the best 3 (write the titles in the Project opera talkpage), I am fine with any songs. As for total numbers, I have no problem with 6 as I mentioned above but some members prefer 3. - Jay (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/There were giants on the Earth in those days

 * Just wondering, were you involved in editing this image? --Muhammad (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gretchen (play)
I put up this new article. Please review. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

P:CLM
Hello, SH. I've addressed your concerns here. Please have a second look. :) &mdash;  La Pianista  (T•C) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, do you think it would have potential at WP:FPO? &mdash;  La Pianista  (T•C) 03:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Aha!
This is Wiki! I uploaded a picture and you nominate. But thanks you anyway!--Paris 16 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Punch - Masculine beauty retouched1.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 8, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-02-08.  howcheng  {chat} 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

P:CLM
Hello, Shoemaker's Holiday. I've addressed most of your concerns about the portal - do you think I can nominate it at WP:FPO? &mdash;  La Pianista  (T•C) 05:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Coriolanus et al
I saw no colour chart on the LoC archive file and went off the white paper border outside the main artwork area. If there's a scan with a more reliable colour swatch ref I didn't find it. When I sampled the external border as a potential white ref point it corresponded exactly with shifts on others from the same archive with more reliable whites. I presume you've seen my mini-novel on the subject on FPC talk?

The Bathhouse scan, otoh, would not correct out this way at all. Whatever was once white (following your advice) no longer is, or at least achieving anything like a "pure" white anywhere in that image would leave the rest of it looking very odd indeed. The Ryu sho ten scan is surely way better for removing the heavy cast it had, even if it does lack direct comparison with the actual piece for complete accuracy. I'd say we have to allow for a margin of personal interpretation if we're not to be mired in lengthy one-off evaluations like this one.

There's no magic bullet in all this and perception is everything. If my experience of correcting scans is up against your first hand experience of these illustrations, your perception clearly has more value than mine. It does strike me as really odd, however, that removing an established cast from the Coriolanus image renders it neutral without completely losing a semblence of well-weathered artwork. If you're adamant that the engraving should have a strong yellow/green hue, I'd have to defer to your first-hand judgement. Similarly, if you'd like to see a slightly less toned-down edit, just let me know and I'll post one up. Cheers & good luck with the nom. mikaultalk 03:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Meant to add...
Your TPI ribbon nom was promoted before I got the chance to post up an edit. There are some enhancements but it was mostly to remove the mat – don't we remove borders from images any more? I've no idea how you would go about switching the cropped one for the FP-promoted one, and if it's a complete pain you could just leave it as an edit. It's there if you want it, anyway. mikaultalk 05:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Portal:Opera - Discussion
I've opened a discussion on this at the OP.. All contributions welcome. (I'm notifying all OP members who have participated in the discussions about the portal) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Fungi portal
That'd be awesome! A picture like that would fit right in to mushroom hunting, and perhaps elsewhere. D'you think you could get it to featured status pretty easily? J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mixed with your skill as a restorer, I don't think we'll have any problem with a promotion! Thanks a lot, give me a ping when you submit it. J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it may belong on the species article, but I don't think it would work as a lead image. J Milburn (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Opera-related featured pictures
Can you help me out and find Opera-related featured pictures and list them at Portal_talk:Opera ? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, not Eusebius
Re this change comment and this change: I'm flattered, but the name is Eubulides, not Eusebius. It's not a big deal at all, but there is a User:Eusebius and I wouldn't want others to confuse us. Plus, the historical Eusebius is quite a different guy from the historical Eubulides! —Eubulides (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

signpost pictures
Sure, a gallery sounds like a great idea. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Fungi portal
Hey, that's no problem at all, I don't mind waiting. I already use both of those, along with a number featured on other Wikipedias, and there are a batch of fungi images already on FPC from myself and Sasata. I don't want to flood them! I'll certainly consider nominating them once the current batch clears a little- thanks for the tips. J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dore question
You said you own Gustave Doré's Divine Comedy, I believe. I was wondering if you could restore the image File:Paradiso Canto 31.jpg, but rescan it at a higher resolution if possible. It's in many articles and appears to have a high value. Please forgive me if I'm wrong/confused whatever. Thanks,  Spencer T♦C 03:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was just curious.  Spencer T♦C 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's okay. :D.  Spencer T♦C 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hans Adler affair
I have stricken what you suggested, and a bit more. I would still like to know what specific ambiguous wording I have used. I appreciate any peacekeeping efforts on your part, since it will take a third party to sort this out. What is his real beef about? I gave up trying to sort through all the straw men, so there could be something there I haven't noticed or read at all. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 23:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

comment
Shoemaker, you're entitled to dislike me (as you mentioned on the NPOV/FAQ talk page), but please don't let that spill over into petty, pointless reverts like the one you made at Royal Rife. I'm more than willing to work with you to satisfy any concerns you have, having basic cleanup reverted over trivialities is silly. thanks. -- Ludwigs 2 00:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:The cow pock.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-02-19.  howcheng  {chat} 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Hans Adler affair"
I am under the impression that your mediation attempt has stalled. Is there something going on that I can't know about, such as by email? Otherwise I suppose I will have to reopen the AN thread.

I suppose Fyslee is very likely to read this, and if not, this may help you to answer his question above: My "real beef" is of course his unprovoked character assassination of me. So long as he doesn't show signs of realising why that was wrong, I must assume that he is going to do it again next time he is irritated by a content dispute. We all need to control ourselves. Let's analyse the thread where Fyslee exploded:
 * I propose a new lede (thinking that it solves the problem elegantly by omitting the offensive word but being much firmer in other respects)
 * ConsumedCrustacean doesn't like it.
 * Nunh-huh doesn't like it.
 * LeadSongDog objects to removing "quackery".
 * JamesStewart7 gives very detailed arguments and overall tends to oppose it.
 * Eubulides complains (with good cause) that I didn't consider his excellent peer review.
 * I am about to give up. (Although I am going to bring the quackery sentence up at the FAC discussion, if necessary. That's likely to be a much more neutral forum.)
 * But I do have an uneasy feeling because Nunh-huh and LeadSongDog rarely ever comment on the homeopathy talk page. In Fyslee's words I might have said that this "reeks of meatpuppetry". Since this is just a vague suspicion, I keep quiet about it in the interest of the current constructive climate and, more generally, in the spirit of WP:AGF.
 * Fyslee suddenly jumps in, with the first comment that addresses an editor rather than the topic. He accuses me of (1) meatpuppetry, (2) disruption and (3) stonewalling. He does not give any reasons.

When I challenged Fyslee on his talk page, instead of substantiating or retracting any of these accusations he repeated the meatpuppetry accusation, made incorrect assertions about my (4) personal beliefs and claimed that I (5) advocate fringe beliefs. Finally he forbade me to continue the discussion on his talk page and tried the same on the homeopathy talk page.

He continues to avoid issues (1)–(5) by claiming that I am only setting up straw men and that there are mysterious misunderstandings due to my not being a native speaker. If he is doing this intentionally, he must learn that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not an admissible debating technique on Wikipedia. If not, he must learn how to notice when what an opponent says is not what he expects him to say. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Any reason not to reopen the discussion now?
It has been 24 hours without any apparent progress. Apparently you have run more or less into the same situation with Fyslee that I did. If you don't object I will reopen the discussion at WP:AN in an hour or so. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FfD to delete Time cover image
Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg. If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Taming of the Shrew.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 21, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-02-21.  howcheng  {chat} 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured sound promotion of File:Caruso, Journet, Charles Gounod's Faust, 'O merveille! ... A moi les plaisirs'.ogg
Hey, on your main user page, the contents show a section with the number 7, yet no title. I don't know if you are aware of this or if it is deliberate, I just noticed it so thought I'd better leave a comment in case it was a mistake. thanks Macromonkey (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK templates
Please be careful about editing the DYK nomination templates directly, as they are widely transcluded; User:Rjanag/DYKsugdev and User:Rjanag/DYKsuggestiondev are available to test all edits before moving them over to the real template.

Also, just so you know, we are soon going to be replacing that template entirely, and instead using Template:NewDYKnom, so that is the one that really needs to be updated. If you have any suggestions for things to be added, you can let me know (I have already added the sound funcationality). Thanks, r ʨ  ana ɢ  talk/contribs 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mozart in Italy
Thanks for keeping me up to date, and for your efforts in this respect, which are really appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fungi featured pictures
Hey, thanks for the hints. File:Mycena-leaiana.jpg has already failed a nomination, as has File:PhellinusTorulosusedit.jpg. I've already nominated File:Hygrocybe conica (2005 11 07) 1.jpg for valued picture status, as I didn't think it was up to featured standard, but still thought it was good. I will look in to your other suggestions. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, your talk page is getting pretty massive. It may be worth archiving, or just removing some of those WikiCup letters! J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just bought myself a new camera... Come summer/autumn, hopefully I'll be contributing a few! We have a lot of sources for fungi photography, but, as you say, no super high-quality images. J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Alerts
Should the G&S project subscribe to this?: Article alerts/Subscribing

If so, kindly subscribe us. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)