User talk:SuperFlash101/Archive 2

Kyle Broflovski GAR
Yello. Another user helped sort out a kind of quagmire concerning the initial Kyle Broflovski review and several others and also left a few pointers, so I don't know if you feel it's best to consult with them first. Sorry you had to walk into such a mess. But, as mentioned, it's all fixed. If you're still willing, just wanted to let you know that this review is in your hands now. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, just so you know...Scarce (the original reviewer) did not respond to several requests for follow-up comments on several reviews (in addition to the Kyle one) and his reviews were essentially "voided". The torch has been passed on to you, so to speak. :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet! Fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

TRAJQ
Thanks. I've already gone through and flagged the relevant books on a list at QuestFan, but I guess acquiring them will be a different issue. I wonder if Interlibrary Loan could scan certain pages. Anyway, I'll be putting the article in peer review on July 31. ZeaLitY [ DREAM  -  REFLECT  ]  04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC concern
Hi, I fixed your concerns on the "North by North Quahog" FAC, would you take another look?-- Music 26/  11  16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * added commentary information.-- Music 26/  11  17:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the long wait
I was unexpectedly out of town and didn't have time to get on Wikipedia. I've done some copy edits now, and made more suggestions on the talk page. Once again, sorry to have missed the day I scheduled for this. Hope all's well. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker
I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding Rollback and User rollback to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering!  wadester 16  04:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.


 * Heh, we were thinking the same thing at the same time. As soon as I hit "submit" on my shortened lead, I thought, "Wait a minute, let me just change that around a bit.  I'm more interested in how WP:LEAD seems to be applied by WP:TV, though, so let me rework things so as to still pull the Emmy nod into the first paragraph, but yet restore a lot of your text.  I'm gonna put the inuse tag up for just a few minutes.   The Emmy nod definitely has to be in the first graf, though, cause it's the only thing that makes the article notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  02:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, all done for the moment. Edit summary does a pretty good job of explaining changes, but I do want to stress the necessity of keeping "Primetime" in there to modify Emmy Award.  There is a similar Daytime cat.  Also, it's very confusing when you say it's the 40th episode.  The Disney channel's schedule makes no such assertion.  It's clear they consider the episode the combination of "Monster" and "Candace".  Indeed, it's important to stress this is one part of an episode, because that helps to explain why the thing got nominated in the category it did.  It's not up against The Simpsons because it's of a different length.  The whole 22 min. episode didn't get nominated, just the 11 minute first half.  I should also note that the main program article never clearly states this two-story/episode format.  It really should.  Also the list of episodes page has this weird numbering thing going on, where it's like 40 (22a), but it doesn't explain what that numbering system means.  To those unfamiliar with the show, it'd be helpful if that column had a little note that explains why things are numbered as they are.  I hope you like the changes to the lead (and minor copyedits on other sections).  And I very much appreciate that you took my points to heart at DYK, and involved a previous copyeditor.   His/her intervening edits were most helpful.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  03:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm no expert, of course.  But  if you accept List of Phineas and Ferb episodes as read, then the production code for this story is 122a, while "Candace" is 122b.  Season 1, episode 22.  In this particular case, the production code is actually consonant with the broadcast number, because the two together seem to have formed the 22nd episode broadcast (according to the # column.  Strangely, IMdB calls the two episode 34, which I don't get at all, while tv.com calls it episode 40.  It's crazy to call it episode 40, though.  If that's true, then it's ineligible for the nom it got!  It has to be less than an episode to be in that Emmy cat.  Here's the IMdb breakdown, if it helps.    Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  03:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a cotton-pickin' minute. Now I'm REALLY confused.  Today, the DIS schedule says they broadcast just the fifteen minutes of "Lawn Gnome Beach Party of Terror!" at 2245 pm EDT.   Some Zach and Cody garbage came on after that at 2300. But on Tuesday, the episode comes on at 1000 tomorrow in a 30 minute block.  Does this mean the series is sometimes aired with the episodes together, and sometimes, as neeeded on the DIS schedule, they pull them apart?  That complicates things mightily.  IMdB is gettin their "episode 34" by saying that some things labled as "A" and "B" on the WP episode list were actually originally shown by themselves in 15 min blocks.  They're saying that from 1-10 Feb 2008, a 15 minute short debuted each day.  No idea if that's true.  But if it is, that's how you get to "Monster/Candace"' being the 34th episode.  Maybe if we found original schedules, that would help prove things.  Still, the point is that the narrative length on this show is quite abnormal, allowing for the category they're in at the Emmy Awards.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't be the 40th episode. This source puts the size of the DIsney order for season 1 at 26 episodes.  And the WP list of episodes finds there are 26 episodes as well.  So that logically checks out.  IMdB isn't considered a higher-order source than the one I just quoted.  Leave it alone.  It's definitely the 22d episode unless you can find a secondary source (i.e. not TV.com) to contradict that.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you can't use TV.com to contradict a secondary source.  TV.com is a tertiary source.  The source I gave above has the creator of the show saying that Disney ordered 26 episodes.  Therefore there can't be 40 episodes.  TV.com is saying 40th storyline, which is what i said in my revision.  See WP:PSTS.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wayyyyyyy overthinking this. There are 26 episodes, period.  If you want to track storylines, that's helpful enough.  But the important thing for people not familiar with the subject (i.e. most of the people who use Wikipedia) is to put it in terms they can understand.  This format is part of why it took 16 years to sell the series.  You've got to say that an episode is a) a discrete unit bought by Disney; b) something that fits into the original 30 minute time slot.  Most episodes have two stories, but not all.  It's not as simple as doubling 26.  We both agree, for instance, that "Monster" is the 40th storyline.  Well, check the list of episodes.  There aren't 12 more stories after "Monster".  There are only 7.  So there were 47 storylines in season 1.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. What I'm saying was in my last edit of the lead.  I think that said it pretty well.  It's the 40th story line but the 22d episode.  The IMDB thing has gotten conflated into the discussion here, sideways.  I'm saying IMDB is ridiculous and should likely be discounted.  It confused me when I actually went to read it in detail, but now I've completely rejected the original airdates on IMdB as just sillly.  In any case, IMdB and TV.com are both tertiary sources, and they shouldn't be used to settle this thing one way or another.  That TV.com seems to confirm that "Monster" is the 40th episode is nice, but it's not determinative.  The thing that clinches it for me is the production codes.  As long as those are correct, and I have no reason now to doubt them, they're definitive.  The highest production code is 126b, which means there were 26 episodes, period.   I've not heard of an American scripted show getting an order for more than 26 episodes since the 1970s.  There's every indication right now that the interview quote is absolutely spot on.  DIsney would've been highly unlikely to add episodes onto a 26-ep order.  It's unusually lucky to get an order for 26; no scripted show got more than that in 2008. Lemme see if I can find some nice, safe secondary sources here.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah :) That's precisely what I said in the article.  But as we've discovered when going down this rabbit hole, its format is extremely confusing to readers unfamiliar with the topic, because it's not really discussed on the main page or in the episode list.  We need some analytical secondary sources to help us.  Here's an iffy one to start with.  It's sort of an impermanent website, which may not be well sourced itself.  But this person named Julia Kuttner wrote an article on the net describing it as a "26-part series".   Now she makes the interesting statement at the top of her episode guide which explains IMDB's wackiness.  "Episodes were supposed to air with 2 segments per half hour, but they broke them in half on their first airings.  On repeats they are put back in their proper order."  Dunno her source for that, but it's an interesting lead.  Here's the article.   I'm looking for more, cause really we can't use this article.  It only points us in the direction of other information.  Again, though, this debate mostly doesn't pertain to this article on "Monster".  It's fairly insignificant what the number of it is.  But for the main article, it's something that needs to be finalized in some way.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  04:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's a nice one. They are contracted for 104 episodes (52 hours), which means that an episode is a half hour.  Later in the article, Marsh says that season 2 is 39 half hours. (Guess I was wrong about it being possible to have more than 26 episodes.  Disney clearly doesn't follow industry norms at all.  That's an insane amount of content!)  That implies that season 3 is also 39 hours.  26+39+39=104.   In fact he says he's done 26 hours already.  THe math is WP:OR, of course, so you can't use that, but what the article easily establishes is that an episode is a half an hour.


 * And from the St Petersburg Times comes this very succinct little quote on the format. This is a perfect secondary source.  Now she uses "episode" in a way that would make "Monster" 40th, but she clarifies what she means in a way the main PF article doesn't .  So it's an alternative to think about, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the phrasing I have, and I even this article, the way it's worded, can be used to reference my statements.  Or if you prefer, we can call the stories "episodes" and the programming unit a "half hour".  Point is we need to state precisely what "Monster" is.  Just saying "episode" doesn't cut it.


 * This article is really a DIsney press release, which shows DIsney definitively believes season one was 26 episodes. None of this story-is-episode confusion.  No original research concerns with the math.  26 episodes, period.  Clear as crystal. And 39 episodes for Season 2.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  05:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose the removal of the "short subject narrative" from the lead of the article on "Monster".  That helps readers unfamiliar with "Monster" and the whole program understand the central notability of the article:  the Emmy nomination.  By linking to short subject, people understand it's just this one aspect of the episode that aired on the 17th which got the nod.  I dispute your assertion that most animated shows are formatted like this one.  Even if you were able to prove it statistically, or by secondary sources, it wouldn't intuitively make sense to the vast majority of readers.  The most popular animated shows are 30=minute, single-story formats.  Indeed, the very point of the quotes included in the last section of the article is that the show's creators are glad that they do not have to compete against The Simpsons- and Family Guy- and Futurama-type shows any more, because they would likely lose.  It's absolutely vital that we keep focus on the fact that this thing is shorter than a standard, broadcast network 22-minute cartoon.


 * As for revisions to the episode list, I think we can hesitantly move to change it along the lines you've suggested with the List of The Mighty B! episodes. The Disney quote above absolutely establishes they bought 26 episodes, and the production codes establish what those episodes were.  However, we shouldn't consider a reformatting along the lines of the Mighty B! list as the final word.  We clearly have more research to do.  I'm intrigued by the one self-published article which suggests that the authorial intent was that each episode should have had two storylines, but that on the initial broadcast Disney broke them up into 15-minute time slots in Feb 07.  If we can find proof of this strange way of initial transmission — and again, we should continue looking for that proof — then we could alter your MIghty B! format by having two original airdates for each episode aired in February, and then explaining the "oddness" with a footnote, backed up by whatever reliable source(s) we ultimately find.


 * As for the main program article, I'm not comfortable with basic running time info being lumped in the "writing style" heading. The question of length of story line does not really have anything to do with the "style" of writing, especially since that section mainly deals with the writing process.  it needs a section called "format" or "episode length", because it's obviously a complicated issue that needs to be discussed in detail.  (After all, how many words have we used trying to nail this thing down?)  Obviously, all three of the reliable quotes I provided in the last post should be used, not just the one you're currently employing.   It should likely be pointed out that Disney and the show's creators seem to have different ideas as to what constitutes an "episode", as evidenced by two of the sources listed above.   As we discover more information in the search I described in the last paragraph, it all could go into this same subheading.   There's at least a full paragraph of information which could be included over the issue of the show's basic nature.  In the same way that the program format of Sesame Street is that it's a collection of short vignettes strung together to form an hour, the program format of this show is that it has two short subjects smashed together to form a half-hour.    Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I am going to respond to something you struck through, because I think it shows something about your thinking that may not align well with what other readers may assume. You have repeatedly made the assertion that it's got a completely normal format, based on other shows you've labelled as "children's animation".  In the first place, the main article makes no assertion that it is children's animation, so the reader unfamiliar with the topic won't necessarily be expecting that it is so.  In the second, numerous prominent animated shows that air on "kid friendly" animation networks (like Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network) have 30 minute, single-story formats, such as all shows in the Timmverse, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Secret Saturdays, Batman: The Brave and the Bold, Ben 10, The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack, Teen Titans, The Life and Times of Juniper Lee, and many others.  Sure, there are other series which follow the format of P and F — Filmation almost exclusively used the multi-story per episode format, and maybe even Disney currently does too — but it's by no means clear that such is the dominant form of animated TV storytelling, or even kids' animated TV storytellng.


 * As to the suggestion you didn't strike through, well, I'm pretty lukewarm. I still say we need a full section on the program format.  I also think it's not necessary to put an "Episode" subheading that merely points to the episode list, when the episode list is already linked in the infobox.  I'm not sure of the WP:TV consensus, but it certainly seems from reading several "good example" pages that there's a decided preference for letting the infobox do the linking to the episode list.  As for the note you want to put under the "Main article: List of Phineas and Ferb episodes" line, well, we can't assert that.  We have no secondary resources to say, " . . . which were originally aired alone until Z  (month)".  That's the very thing we need to research more.  And even if/when we find such sources, that info would be better placed under a "Format" heading, as in the Sesame Street article.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb General renovations
We're not really talking about the DYK nom anymore, so let's make a new section. :)


 * Lemme sidestep your assertion of WP:TRIVIA for a moment. I promise to get back to it, cause it's an important point.  But, my friend, I think I've struck gold on the research front.


 * Here's a press release establishing the one-a-night-in-February-08 thing. (I think I said somewhere above it was Feb 07, but it's 08, obviously.)  It doesn't say which episodes/stories were broadcast, mind you, but it does at least establish that this event happened.  (It also, incidentally gives a citation for initial viewing figures on the first two preview telecasts (which may be important in another part of the main PF article page.)
 * This establishes reference for original broadcast date of "One Good Scare Ought to Do It" and our old friend, "The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein". Obviously it should be dropped into the DYK nominated article immediately.  It's time slot of 8:30 pm establishes why this show is up for a Primetime, instead of a Daytime, Emmy.  This also gives us proof that Jane Carr and Malcolm McDowell did the voices, which I don't recall being sourced in the article.
 * This gives us premiere date of "Lawn Gnome Beach Party of Terror". It's time slot of 10:45 gives the suggestion that it was indeed broadcast alone, rather than as a part of a two-story episode.  Now, it might be WP:OR to say that; you'd really need to take it to WT:OR to have the matter adjudicated.  The article doesn't directly state that it was broadcast alone, but a X:45 timeslot on the DIsney Channel does mean that it was put into a 15 minute time slot.
 * This gives us premiere dates of "Put the Putter Away" and "Does this Duckbill Make Me Look Fat?". It confirms they were originally broadcast together.  It also tells of a way in which viewers could play a game and get the episode two days earlier in streaming video online.  So in fact the first transmission of this episode was online, not on DIS.  Interesting little footnote to give there on the episode list.
 * This establishes premiere of "Crack that Whip", and sources special guest star Vicki Lawrence.
 * This extremely wide-ranging release gives a variety of facts about worldwide reception of the program, about which the main article is practically silent. It can only help the WP:WORLDVIEW of the article to include info from this source.  Also, this particular press release uses language that helpfully examines the precise nature of the Feb 08 event.  Premieres, it said, only happened for the first 10 nights (2/1-2/10), and for Fridays-Sundays each weekend of February thereafter.  It also said the episodes were "stripped", indicating that they were pulled apart.  So you have confirmation of the fact that the episodes were bought as "packs of two", but that Disney chose to premiere them as stripped single stories.  This speaks to why there are reports of the episodes being "knitted back together" when they were rebroadcast.  This confirms DIsney's view expressed in another press release that an episode=30 minutes.
 * Now this is the big one. Full listing of all stories that premiered in Feb 08, including citations for guest stars.  Reference for the premieres of 17 stories.
 * This one gives no information about specific premieres, but it does give 2009-to-date (May 29) Nielsen ratings for the show.

That's all for now, but surely that's a lot of what we need.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  21:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, a little factoid for which I don't have a source, but I would imagine would be pretty easy to find.  The Disney XD article here has made the unsourced claim that PF was the first thing to ever air on the Disney XD net.  The main PF article doesn't mention this, but it's a little bit of interesting trivia that should probably go in somewhere, if sourceable.  Firsts are always things readers like to read about.


 * And on that note, the broader question of your invocation of WP:TRIVIA. I assume you actually meant WP:HTRIVIA, cause WP:TRIVIA is just a stylistic guide on how to present trivia, and has nothing to do with defining what trivia is or whether it should be included.  It assumes that trivia is already present, and merely argues how that information should "look" on a page.  WP:HTRIVIA (which used to have the shortcut WP:TRIVIA) is an essay, not a guideline, so we must proceed with caution when applying it.  Still, the essay does shed light onto our very discussion.  In fact, there's a line of the essay that I think is particularly useful to our situation:


 * I take it by your active participation in this topic, and your heavy presence on the PF Wikia, that you're incredibly familiar with this material. Indeed, it might be fair to call you a positive fan.  You're used to the format of the show, and indeed appear to indulge in many other animated programs on DIS.  You have seen enough material in this genre to instantly know that it's not "weird" to you.  It's just the way it is.  I, too, have watched a lot of hours of animated output, but I haven't seen this kind of format in years.  I confess I've never seen an episode, or even an advertisement, for this show.  When doing that original DYK review, I couldn't get my head around the fact that it had been nominated in the short program" format.  I was mightily confused by the creators' relief of not being judged against The Simpsons and other programs with which I was familiar.  "Surely they would logically be in the same category," I reasoned. Nothing that was sourced in any of the PF articles I read gave me an idea as to what would cause this to get a nomination in the "short" category.  I thought maybe "Monster" was a "very special episode" of PF.  So to me, and I'm quite certain a lot of other adults unfamiliar with "kids animation", it's very important to positively assert with quality references what the format of the show is.  What's unimportant to you is absolutely vital to me.  And we now have those quality, secondary sources available to us.


 * Another aspect of WP:HTRIVIA also applies. It does not "detract from the article" to include this program format information.  The essay gives the example, "Alan Smithee's favorite color is yellow."  That piece of trivia cannot be integrated into the Alan Smithee article because it's totally irrelevant to the subject.  If he'd been famous for producing cars and all of them were yellow, you'd want that note.  But Alan Smithee isn't even a real person — it's just a psudonym — so "he" can't possibly have any color preferences at all.  Information as to the format of a television show is simply unlikely to be trivia, especially in an era where program formats can be bought and sold.  As the lengthy "Format" section at Sesame Street makes clear, the format of a show that is comprised of distinct parts is important.  Note that there are other examples, even more closely related to PF. I'll give just two for brevity's sake.  Like most of the Superfriends variants, The All-New Superfriends Hour and The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure both take significant space to explain the multi-story nature of their formats.  These notes are especially important with the Superfriends "family" of shows, because the 21st century DVDs do not preserve either the original or intended format of these episodes.  There are a number of "back up" stories which have not made it to the DVDs, which tends to give a skewed view of what a typical Superfriends episode was.  Likewise, the two volumes of PF DVDs that have currently been released appear to somewhat misrepresent the original production intent of the first season.  Indeed, this February 08 "stunt" by Disney failed to air the episodes as the producers originally thought.  Television purists and scholars tend to care about the tension between production intent and broadcast/DVD reality.  Just check out  Firefly (TV series), for proof of how adding well-sourced discussion about this dynamic can get an article to FA status.


 * I just think we have to accept that with verifiable worldwide viewership numbers at "only" 15 million, 99.999% of the Earth's population could potentially come to Wikipedia and know nothing of this show. So I tend to think most readers of these articles will be more like me than you.  We can assume the majority of people using Wikipedia worldwide have watched scripted television.  We can not assume they've necessarily watched animated American television.  However usual the multi-story format is to American animated television is thus rather beside the point.  When one looks at narrative television of all genres world-wide, it can be safely assumed that people who watch television are familiar with single-narrative programming that lasts approximately half an hour or an hour.  Anything that deviates from that cannot be assumed to be familiar and is thus non-trivial to the vast majority of readers.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, we really just crossposted. The above was a rather lengthy post that I started immediately after the post that I had made before it.  I had promised to respond to what initially appeared to be your sincere WP:TRIVIA objection, so I thought it only right to do so as promptly as I could.  It would of course have been silly for me to take your WP:TRIVIA objection quite so seriously given your intervening post.  But such are the dangers of having a conversation in two places, and of having multiple Wikipedia windows open.  Heh, I've got five windows open right now that say I've got a new message.  Given the relative speed of our communication, I"ve found that I have sometimes assumed that a "new messages" warning referred to the last post you made, rather than the most current one.  Sorry for upsetting you :)  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  03:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, the press releases I Included above weren't really meant for episode pages alone. I really included them cause they need to go on the List of Phineas and Ferb episodes.  List pages are subject to WP:V, too :)   Czech Out   ☎ | <font size="+1">✍  03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street)
I've responded to your objections in the GAN review for Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street). Let me know if you have any more questions! — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  05:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I for them all... — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a featured article nomination is definitely in this article's future. :) — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:JokerBB.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:JokerBB.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Phineas and Ferb sketch.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Phineas and Ferb sketch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:TerryJoker.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:TerryJoker.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Survival of the Fittest (The Spectacular Spider-Man)
Hello! Your submission of Survival of the Fittest (The Spectacular Spider-Man) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Czech Out  ☎ | <font size="+1">✍  22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "issues" are both small and singular. Just hook wording stuff.   Czech Out   ☎ | <font size="+1">✍  22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi
From Phineas Flynn of | the wiki.

GA Review
Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that I think I made all the necessary changes per your GA review for Battle for Naboo. Let me know what you think! Thanks. --<font color="#000000">T <font color="#993300">orsodo <font color="#000000">g Talk 16:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 24 August 2009 ==


 * News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
 * Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK problem
Hello! Your submission of Victor Cook at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! <font style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  5   17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein
The article The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Monster of Phineas-n-Ferbenstein for things needed to be addressed. Warrior 4321  01:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:
Well, it seemed that you weren't inactive, so. Have you decided to get what I left at Talk:Phineas Flynn/GA1? Cause, the seven days are up and well I want to be nice. ;) I'll review "Interactions" when you get the stuff at Phineas review. And no, it's no a fluke... I guarantee it. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  07:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I reviewed the article. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you be getting the concerns for Phineas' review? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Newspapers and magazines
I have limited access at work to Lexus Nexus, which can look up a large amount of old magazine and newspaper articles. You should check your local library, because some have library websites have access to it or a similar database. In the meantime, if you ever need articles on something I can try to help, but it usually takes me a while... — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

 * From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
 * News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The One After the Superbowl
Hi Flash! I noticed on your userpage that you're planning on reviewing the above article. Do you know when you'll be able to review it (because I need a GA pretty soon for the WikiCup)? Also, I'll try to review one of your articles when I have time as you've reviewed so many of mine. :)  The left orium  18:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  The left orium  14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reptar on Ice
Hi, I reviewed Reptar on Ice. Over all good job! I made a few minor changes myself, and have a few minor concerns before I pass it. Let me know if you have any questions. (I'll watch the review page)  C T J F 8 3 Talk 03:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the link issue is a big deal, so I went ahead and passed it.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)