User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 86

Interaction bans
Tony, I have a lot of respect for your contributions on here and value you as one of our most prolific and valuable contributors but my experience of you personally is that you're an extremely fussy guy, I think of you somewhat as an old lady in a younger man's body if I'm brutally honest. Sometimes people find you impossible, I'm sure you understand this. I just want to make it clear that I have nothing against you personally and have a lot of respect for what you've done here but I think you know why myself and others here find it difficult to interact with you. I' d rather that this wasn't the case, I really do.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

retired jersey navboxes
The tfd result for the retired jersey templates was Delete. Like you, I think most of these belong in the team navboxes because they clearly aid the reader in navigating to articles that are useful for understanding the history and culture of these teams. There are one (Jweiss11) or maybe two editors that will try to block any additions to the team templates in the name of cfb wikiproject consensus that I believe was never established (and a review of the discussions confirms that). As you are probably aware, I do not feel that a small cabal of active members can or should exert ownership over 100s of articles and templates in the name of a Wikiproject, particularly for 100s of topics (teams) that are so widely varied in history and culture, and that also likely fall within the domain of multiple other wikiprojects. That said, how would you like to proceed as far as adding the retired jeresey's to the team templates once the retired jersey nav templates are deleted? I want to do this as painlessly as possible but I also don't want this navigation to end up in another endless stalemate about wether the cfb wikiproject can impose its rigid template design, something unheard of across the rest of wikipedia. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He previously has adamantly opposed any additions to any team template beyond what is included in his particular design and has previously reverted attempts to add additions, including retired jerseys/numbers or even just to bring the templates in line with WP:NAV, so I fully expect him to oppose new additions this time around as well. I am simply relaying my willingness and desire to support any addition of retired jerseys/numbers back to the team templates, as they appear in all other major sports team templates, once the retired jersey templates are themselves deleted. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the point of asking him, individually, now that the tfd is concluded. He will either try to revert/oppose such additions to the team templates or he won't, and one editor's opinion is not a gateway to community discussion or consensus building. That obviously goes for myself as well, or anyone else. One of my primary concerns in contacting you was to inform you that if you wish to add any of the retired jerseys to the team templates, you can count on my support for such edits in any subsequent discussions as they may present themselves, which I would expect to occur based on past history, although I will be pleasantly surprised if they prove unnecessary. I'm fine with letting you proceed as you see fit. And since you have less history with Jweiss, perhaps you'll have better luck editing the templates. However, please feel free to contact me if you wish to have any further conversations down the line, and as I sometimes get pulled away from Wikipedia for extended intervals, please also feel free to do so off-line. Best regards, CrazyPaco (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested
I am currently drafting a neutral RfC for changes to WP:FOUR at User:PantherLeapord/sandbox/fourrfcdraft and I would like your input before any possible topic ban is enacted. I would like to ask that you have a read of the draft and suggest any changes you wish be made. Thanks! PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC) PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dearest, since you seem to be closing off discussion on your page, I post here. It seems that you are intend on wasting months and months of people's time by posting several RFC in which each one does not explain the issues. I don't know if you notice the transformational Did you know/Good Article RfC. People are very well able to handle many related issues and it is much more efficient. There have been gigs and gigs of debate on this issue. However, most people still don't know what the issue are any more than you did before I posted with you hours ago. You need to provide a paragraph or two of background on each issue. The draft I am looking at does not even address the issues of contention of the debates that caused this whole series of time black holes. My advice is not to structure the whole thing with the mindset that you want to have multiple RFCs. It is very possible to get all the issues out there. You seem intent on slaying the director without getting the issues out there. You seem to have no interest in the criteria which were first and foremost in the prior debates. I am really having trouble trying to figure out what you are hoping to solve here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * it seems that my posting has caused you to take some time to think. Having slept on your RFC myself, I encourage you not to waste people's time with an RFC signup sheet involving issues they don't understand. There is no need to try to seem like you want to help, if you don't want to present issues people can understand. Try to make the issues understandable in your RFC (meaning add some explanatory prose). Many of the questions by themselves will just generate bobblehead responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Randall Cunningham II for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randall Cunningham II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Randall Cunningham II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ansh666 07:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randall Cunningham II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:ActionDay1 lg.jpg
 * File:Israel hadari 2955 lg.jpg
 * File:Preval-2.jpg
 * File:Preval-1.jpg
 * File:Composition in Black and White, 1917.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Navbox request
Could you make one for Juliusz Słowacki, similar to the one you made at Template:Adam Mickiewicz? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

interaction ban
Per the clear consensus at AN, you and Khazar2 are indefinitely banned from interacting with one another or commenting on each other's actions. Violations will be met with escalating blocks. (was going to add more but have just been called into work, may comment further here later) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sept 28: McNeile / Whaam!
I have suggested at WT:TFAR that we restart both nominations for Sept 28 and avoid discussions based on (e.g.) the behaviour of a nominator in favour of discussions about the most appropriate article for the date (and the most appropriate date for the article). Are you happy with this? If anyone has imaginative ideas as to how and when both articles could grace the main page, that would be welcome too. (Please reply at WT:TFAR to avoid fragmenting discussions.) Thanks, BencherliteTalk 13:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While we are on the subject, I would request that you use a bit more civility when addressing others in future. "These McNeile people" is not how I wish to be referred.  I was not accusing you of canvassing, in fact I thanked you for pointing this out on my talk.  It was the wording which I was a bit miffed at.  --   Cassianto Talk   13:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jarmere Jenkins
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:FOUR
Oops, you're right. I created that page and it reached GA and FA, but I realize now I somehow missed nominating it for DYK back in the day. And then when I nominated it for WP:FOUR, I somehow included a diff from an OLD FOUR nomination of mine instead of the right article. Not sure how I made that mix-up, but in any event, the nomination is withdrawn. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  20:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you (again)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TonyTheTiger (again) and implications of racism. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Tony, you're going to need to dial it way down and stop responding to the folks complaining about you. The best antidote to Wikipedia is real life -- if you can't keep your cool you're going to up banned / blocked / whatever. NE Ent 02:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Shane Morris
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
I won't do you the discourtesy of templating you, as you know how this works. I've blocked you indefinitely for continuing to accuse people of racism; as I am sure you are aware such accusations can have a chilling effect if used inappropriately. In addition, making unfounded accusations undermines the reporting of real racism. If you have evidence of racism against you on Wikipedia please take the time to present that evidence clearly and succinctly for the community, and perhaps arbcom to review. Otherwise to achieve an unblock I think you need to make an undertaking to: As you know, this is being discussed at AN/I right now, and I fully expect the community will consider and genuine unblock request from you. --Errant (chat!) 08:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Avoid accusations of racism
 * Review your previous behaviour and consider how you could avoid escalating situations in future (i.e. there are perhaps some WP:BATTLEGROUND issues you need to think about)
 * Don't take things so personally! :)
 * Not really sure anyone wants to consider my side. Generally prefer to wait these things out while cooling off, but don't know what is going on here. It seems like I was blocked and then people started opposing the block as rash. Was there consensus that I called someone a racist?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yea ... did you read the thread? There were diffs [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Four_Award&diff=570773923&oldid=570762100] and everything posted. NE Ent 23:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony. After the last thread I had hoped it would be the last thread. The consensus is pretty clear, as NE Ent says, and Ent's been rooting for you--at least not rooting against you. I can give you all kinds of advice and what not, but I don't want to patronize you. You can, if you like, drop me a line if you think I can help. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think it's not even up for discussion that you made accusations of racism. What you need to do is properly explain why you are making those claims. If they are valid claims I know the community will respond to your concerns. But at the moment it very much looks like empty accusations, perhaps made in anger. I am happy to hear your side of things - but be aware that I think the community is looking, here, for you to a) stop throwing around the racism accusation in an unfounded manner and b) if you have concerns about racism to use the correct avenues to address it (i.e. bring the evidence to the community so the perpetrators can be blocked). --Errant (chat!) 09:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, what Tony needs to do is stop making them. Even if someone does make a racist comment, the wiki-savvy way to report them is to describe it as ad hominem and include a diff to the offending remark. If it's obviously racist to the community at large, it'll get sanctioned. If it's not obviously racist to third party observers --  if an editor makes an insensitive comment out of ignorance (see Gold Dust Triples controversy for an example), you gotta go AGF and explain to them why you find the language offensive. Wikipedians don't need racial motivation to act like jerks to each other:


 * NE Ent 10:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's start with the bobblehead parade of WP:NPAs that started the whole thing at WP:TFAR. I have nominated dozens of articles at TFAR. Some have been endorsed as the superior choice at TFAR and others haven't. Some have been rejected based on a superior alternative for the date and others because the standards of the article were of questionable propriety for the TFA role of standardbearer for all to see. I have brought articles that I have been uninvolved in, articles the I have gotten promoted by myself, articles that I have worked on with others on and even products of community drives. I have voted on numerous (maybe hundreds) articles at TFAR. I have experienced date conflicts. I am familiar with the protocols of the page. I remain "curious about whether it is rational that a person who has expressed an interest in helping select the best content for the main page to be upset at receiving a notification that a significantly higher point article than one that they have supported is available for consideration. Wouldn't the normal editor say, hey I may or may not change my mind, but thanks for letting me know about the significant change in circumstances?"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets not, because that's not overly what the community is concerned about. Many people on that page, yourself included, were needlessly unpleasant to each other - that happens far too regularly. What you need to do is address the question: why are you accusing people of racism? And would you please stop (or present appropriate evidence in the relevant forum). You are not blocked over those wider issues, and the community I am sure will look into them if you wish (but I am not going to for the moment). --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ErrantX, I know you appear to want to help. If you think I am expressing myself inappropriately, typically, getting to the root of the problem is helpful. Why should we avoid any discussion of the root of the problem. You know when you try to fix something while ignoring the root of the problem, it is likely to repeat itself.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The root of the problem is you're breaking the First Law. As far as the other TFA stuff -- let me put it like this. No one cares. much . This block last as long as you make it -- it could be a few hours, depending on the availability and interest of an admin, or it could be forever. When I look at that ANI thread -- and I've looked at lots -- there are a lot of folks who appreciate your contributions and want you continue. But you have understand that right now, how you address other editors in conflict isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing. You simply have to stop trying to justify your behavior, say you understand it's unacceptable to the community, and you'll cease. (Then cease, of course.) Block over, ANI thread closed, life goes on. NE Ent 00:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your advice is like a guidance counselor talking to a kid who was being spitballed in class by a bunch of kids and then punches one of them after class. You are saying. Don't punch other students. Well, yeah that may be good advice, but teaching the kid this is not really going to end to the problem.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets be clear here :) I've read that TFA page, and all the other recent disputes, and your spitballing as much as the rest. It's an accepted fact that editors fall out on various pages, and angry words are exchanged. There really isn't much that can be done about that (except to lead by example I suppose). If perennial issues exist then there are ways to address them. However, you've asked us to look at the root of the issue, which is what we are doing. You have alleged that the root of this issue is racism, which is a very serious charge. There is a line beyond which someones behaviour is explicitly rejected by the community, and directing unfounded racism accusations is one of them. You'll notice no one else in that dispute has been brought to the notice board or otherwise sanctioned, and the reason is because you all displayed the same bad behaviour, but only you crossed the "bright line". And not only crossed it, but crossed it merely days after a block for doing the same thing. You've been avoiding discussing this issue so now is the time to do so; as I think the AN/I shows, the community very strongly wants you to respond to these concerns. --Errant (chat!) 08:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What behavior do you view as me spitballing at TFA in advance of UNCIVIL opposes based on the nominator? My notice was a common, but beyond the call of duty one, to notify all interested parties to a change in circumstances related to a discussion with numerous active participants. There were seven people involved in determining the best option for the main page on September 28 who I alerted of a change in circumstance and several projects all of which were involved in the Featured Article drive for one of the nominees. Is it a spitball to say "Hey there is a competing article for a TFA slot that you have expressed an interest in"? Is it a spitball to notify a project that one of their articles is a nominee for TFA. That is all I did prior to all the UNCIVIL behavior that I am pointing at. If I did something to earn the wrath of ire that I received, I would not be so upset. Yes I lashed out and that is wrong, but it was in response to unprovoked (unless I am mistaken) incivility.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I should note that all of the unprovoked incivility towards me was particularly hurtful because the TFAR nominee was not work I did independently. It was the result of one of the most successful featured article drives in the history of Wikipedia. In response to my drive to get this promoted in time for consideration for TFA for the 50th anniversary of its first exhibition, about a dozen discussants came forth in various forums from MILHIST ACR, and PR to FAC to contribute nearly 700KB of ideas and concerns regarding improving this article (not counting discussions held in User talk spaces, of which there were several). I have never seen a single featured article drive result in so much interest in a 12 week period. Uncivil efforts to attack me and my nominee adversely impact all interested parties in the featured article drive. I feel bad that any animousity unfairly hurled at me affects the enjoyment of all featured article drive participants who may have looked forward to a serious consideration of this nominee.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to chime in here, primarily because I want to see Tony back where he should be, which is improving articles and getting them passed through GA. It's not quite comparing apples with apples, but not too long ago I got hauled up for WP:BLPN for having a DYK that hit the front page, and allegedly contained questionably sourced material. I proved it didn't, but since going on the main page is a privilege, not a right, I asked it to be pulled off the main page anyway. I've had a look through TFAR and I think it's degenerated into a bit of a pissing match on both sides, with a load of stupid "my 2 point nom is better than your 4 point nom" back and forth that kind of forgets what on earth any of that means to the reader. The average Wikipedia reader probably doesn't give a monkeys what article appears on the front page - if they're interested in the topic, they'll find it. If I were you, I'd take a break from TFA entirely - just be the better man, and concentrate solely on article work, leaving the point-scoring stuff well alone. It's up to you. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better if TFA were run properly so that when people base their oppose on the nominator rather than the content they are ignored or as loves to do hat/hab  them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Tony: For the record: the duration of the block was indef because editors wanted you to acknowledge what you did wasn't helping the collaboration. Previously, when you were under block, you didn't communicate with people, and they are frustrated. There's no more "wait these things out" without facing the points that Errant pointed above. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 17:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, despite the bad blood between us over the past few months, I don't want to see you indeffed as in "forever". However, your comments here don't seem to indicate that you recognise what the issue is, and don't recognise why you were blocked. To get unblocked, you will need to understand how the community at large feels about these statements, particularly ones which have no diffs to back them up. Recognising that, and working to control behaviour which the community at large disagrees with, is going to get you back to editing a lot faster. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I ask the peanut gallery here if they'd be comfortable exchanging an unblock for, say, a three month topic ban of adding or discussing articles at TFA (broadly construed)? Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to support an unblock in exchange for TTT acknowledging that their so far unsubstantiated accusations of racism crossed a line and that they will never make such accusations again. Either that or an INDEFINITE topic ban from TFA, GA, FA, DYK and ALL awards broadly construed but excluding positive contributions to articles that have received awards. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 09:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This peanut agrees with PantherLeapord, and would also like an apology directed to all so accused (in both instances) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with that. I guess I've been playing devil's advocate a bit, but having had a look at some of Tony's responses, I can see he's very keen to point out where other editors have been problematic, without any awareness that he's been part of the problem himself. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie, I don't think issue lies in any one particular area that Tony works in so much as it is something that just comes out when he gets into a disagreement. The same thing happened at Featured Sounds last year and Tony ended up being topic banned from that. Ironically, this whole drama could have been avoided by dealing with the root of the problem, which is Tony's tendency to lash out with racism accusations. Blackmane (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add a comment. Tony, your charges of racism are patently ridiculous precisely because no one knew what your ancestry is. I only found out when I scrolled to the very bottom of your user page. Personally, whether a person is black, white, yellow, pink, purple or blue is irrelevant. Accusing people of racism with no evidence makes you look childish and it's insulting to everyone else. Furthermore, brushing your racism accusations aside to deflect the blame on to the TFA process, and those that take part in it, makes you look even worse. In the ANI discussion, you'll see plenty of support for your contributions but absolutely no tolerance for your baseless allegations. You may want to look at the recent ARBCOM case of Keifer Wolfowitz who was also a prolific contributor but their behaviour was intolerable and they were ultimately ARBCOM banned. There is minimal to virtually no support for a CBAN of you but a strong consensus to keep you blocked until you realise that the community will no longer tolerate your unfounded and unproven allegations of racism. You'll also note that there are many, like myself, who have not previously interacted with you in any significant way and have commented at ANI. You might want to take that into consideration.
 * While I was sleeping several discussants have commented that I should, a.) re-evaluate the ANI, b.) re-evaluate my own responsibility in this case and c.) acknowledge my own problematic behavior. After doing the first of these things, I have come to the conclusion that there may have been a rush to judgement in this block. There was a rush (maybe a cabal) of immediate block supporters, then a block and then a large contingent of oppose block and support immediate unblock responses. Why is this block being upheld in that circumstance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm a non-admin and someone who didn't have a clue who you were until a couple of weeks ago when your name started hitting the drama boards. Don't know if that's plus or a minus, but it does let me talk as an outsider.  I don't see your block getting removed until you explain why you were accusing others of racism.  If that was reasonably justified, people will listen.  If it wasn't, you need to apologize and not do it again.  You are a heck of a content contributor and I really don't want to see Wikipedia lose you--we'd lose way too much.  But at the same time you can't make accusations like this without a reasonable justification or an apology. Hobit (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been uncivil behavior to me and by me. What to you is reasonably justified? If that requires a diff with the N word, there are none. If you want me to enumerate uncivil and inequitable treatment, that I can do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would help a lot actually. It would also be helpful for you to explain why you believe race is playing a role in that uncivil and inequitable treatment.  I haven't been able to follow everything (nor do I wish to) but the claim is that you are claiming racism without clear justification, so it would help to understand the justification. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the TFAR. Is it fair to say that the majority of those opposes are uncivil (Opposes based on the nominator rather than the content)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think only one oppose states any problems with the nominated article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your conduct surrounding TFAR is what drove people to oppose. You could have easily informed people that there's a new candidate for September 28 without comparing the candidates in your notification to editors. Your notification to editors of the TFAR request (example: User_talk:Ceoil) is neutral; directly comparing candidates in notifications (example here) is not. You were already on thin ice with a lot of editors because of your biased notification regarding the WP:FOUR RFC (for example, User_talk:Wackywace), and their perception of your conduct was used here (in my opinion). It could even be argued, as the WP:FOUR RFCs had, that your action (biased notifications) could have tempered with the process. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I distributed three types of notifications. I am not sure which one each respondent who opposed based on the nominator was responding to. 1.) I notified all participants in the FA drive that had more than 5 edits at any of the 4 major discussions (FAC, PR and MILHIST ACR) that the article that they had contributed to was now nominated at TFAR; 2.) I notified the 4 projects that the newly nominated article had on its talk page (i.e., Talk:Whaam!) that there was a TFAR discussion because these projects have also been aparty to the FA drive and the TFAR was likely of interest to these projects whose members had been so active in the FA drive; and 3.) I notified all parties who had already expressed an interest in scheduling for September 28 that another candidate had now been nominated. The first example that you showed above was a type 1.) notification, where to my knowledge he had not already supported an article. The type 3.) people (your second example) had already supported a 2-point candidate and so that they would quickly understand the change in the circumstances, I made it clear that a new competing 5-point candidate was available. 2-point and 5-point are both adjectives as used. The sentence contains no comparative word ("more"; "better", "higher" or similar). Thus, as presented, no comparison was made. I stated without making comparison that you have supported a type x article and a type y article is now available for evaluation. As adjectives they are no different than democratic and communist, red and blue, funky and boring or whatever two adjectives. I made no statement that 5 is superior to 2 or entitled to your vote. Sure a 2-point article fan might feel I am pointing out superiority, but that is not in the text. Read the words I sent and look for a comparative word. Words I used were descriptive (and fairly objective) and not comparative. I am not sure how many native English speakers were receiving the communications, but what was sent was descriptive of the change in circumstance and not comparative.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, sorry for taking a while to get back on this. It required more reading than I'd expected and I had a hard time getting enough context.   Net effect, a bunch of people felt (and given the above) still feel that your notification was inappropriate and !voted against it on that basis.  As I've no clue if that notification was inappropriate (it looks acceptable to me for most venues, but I don't hang out in those circles) I have a hard time figuring out if their objections are reasonable (objecting to an action due to inappropriate canvassing is not uncommon--the arugment being that the canvasser stacked the deck and no fair outcome would be possible).  So net effect, I can't tell who is right and who is wrong, but I'd lean toward you being in the right.  That said, you've not explained how race came into this.  Could you do so? Hobit (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already agreed not to discuss incivility as if it were racism below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... The people that you have accused of racism haven't generally been uncivil, unless you define disagreeing with you (and more specifically, not supporting your request for put your content on the main page -- or not putting it on the main page at the specific date and time you have requested) as "incivility". I suggest that you re-examine your personal definition of incivility. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That their reasons for not doing so had nothing to do with the actual article (for the most part) is troubling. One gets a strong sense there are plenty of people who dislike Tony.  And I can see why.  He can come across as arrogant.  Honestly, if he just started thanking everyone involved in the review process (even those slow to act), I think many things would go a LOT better. AGF on his part seems to be lacking in some places.  And that is part of the backlash he's getting.  Or such is my reading after looking over quite a few discussions involving Tony. But back to the point, I'd say characterizing the discussion you refer to as uncivil doesn't require a personal definition of uncivil. Much of it seemed personal to me rather than on the actual topic. Hobit (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit my comments to correct my spelling. Excepting my misspelling of "irrelevant", I spell in British english. A gap of nearly 12 hours between the posting of the ANI and your indef by Errant is hardly a rush to block. Blackmane (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12 hours is a rush for people who have a real life with priorities such as sleep and work. Given the wide array worldwide daily schedules with some people sleeping while others are working, etc., it is probably not fair to describe less than 24 hours as sufficient time for reasonable consideration. You have asked me to reconsider ANI and I have looked at it seeing great opposition to the current sanctions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there are better responses to incivility and inequity than lashing out. I admit that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, these recent incidents are hardly the first time that you've made accusations of racism as part of one of your campaigns to get some of your content featured on the main page. I can't help but recall the discussions of your DYK nomination for Kony 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 80 (and other venues) where you accused me of "hidden racist motives". --Orlady (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please weigh in on proposal to move to Infobox:basketball biography for college players
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. Please weigh in and help achieve consensus on this matter. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Resignation
Today, I announce my official resignation from WALRUS. has agreed to assume the role for two years on behalf of Chicago. This has been in the works for a few weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll pop in to confirm this, just in case there was any concern. Thanks Tony.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 04:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Devious Maids pilot promotional image (Roselyn Sanchez).jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Devious Maids pilot promotional image (Roselyn Sanchez).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nominations
Hi, Tony. There's a conversation about the articles you've put up for GA review at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and I've specifically commented about Lucky Guy (play). If you want to comment here, I'm sure somebody will transclude it into the discussion. (Oh, and hope you get unblocked soon. Seriously.) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See below. Also, I see no comments at Talk:Lucky Guy (play)/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lucky Guy (play) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- 10:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The article Lucky Guy (play) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|20px]]. 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 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Lucky Guy (play) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 --  14:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Re; Articles in Queue
As per my comment here, I'd like to help you out with those articles you've placed into consideration, and step in for you until you can do so yourself. Could you give me a list of those and your general thoughts? You can do so okff-wiki if that will be easier. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Greatly appreciated. I hope things resolve themselves before this becomes much of an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Content under review

 * WP:GAC: I don't know how long this indef block will go. As far as the 12 at GAC go. You get 7 days from when a review begins to respond. It could be weeks before any of the reviews begin. Lets wait until some reviews are 5 days old before we worry. If indef looks like it will be prolonged, others may want to help (see abave)
 * WP:FAC: Again the typical FAC is a month. If people want to post concerns. I may be back in time. It would not be the first FAC to close with unaddressed concerns. Surely, having a list of things to do for the article can only help.
 * WP:DYK: Some of these may pass without issue. Again, not sure how long indef will last. The DYK queue can handle 2 or 3 month resolutions.
 * WP:OTD: Multiple issues
 * Actually this needs to be handled by September 17: I forgot to add Cloud Gate (May 15), Walter O'Malley (April 15) and Hull House (September 18) to their calendar dates after adding them to their selected anniversary dates. Need timely help here. You can look in the SA page to find the proper hook to add. (This is to adhere to SA (criteria 4).
 * Need an explanation of the propriety of television episodes (pilots, finales, etc.). In general, are they eligible. I have about 5 I am considering. A couple of episodes have late September anniversaries. Since The Cosby Show is one of only three television shows to have been the number one rated show in the U.S. for 5 different seasons, I was considering adding "Pilot (The Cosby Show)" to the rotation for September 20.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, even though these OTD issues are issue on the near horizon, they are anniversaries. September 18 will be a 124th anniversary and September 20 will be a 29th anniversary. Anniversaries happen every year and in this case we are a full year away from much "rounder" anniversaries.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe or  can respond to the TV episode thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at some of these articles, and, while I am willing to help you out, as you do have good content contributions, they are mostly outside of my area, except possibly sourcing the sports or Eminem articles. Other editors at the FAC have suggested you withdraw the article you have there. If you think it is strong enough to be made a FA and you want to keep the FAC going while you deal with this, I am willing to try to respond to input as needed to improve the article (2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team). I am worthless on table formatting and stuff, though; but one of the plants' editors would help me out on this. Let me know what of the sports and/or Eminem articles in various states of nomination, you think would be useful for me to help out with; I don't understand the good article or dyk processes very well, but the FAC seems straighforward; and, overall, improving the quality pf these articles would be beneficial to Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I don't know what is going on in terms of the length of this block, but may help out. I am not sure if what he feels comfortable editing. Half of the GA noms are plays or musicals: Lucky Guy (play), Disgraced, The Trip to Bountiful (play), Kinky Boots (musical), Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (play). Three are TV related (2 episodes and a fictional character): Chapter 1 (House of Cards), Pilot (Devious Maids), and Frank Underwood (House of Cards).  Three are sports 2012–13 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season, Shane Morris and Randall Cunningham II. At FAC, 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team is sports. At DYK there is a TV show "Mind Games (2013 TV series)", a 3-article Eminem hook, and Randall Cunningham II. It seems like the Randall Cunningham II DYK could just be resolved by evaluating the alternative hooks, which are currently being ignored.‎--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for chiming in at Template:Did you know nominations/Randall Cunningham II. I am sure will be around to check in on things soon.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , "at the Summerlin, Nevada high school" is inaccurate and is detail that should not be in the WP:LEAD. First of all these two records occurred at different places. Second of all, if you want to include details like where each record was set, they should be in the main body of the article, which is summarized by the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just read a little bit about how to do these and not to put too much detail in the lead. I will check it out, don't worry, they will be fine. However, I am in Boulder County, and my internet is on and off, and I am pretty flooded out. Still, it's already a good little article, and if even if I mess up in places, it will still be fine and do you credit for contributing it to the encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC))
 * PS I have a lot more respect for the efforts people put into creating GAs, FAs, and DYKs after trying to help with these, reviewing the requirements (many of which make sense), and seeing that they are readable by a diverse audience. --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC))
 * thanks for your assistance. Stay safe. Could use some help with the Tyus Jones below before the end of the day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that was bad timing on my part. I see you are unblocked. I am swamped at work from having my internet down for so long. I am just south of Jamestown, and we were very lucky and only got 13" of rain over the past week, so we're not too bad off, but all the roads out are damaged, so, although I'm safe, I am stuck for a while. I will watch your articles and see if I can actually help in the future. I like some of the same areas you work in sports, fine arts, and musicals, but we have very different tastes. Try to remember that if you have bunch of people in a group of 99 people throwing spitballs at one outsider, but never at any of the protected 99, those 99 may be clueless that spitballs hurt more than punches. They also might resent having to consider that information, knowing they have allowed the spitball throwing to go on for so long. And the person getting hit may be pissed off at all of it. Keep editing; I have read a number of articles you have worked on, and I appreciate your content contributions to Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Two more ongoing reviews are the ongoing GARs Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2 and Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2. I've not been impressed with your progress on these, but haven't wanted to press you on them after the WP:ANI situation developed. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot about those GARs. I had thought I had addressed those concerns. You will need to comment further on remaining issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will monitor these two GARs, Orlady, and read both articles to see if I can help them along. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination help
Tyus Jones was expanded on September 9th, making today the last day for it to be nominated at DYK. Could someone nominate this article? Possible hooks:
 * ...that Tyus Jones was a varsity basketball starter as an eighth grader.
 * ...that Tyus Jones earned two gold medals in international basketball competitions before his 17th birthday.
 * ...that Tyus Jones was selected as the high school boys basketball player of the year for the state of Minnesota as a sophomore.

The second of these is based on content I have yet to incorporate into the aritcle.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Above, , and all mentioned a willingness to help out with my nominations as needed. According to Did_you_know 1b, this needs to be done by the end of the day today.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S., I got the age of one of his siblings incorrect: I believe it should be 3 years younger instead of 13.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, I don't remember saying that, but I'll be glad to get the nomination started. Hold on. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so the thing is on the rails. Now, let me pile on, re: the section below: I don't see proof that anyone is out to get you. You obviously feel differently. I wish you had less of an assumption of bad faith. See, people don't have to like each other to get along here, but one has to act as if the other is acting in good faith, unless one can argue convincingly that there is bad faith. You were not successful making that argument earlier and it's best not to rehash it. Anyway. You are unblocked now, and I hope you stay that way. But, and I think I'm impartial enough here, I think that's up to you, not the ones you think are your wiki-enemies. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement
Through comments on my talk page, comments at ANI and direct emails to me, it seems that regardless of the motives of those with untoward behavior toward me (be they racists, haters, power mongerers or whatever), that I need to stop pressing the easy button and screaming racism at every act of incivility and impropriety directed my way. The thought that incivility toward me could be due to wikihaters who don't like what I have accomplished or power mongerers who want to unseat me helps me to see the light that I can't just scream racism at every turn. Thus, I do state that I will not make further (direct or indirect) claims on wikipedia that I am the subject of racism without proof of such.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. making sure block initiator sees this by pinging --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a step forward, Tony, thank you. Although I must ask: why is it that you can only think of bad-faith reasons for a person to disagree with you? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between disagreement and incivility. A disagreement would be people making statements that Whaam! is not a good subject for the main page for xyz reasons. Incivility is Whaam! should not be on the main page because TTT nominated it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where "Because Tony nominated it" comes into play. Several opposed as they preferred McNeile and its 125th anniversary, others opposed based on your actions (i.e. multiple talk page notifications, which can be easily understood as canvassing), not you. Key point of differentiation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean misunderstood as canvassing. I notified all interested parties &mdash; Prior McNiele supporters, Whaam! discussants (on their talk page if they had more than 5 edits or at the relevant projects for all others). I made no comparisons or attempt to sway votes. Do we really need to drag this on? You need to drop the stick Crisco.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I fail to see what stick I'm supposedly hitting a dead horse with. As you have not been able to refute my central argument, I will hope that you realise the difference between talking about your acts and talking about you. As for canvassing, you need to know one thing: it does not matter if something is meant as canvassing, as popular opinion is essentially what defines what is / isn't canvassing: if they think it's canvassing, it will be considered canvassing by the community. Good day, Tony. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Tony, on the basis of what you've said here I've unblocked you. Thanks. On a general note I don't find it that encouraging that you view the only way someone might disagree with you is because they are haters or power mongers. My observation of your behaviour is that you're going to continue to rub people up the wrong way with that high-and-mighty attitude. I'd suggest that going forward you adopt some humility - whilst you've contributed lots of great material, at the end of the day it's just a contribution to Wikipedia. If you go forward believing everyone who disagrees with you is doing so, not because of the merits of your position, but because of jealousy etc. or as part of a cabal against you, then you are going to end up back at the noticeboards and back under the blocks. I hope that doesn't happen, but I am sadly not encouraged. --Errant (chat!) 15:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, I can provide a cautionary tale for you; there was a user, Retrolord who referred to themselves as "king" in their signature ( ★ ★King•Retrolord★ ★ ), user page (since deleted) and their talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Retrolord&oldid=565944634 ). They were blocked indefinitely after taking a similar stance to you in that everyone who is against them is an enemy. If you don't want to suffer the same fate as them then you need to not do what led to your last block and assume good faith otherwise you will find yourself indeffed again and this time there will not be as much willingness to unblock. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 22:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I also appreciate the statement. I, apparently more than others, find considerable merit in your general attitude previously expressed, loosely, that there seemed to be weird (possibly discriminatory) opposition in stuff going on (which i personally ascribed a lot to editor crisco, who IMHO should back the hell off). But i also personally did not know of any racial difference going on, and was personally unaware of any possible racial difference. I do want to say that it seems reasonable, after a certain point on generally unreasonable accusations, to begin to assume something awful like racial discrimination going on. To Crisco, please back the hell off, don't push to aggravate a situation again. If you might have a valid point on anything, pls. let other editors figure it out, you don't have to be the one to push some negative thing (which tends to suggest that you do in fact have some agenda, motivation not explained). -- do ncr  am  22:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have pursued an interaction ban with Crisco, but the collective consensus thinks our interaction is necessary for the good of WP. If you know how I can get an iban with Crisco, let me know.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Doncram, I have not been at this talk page in two days, nor have I interacted with Tony in the past two days. I know how to "back the hell off". I should likewise note that in the most recent ANI thread neither the first post nor the discussion about blocking was started by me. Now I'll go back to doing actual work. Goodbye. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apology absolutely not accepted. I've never expressed any incivility or "untowardness" as regards you, merely a valid opinion based on closely-held beliefs about how this great big project operates. And, for that, I was labelled (before God and all my peers) a racist. Now, in the worthless screed you've posted to bond yourself out of a block, you've charitably admitted that you couldn't find any proof I'm a racist, and have thankfully downgraded me to the status of "hater", albeit with the implication that I'm probably still a racist. I don't care about what you've got going on with Crisco, I still expect an apology; I wasn't even aware this was here until now. And to think -- never before August had I even exchanged a single word with you. Funny how things take a sudden turn.  Cdtew  (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I am not much of one for tracking down diffs and such to debate about he said/she said. I may have inferred something you did seemed consistent with racist actions and if I did I only mean to state that it was highly unWP:CIVIL. I apologize for any mischaracterization of incivility as racism.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the personal apology, but I wasn't being uncivil! I was suggesting a compromise proposal!  I even defended you immediately before you called me a racist.  This is just a sampling of what's wrong here.   Cdtew  (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572911757 your edit] to March 21 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ndash; Dallas aired its "[A House Divided (Dallas)|A House Divided] " episode which led to 8 months of international intrigue regarding Who shot J.R.?

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573096983 your edit] to 2000 in music may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * | ØØ Void || Sunn O)  || Debut

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573594700 your edit] to Mind Games (2013 TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 08-28|date=2013-08-07|work=ChicagoBusiness|author=Reaves, Jessica}} Killen is joined by [Keith Redman] as an executive producer. The show is a 20th Century Fox Television production.<

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573822071 your edit] to Carly Foulkes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sales Decline|accessdate=2013-09-20|date=2013-07-09|work=Business Insider|author=Edwards, Jim}}

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=574964637 your edit] to Derrick Walton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Catgory:1995 births

Michigan 2012-13
Sorry, I think I'll have to pass. If there's something specific you want me to help you research, let me know, but I don't have the energy for a full FAC commentary. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucky Guy (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; Simon (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent GAN nominations of musicals
I appreciate your optimism and industry - I really do. But these articles are all manifestly unready to be nominated for GA. I'm sure there are lots of musicals-related articles that COULD be close to GA level, but none of these are even in the neighborhood.

To see what a GA class article about a musical should look like see Hair (musical). As you know, I really feel that it is a terrible waste of GA-reviewers' time to nominate stubs and start-class articles for B-class, even though I know you manage to sneak many of them by unsuspecting reviewers. It then is a further waste of time for the B-class reassessment folks who must later demote the articles.

Here is a list of B-class articles that concern some important topics. I'd suggest that these would be far more appropriate projects for GA. Alternatively, you could try to get the ones that you listed up to B-class.
 * Andrew Lloyd Webber (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-18 (t) 	B 	2010-04-30 (t) 			1487
 * Angela Lansbury (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-20 (t) 	B 	2009-06-20 (t) 			1399
 * Annie Get Your Gun (musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2008-03-05 (t) 	B 	2008-03-05 (t) 			1117
 * Betty Comden (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2009-06-13 (t) 			918
 * Camelot (musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2007-06-30 (t) 	B 	2007-06-30 (t) 			996
 * Candide (operetta) (t · h · l) 	 	2007-06-19 (t) 	B 	2007-06-19 (t) 			1118
 * Cole Porter (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2010-04-29 (t) 			1414
 * Dreamgirls (t · h · l) 	 	2010-02-28 (t) 	B 	2010-02-28 (t) 			1018
 * Drood (t · h · l) 	 	2008-05-19 (t) 	B 	2008-05-19 (t) 			840
 * Ethel Merman (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-14 (t) 	B 	2009-06-14 (t) 			1231
 * Eubie Blake (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-21 (t) 	B 	2009-06-21 (t) 			1076
 * Evita (musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2007-06-20 (t) 	B 	2007-06-20 (t) 			1282
 * Follies (t · h · l) 	 	2007-07-03 (t) 	B 	2007-07-03 (t) 			804
 * George Gershwin (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2010-05-01 (t) 			1542
 * George M. Cohan (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-14 (t) 	B 	2009-06-14 (t) 			1099
 * Gertrude Lawrence (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-15 (t) 	B 	2009-06-15 (t) 			1027
 * Guy Bolton (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-22 (t) 	B 	2010-05-08 (t) 			873
 * Gypsy: A Musical Fable (t · h · l) 	 	2007-06-29 (t) 	B 	2007-06-29 (t) 			1064
 * Harold Arlen (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-20 (t) 	B 	2009-06-20 (t) 			1214
 * Hedwig and the Angry Inch (t · h · l) 	 	2007-07-09 (t) 	B 	2007-07-09 (t) 			632
 * High School Musical (t · h · l) 	 	2009-10-30 (t) 	B 	2009-10-30 (t) 			1490
 * Into the Woods (t · h · l) 	 	2007-06-25 (t) 	B 	2007-06-25 (t) 			1100
 * Irving Berlin (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-14 (t) 	B 	2009-06-14 (t) 			1421
 * Ivor Novello (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2011-04-10 (t) 			1178
 * J. C. Williamson (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-20 (t) 	B 	2009-06-20 (t) 			676
 * Jerome Kern (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-14 (t) 	B 	2010-05-11 (t) 			1260
 * Jesus Christ Superstar (t · h · l) 	 	2007-07-05 (t) 	B 	2011-07-27 (t) 			1377
 * Johnny Mercer (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-21 (t) 	B 	2009-06-21 (t) 			1237
 * Julie Andrews (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2009-06-13 (t) 			1480
 * Kristin Chenoweth (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2013-05-17 (t) 			1281
 * Leonard Bernstein (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2010-04-30 (t) 			1476
 * Les Misérables (musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2007-06-20 (t) 	B 	2007-06-20 (t) 			1335
 * Mary Martin (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-16 (t) 	B 	2009-06-16 (t) 			1131
 * Maury Yeston (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2009-06-13 (t) 			691
 * Parade (musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2008-12-16 (t) 	B 	2008-12-16 (t) 			745
 * Porgy and Bess (t · h · l) 	 	2008-02-15 (t) 	B 	2008-02-15 (t) 			1269
 * Rent (musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2007-07-08 (t) 	B 	2007-07-08 (t) 			1340
 * Richard Rodgers (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2009-06-13 (t) 			1351
 * Stephen Sondheim (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-13 (t) 	B 	2009-06-13 (t) 			1341
 * Sunday in the Park with George (t · h · l) 	 	2007-07-08 (t) 	B 	2007-07-08 (t) 			909
 * Sunset Boulevard (musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2007-06-28 (t) 	B 	2007-06-28 (t) 			1072
 * The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2008-07-23 (t) 	B 	2009-12-18 (t) 			1288
 * The Producers (musical) (t · h · l) 	 	2007-07-08 (t) 	B 	2007-07-08 (t) 			1114
 * Victor Herbert (t · h · l) 	 	2009-06-20 (t) 	B 	2009-06-20 (t) 			1045
 * West Side Story (t · h · l) 	 	2010-02-22 (t) 	B 	2010-02-22 (t) 			1358

-- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look at Lucky Guy. There is no description of how the play came to be written [other than that it started as a screenplay -- why did she choose this subject?], or the writing process; there is a woefully inadequate plot summary; the themes section is perfunctory, there is [little] discussion of the production designs, choice of director and designers, the casting process, rehearsal process, or changes during previews. There is no critical post-mortem on the play - what has been the assessment of it since the early reviews? To compare a GA-class play article, see The Importance of Being Earnest. My policy is to improve an article to GA quality BEFORE nominating it for GA. Also, nominating these plays shows that you have a serious bias towards WP:RECENTISM. The most recent plays and musicals are the last ones that should be worked up to GA. Much better to start with works that have, over a period of decades, proved their importance in the history of theatre. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's bare minimum information, like for a c-class article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
I have mentioned you here, should you wish to read or comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. I think you meant "this tag team could ease up on Doncram", not "this tag team could ease up on Crisco", if you care to correct that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucky Guy (play)
The article Lucky Guy (play) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lucky Guy (play) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Tony, you did very good research on this article and brought it up to a fine standard. Ephron fans and other people interested in the play now have a very informative article here, so "well done"!  I think you are doing super work, notwithstanding my personal preference that articles be improved first, then peer reviewed, then nominated, if the peer reviewers think it's ready.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Whaam!
This is a note to let the main editors of Whaam! know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 27, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/September 27, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. The painting's title (pictured) is displayed in the large onomatopoeia in the right panel. One of the best-known works of pop art, it is among Lichtenstein's most important paintings. Whaam! was first exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the Tate Gallery, London, in 1966. It has been on permanent display at Tate Modern since 2006. The left-hand panel of Whaam! shows a fighter plane shooting a missile. The right-hand panel depicts the missile hitting its target, a second plane, which explodes into flames. Lichtenstein based the image on elements taken from several comic-book panels. He transformed his primary prototype, a panel from a 1962 war comic book, by dividing the composition into two panels and altering the relationship of the graphical and narrative elements. Whaam! is regarded for the temporal, spatial and psychological integration of its two panels, which Lichtenstein conceived as a contrasting pair. Lichtenstein, who served in the United States Army during World War II, depicted aerial combat in several works. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on the TFA!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Plots
Of course, in general, the way to get plot details is to get a copy of the script. Sometimes the theatre sells the script or libretto, and eventually, it will wind up online or at a library. The NYPL performance library probably gets Broadway scripts pretty soon after the show opens? The play's website may also have a short plot teaser. Meanwhile, reviews sometimes summarize the plot (although very briefly and usually they leave out the spoilers). Other than that, the best thing to do for a new show is to see the show and take notes, like I did for Kinky Boots. I should hasten to add that I do *not* think that one should go beyond B-class without obtaining an actual copy of the script. Once a play is mature enough to get to GA class, it will certainly have a published script that can be summarized in the Synopsis section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit to Malcom Baker
Hello. I didn't understand your edit summary. Please could you elaborate? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Whaam!
Major congratulations on the article's promotion! That was quite an undertaking. You should be very proud of the final product. Looking forward to your next projects (more Lichtenstein?!). -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the Main Page appearance! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:African-American players of American football
Tony, how's it going? Heads up, Category:African-American players of American football is up for discussion. I know this is a subject of interest to you and you've dealt with some related issues in the past. Hope all is well, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa!
What a body of work! < >. Thank you. I want to read your 2013 submission to Wikimania. I find the process of actually "reforming" anything around here quite stifling as well. I'm active over at WP:ENB/ambassador stuff. I wonder why you're not involved with the Ambassador program anymore? Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 10:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of awards and nominations received by Hill Street Blues (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Bill Nicholson and Michael Warren


 * Chapter 1 (House of Cards) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to House of Cards


 * Lucky Guy (play) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Prospect Park


 * Mind Games (2013 TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to ABC


 * Netflix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to House of Cards

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike
Are you planning to expand the plot section? -- Zanimum (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes or no? --  Zanimum (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I plan to try. I don't know if I will be able. E.g., while Lucky Guy was under review, I found it difficult to find the proper sources to expand the plot. I am hoping that since VaSaMaS was the Tony-Award winner that I might find sources more readily available.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Article update: Jeopardy!
I'm here to address the article Jeopardy! which you quickfailed for good article status. First and foremost, I'd like to verify before you that as of now, I have reviewed the good article criteria thoroughly. To prove my understanding, I will tell that they are as follows:

1. A good article must have clear and concise prose that respects copyright law and uses correct spelling and grammar, and it must also comply with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, article layouts, words to avoid, writing about fiction, and incorporation of embedded lists.

2. A good article must be verifiable, presenting a list of all referenced sources of information in accordance with the layout style guidelines. Original research must be avoided, and in-line citations to reliable sources are required for statistics, direct quotations, published opinions, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that have been or are likely to be challenged, and contentious material related to living persons. If the article is science-based, then it must present its references in accordance with the scientific citation guidelines.

3. A good article must also be broad in its coverage, addressing the main aspects of its subject and staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. A good article must have a neutral point of view—representing viewpoints fairly and without bias, and giving due weight to each viewpoint represented.

5. A good article must also be stable, with no significant day-to-day changes resulting from edit wars or content disputes.

6. A good article must be illustrated by appropriate imagery that is relevant to the topic. Images must have suitable captions and be tagged with appropriate copyright status, and non-free images must have valid fair use rationales provided for them.

So, now that I've gotten the basic GA criteria out of the way, let me take a look at the current revision of the article just to make sure you are up to date on its quality. Here, I am comparing the current revision (from September 2013) to the one reviewed at GA1 (which dates from September 2010).

1. Writing and formatting The article is clearer than the revision reviewed at GA1. It no longer uses words like all, some, also, etc. except where such words are necessary. The abbreviation "ToC" is no longer even used in the article, and the "Gameplay" section now clearly mentions the use of points on Super Jeopardy! ("...on the Super Jeopardy! specials, where clue values were in points rather than in dollars...") I feel that the article's use of internal links is currently sufficient enough to satisfy the common Wikipedian, and there are no longer any one-sentence paragraphs, nor are there any one-paragraph sections. College Championship competitors attending U.S. schools—that is currently discussed in the "Tournaments and events" section: "...full-time undergraduate students from colleges and universities in the United States..." Also, the name "GSN" is spelled out on the first instance thereof, which is currently in the lead section.

2. Accuracy, verifiability, and neutrality There are almost NO entire paragraphs without any sort of citation. The article cites over 100 different sources which include books, newspaper and magazine articles, an academic journal, acceptable Internet resources, press releases, and even the episodes themselves, used where applicable. It also avoids citing unreliable sources such as blogs, fansites and other user-generated content, tabloid publications, and IMDb and TV.com pages. The article's references generally follow the standard citation format as much as possible, there are no longer any "Citation Needed" tags, the External Links tool no longer detects dead links in the article (except for the majority of the official web pages, during the brief period when Sony was revamping the Jeopardy! website for Season 30), and no bare URLs are used in references any longer. In the case of the "p. circa 271" issue, that too has been taken care of. And added to that, the article now generally complies with the "Words to watch" and "A simple formulation" guidelines.

3. Broadness in coverage The complete history of the show is currently summarized in the "Broadcast" section, and discussed in further detail in the corresponding child article Jeopardy! broadcast information. And as for what happened between 1975 and 1978, and 1979 and 1984—there are no records for any of that. As far as broadcast is concerned, nothing concerning Jeopardy! even happened in either of those time periods: it was on hiatus. Repetition of material is generally avoided, and as for the visually impaired contestants—nothing about that is verifiable against an actual reliable source. In addition, there are no popular culture references listed in the article except for those verifiable against appropriate sources.

4. Stability Since you quickfailed the article for GA status, the article has gone through entire days when it has spoken for itself, with no one to give it any edits whatsoever. Nothing that I would consider an "edit war" or a "content dispute" has ensued since the day you failed the article.

5. Use of images The article uses as many images as I find appropriate. The only non-free images present are the current title card (primary means of visual identification for the program) and an image showing most of the daily syndicated version's sets (for which a caption is provided matching each set to the period in which it was used by the show). The set image is placed in an appropriate section. And the title card image does not need a caption, according to the guidelines set forth in the page for Template:Infobox television.

6. Overall The general format of this article, i.e. what information about the program is presented and in what order, currently complies with the structure set forth in Manual of Style/Television.

So, all in all, it seems that in my humble opinion, a lot of the problems that were addressed in GA1 have been resolved as of the current revision. I remember from looking at Google Books once that the weekly syndicated version is at least covered in a reliable source, but I think I'll cite it later once I re-learn what that source is. Meanwhile, I want to know what you think of all the constructive edits that have been made to this article since you rejected it for GA status. —Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Sunday, September 29, 2013, 02:43 U.T.C.

Talkback from Technical 13
Technical 13 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Input Requested - NBA Head coaches/templates
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 23 to try to achieve some consensus around how NBA franchise head coaches are displayed in templates. As an experienced WP:NBA editor, your opinion is requested. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)