User talk:Wizardman/Archive33

46 tiebreaker
Good luck! I was browsing around trying to figure out which I'd do next and came upon your 16 hour old expansion template. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krichell
Just an head's up I placed Paul Krichell in FAC again, I wasn't aware of the first FAC. Thanks Secret account 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Veeck
Again, comments at GA of Bill Veeck-- LAA Fan '' 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: FYI
Thanks for letting me know about the FT change. Feel free to post the changed topics on my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Word Alive
Hi, you're one of the admins that deleted the article for The Word Alive. They have released their debut, which is sure to chart at the end of this week. Can you unprotect this space now please so it may be created? The sandbox for the page has been worked on highly and is looking more than dandy enough to be created along with the fact that they can now being deemed a notable band per WP:N. • GunMetal Angel  02:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for that, but be sure to unprotect the talk page for it too. And also unprotect the word alive (title with all the letters lowercased), so it can serve as a redirect page to the article. • GunMetal Angel  04:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the lowercase version cannot be redirected if it's linked through text. Even if it sounds dumb, just spare those 5 seconds unprotecting it, please? - GunMetal Angel  15:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Juwan Howard
Are you interested in co-nominating Howard with me at FAC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have recruited us a copyeditor. He has posted some questions on the talk page that have stumped me.  Maybe you can help.  I don't know much about the basketball camps.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. You did not want to get involved in any copyedit issues, so I assumed you would not really want to be involved in the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail
Since you are one who quickfails a lot of GAC, I thought I would ask if any of these pass your quickfail check before posting them: 1976–77 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 1964–65 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 1965–66 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Request
Yea I'll do a review of the Killerbrew article. I have the Krichell FAC and I need to worry about getting the Selena article back to featured standing it's on FAR, and with two school essays so my concentration is limited. I'm trying to work on the Shoeless Joe Jackson article, maybe we could collaburate on that article when we have the time, he has to be among the six most important player articles (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Rose, and Cobb) I think are more important on a historical sense and those five needs to become FAs as well, I worked some on Ruth and Gehrig and I got easy access to their biographies, Mantle for some reason doesn't have a good biography written about him. I have Jackson's top two biographies and two sources including Eight Men Out, that talks about the scandal. Thanks for the review. Secret account 02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil
Hello! I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing Pedro II of Brazil and approve or not its nomination for good article (See: Talk:Pedro II of Brazil/GA1). Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird as it might sound, the editor who opened the review also said in it that he won't review it, only if no one else does and once he has some time. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1946 National League tie-breaker series
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bill Veeck
No problem, I'll have a look in the next day or two. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Got there faster than I thought! Did the review and found several things. To me, it looks as if it needs a bit of work. Thanks! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My laptop has unexpectedly broken down, preventing me from editing extensively in the near future. You can leave it open, or close it and I'll get back to it when my laptop is repaired, (Looking at about two weeks for repair)-- LAA Fan '' 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it back sooner than expected. Plan to work on it in the near future.-- LAA Fan '' 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed most of the prose concerns listed at the GAN page. Still a long way to go for FA, but do you think it should be renominated for GA?-- LAA Fan '' 02:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds great.-- LAA Fan '' 03:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

FLC review request
Mind taking a look at Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game/archive1 when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have another request, if you don't mind:


 * The Signpost's "Features and admins" page now includes a "Choice of the week" for featured articles, featured lists and featured pictures. Each week, The Signpost invites a different delegate, reviewer or nominator from each process to select what they think is the best, or their favourite, item, and to give their reasons. These reasons can be technical (e.g., related to the Criteria) or subjective, or both.


 * Would you be willing to do this with featured lists for next week’s edition? If you agree, promotions from Saturday 11 September to Friday 17 September will be eligible. They will be listed here by Saturday UTC, and we would need your text by Sunday UTC. Examples from previous weeks are accessible by clicking on "← PREVIOUS Features and admins" at the bottom. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's ready for you (yeah, I haven't written the individual blurbs yet, but I'll get it done by publication). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Andre Laguerre
You asked for a few fixes before passing on to GA status. I needed some clarification. Could you please see my comments at the article talk page? -- Jayron  32  05:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Draft Lists
The two I'm working on now are the Pirates and the Reds, with the Braves being third on my list if no-one gets to them. Courcelles 03:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil
Thanks again for taking on the review of this article. One of the editors is hoping to get this article up to FAC level, as Pedro II is a Lincolnesque figure in Brazil's history. I was wondering if, while scanning through the article, you might note any glaring faults or suggestions which would affect FA consideration. I know you are mostly concerned with the GA standards, and don't want to burden you further. But if it is convenient, such suggestions would be much appreciated. &bull; Astynax talk 07:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Vital articles
I think we should focus on making those 45 vital articles listed as FAs first before going though another project, my Eppa Rixey project could wait. Only two of them listed are FAs and like four of them GAs. Secret account 02:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You got email Secret account 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Again email Secret account 00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Again. Secret account 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and on this theme, thanks for your choice of the week! Much appreciated, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. Regards, BencherliteTalk 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dropping in to say...
Thanks :):):) For your wonderful support vote in my RfA. Kind regards dear Wizardman.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

History of botany
Hi - what does "not on review" mean please?  Granitethighs  11:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1946 National League tie-breaker series
Heyo! You do about a million things, so absolutely positively no rush, but just wondering if you're still planning on GAN'ing this eventually. I'm going to take on the 59 game (avoiding the mega 78 and 51 tie-breaker articles for now), just want to confirm what's left. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dirac delta function
I have closed the inconclusive review and renominated with a timestamp one hour later than the original, so that it doesn't lose its place. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Tie-breaker
Can't wait! I'll try to work up a draft to go live with immediately if it becomes necessary. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost missed, there's a chance at a THREE WAY, 2 game tie-break! (if they all wind up with 91 wins they decide the West and then the WC). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FTC/GTCs
Hey, the FTC/GTC page needs some love. I'm willing to help out, can you show me how to promote them?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I promoted the Harvey brothers GTC and am having an odd problem with the Featuredtopictalk template at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Harvey brothers. Can you check and see what I did wrong?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've promoted Like a Virgin and the supplementary nom for Pirates of the Caribbean films and failed Washington & Jefferson College. There's some sort of problem with the later regarding the link to the nom page from the individual pages. Talk:List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents head football coaches shows what I'm talking about. Lemme know what I did wrong and I'll fix the others. And what should be done about Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars? It's been quite a while.
 * You may remember that I'm in the WikiCup and I'd like to ask a favor if you could close my noms whenever they hit their 10 days if they have enough support. And your opinion on Courageous class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier would be appreciated to weigh in on the preferable method of organizing the topic box.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've promoted Brill Tramway to FTC. Halfway through the updating of the article histories the header switched from good topic to featured topic; I'm not sure if that was just a bit of slowness updating or whatever, but it might be worth checking to see if I did everything OK. The first couple of my GTCs will be eligible in the next few days so I'd appreciate it if you could take care of them when you get a chance. The only oppose on my Courageous class GTC is Nergaal on the formatting; but I'll let you decide what weight to give that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2
As the GA reviewer, I am informing you of Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the New York Giants (1994–present)
Hello Wizardman. I don't know if you remember me, but I remember you. Thanks for the help with all those articles back in the day.

Anyways, I was the editor of the New York Giants history series and took a long break from Wikipedia (over three years) but am now back. I saw that you rightfully delisted the above article from GA status due to the erosion of quality over time. I worked on it and think I addressed your concerns. I renominated it for GA, if you could look at it that would be great. Quadzilla99 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Texas Rangers first-round draft picks
I never thanked you for picking that up and doing a great job with it. Fantastic work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red3biggs (talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Sutton Hoo/GA1 - "Layout" section
This is getting ridiculous. There is absolutely no sign of the review being finished, instead he talks today of "I will do some research on these matters so I can tidy, perhaps expand a bit more, and perhaps provide some accessible reliable sources", which will take until Xmas at the current pace. Then he cuts 3 paras he has never mentioned before with the edit summary (mostly layout - some MoS issues as well), and not even mentioning the fact on the GAR talk page! See my comment. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I suppose it's possible losing the 3 paras was an accident. I'll wait & see. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good topic
Very close. Ernie Fletcher is being GA reviewed right now. Steve Beshear, John Y. Brown, Jr., and Governor of Kentucky are all listed for GA review. I recently finished work on John J. Crittenden, but I don't think I can get a GA review before my daughter is born (probably in mid-November) so I listed it for peer review instead. After things get settled following my daughter's birth (probably after the first of the year), I'll nominate it for GA. Once those pass, it's a GT. I prepared the topic box this week. See here.

If Beshear, Brown, and Governor of Kentucky were to all pass in the next little bit, I might list Crittenden for GA and drop a note at WP:WPGA to see if I could get an expedited review. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances, nominate Crittenden if you believe he's ready. I'll pick up the review on Sunday. Courcelles 15:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for the offer. Crittenden was a busy guy, so the article took forever to write. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Input
Your thoughts invited here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know  — Rlevse • Talk  • 17:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rati/GA1
Thanks for your patience. Please free to assess the article against other GA criteria barring prose, which may be a little clumsy. I have requested specific GOCE editors for help. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User:SMasters has graciously copyedited the article. Please go ahead with your GA review. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA review. I have addressed your concerns. Please take a look. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA pass. Enjoy your wikibreak. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

GTC withdrawal
FYI: Can you handle this? I'm involved enough (as an OMT member) that I'd prefer not to. -MBK004 08:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to withdraw the Renown-class GTC in favor of the large British BC GTC. Should I just delete it or should I fail it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything special I should know about the big British battlecruiser GTC since it will incorporate several existing GTCs? I expect that the real work comes when it's time to promote, but just thought I'd ask. And are there any issues if I go ahead and promote my uncontroversial GTCs? I wouldn't want to be accused of a CoI or anything, but I have the time to do so while you're pretty busy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and knock out a few tonight (currently handling one of the FTs), then we'll go from there. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going to be away for a little while. The FTC took longer than expected, so that's all I could muster tonight. If I'm not back by Friday go ahead and promote yours. I'd rather you not promote your own just so it doesn't look bad (given what's going on with the Wikicup), though if I'm gone longer than expected then it's not fair to just leave them. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 04:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, there's no real hurry at the moment. Things will get critical closer to the end of the month, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I may try and do some closes. Ucucha 00:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could that would be great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Taylor
Just now noticed your assessment of the Kelly Taylor article. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: 30 Rock GT
Hey Wizard, got your message, though, I apologize for not replying sooner, I've been busy the last couple of days with school studies, but I believe I have that over with. Anyways, I'll start work on the season four page... IMMEDIATELY. Question: If the season article is at FLC and it's there on the 18th, will you demote the seasons? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo again
Well he has finally ended the GA review, as he has to go on holiday! I'm afraid the whole lengthy business has just confirmed my opinion that GA is not worth bothering about. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your fine work. Feel free to post this on your user page. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Juwan Howard
Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page somewhere. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:1975–76 Buffalo Braves season/GA2
I assume you are watching Talk:1975–76 Buffalo Braves season/GA2, but I am dropping a note just in case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

FTRC
Were you trying to do something like this transclusion with your edit here. If so it now works, if not sorry I misinterpreted it and just revert my edits. Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I think I was right to do this. I'm not stalking (promise!) I just followed you there as I was interested about what the list I wrote was sectioned as. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  16:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Downman
I've reviewed Hugh Downman here. No huge problems, just a few nit-picks, so I've put it on hold. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed now. Well done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tie-breaker
You kidding? Look at my edit history for the past 2 months, you have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Martha MacKenzie
Hello a couple of days ago you offered to take over the review. As the current reviewer is absent, he did say the last time he could complete it would be yesterday, however nothing happened. So I'd be grateful if you did take over now. It's been quite a long time in the review list now and everything, so it's great that you're going to wrap this one up. Thankyou.  RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 15:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

George Eyre
I've left some notes on the GA review for this article, when you've a chance. Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm actually just packing for a flight at the moment, but I'll try to have a look at it before I leave tonight - if not, it'll be a day or two. Apologies! Shimgray | talk | 18:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All done - sorry about the delay, it took a bit longer to get back online after I arrived than I'd anticipated! Shimgray | talk | 15:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
<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) 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ryan Boyle/GA1
Please review Talk:Ryan Boyle/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your expedient and diligent reviews. You may be aware that I am competing in the WP:CUP.  I am hoping to see as many of my GACs get reviewed as possible before the end of the month so that they count towards the cup.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Jesse Hubbard/GA1
Thanks for your dedication.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded and encourage you to consider reviewing another of my pending noms before the WP:CUP ends.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:B. J. Prager/GA2
I have responded at Talk:B. J. Prager/GA2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the New York Giants (1994–present)
Okay broseph: Quadzilla99 (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I was going to ask you if maybe you and me can collaborate on an article later. I have a few of my own in the pipeline right now, and me and Zagalejo are collaborating on one currently, so it wouldn't be for a few months. I've been on a reading kick lately, so anything is fine as long as its nothing too technical. I could help you with that Big Bear thing perhaps. Quadzilla99 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it tomorrow.


 * I was thinking either Bob Feller of Satchel Paige if you still wanted to collaborate btw. If you want to do a non sports article I've been wanting to work on a TV show article for a while now. Maybe a sitcom like All in the Family. Frasier, Cheers. Larry Sanders, Fawlty Towers, etc. if you're interested in any of those shows. Or you could mention one you're interested in, if none of those are your cup of tea. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * K. I left some minor comments on the review page.


 * I'm going to check my finances and see if I have money to buy some of the Feller biographies at amazon. The project I was working on with Zagalejo fell through so we might be able to collaborate sooner than I thought. Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviews
I will be attending a funeral on Saturday and travelling on Sunday. The earlier you can review them the better. I appreciate any efforts you can make.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco
Hi, Wizardman, good to see you again! I've nominated an article on José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, regarded as the greatest statesman during the second half of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil reign. The problem is that the reviewer who volunteered to look at the article has been missing for some time and knows nothing of the subject. Nothing at all. And apparentely, he lost his will to try understanding it. Since you reviewed Pedro II's article and is quite familiar by now with the theme, I thought you could review Rio Branco's article too. It is, for all effects, very similar to Pedro II's (but certainly not as large) since most of what you saw in the Emperor's article you'll see in this one, but from Rio Branco's point of view. In other words, it will be quite easy to you to follow it. However, this is merely an invitation, do not feel at all obliged to do it. If you're tired or lack the will to review it, don't worry. Since you made an outstanding review on Pedro II, I thought no one else would be better than you on this one. P.S.: The review page is Talk:José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/GA1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, well, now that's a great new! I'll be very happy to see you there!
 * Wizardman, I'd like to ask your imput on another matter. Pedro II of Brazil has been successfuly nominated to Featured status, on the other had, another article I wrote, on Pedro Álvares Cabral (the Portuguese navigator who discovered Brazil), despited having garnered far more supports than Pedro II, is stuck because of an editor called Jappalang. He has been making near impossible demands to recognize the images in the article as public domain. All of them (with the exception of a map and 2 pictures taken by Wikipedians of an statue and Cabral's tomb) were made in the 19th Century by authors who died more than 75 years ago.


 * According to Jappalang, the tag "This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" is worthless since I'd have to prove that all those painting were also published (not made!) somewhere before 1923. Which is odd. There is another tag ("This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was registered with the U.S. Copyrights Office or published before January 1, 1923.") that already deals with this kind of situation. If the the year of the death of the author plus 70 years term tag is useless, why does it exist? And if iis ne cessry to also prove that it ws published before 1923, why isn't that told in the tag itself? In fact, he also demands me to prove that those pictures had the authorization of the descendants of those authors to be published and on and on.


 * Paintings such as made by an artist who died in 1898 is not in public domain according to him. Even this piece of map made in 1565 is not in public domain. This map made by Wikipedians based on text of the article has also copyright issues, too.


 * The point is: if we follow Jappalang near impossible restrictions, almost all paintings and photographies from the 19th Century will have to be erased. I believe that 90% of them simply uses the life of the author plus the 70 years expiration date tag. As Astynax told him: "If the policy and the comments you've made are supposed to be in alignment, then either the policy or your explanation of policy needs to be clearer. The day only IP law students are allowed to edit here or contribute material will be a sad day indeed. Editors must rely on clear policy, and only on clear policy. I would respectfully suggest that if Wiki policy needs to be changed or clarified, the place to do it isn't here". If he has issues with the way Commons rules applies to copyright and on, he should complain there, not in an article nomination. I don't know if I was clear enough, sorry; I just do'nt know what to do now. --Lecen (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

expedition 1
Hello; thanks for the GA review of Expedition 1! I've made the changes you suggested. Mlm42 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Striebel/GA1
I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help on Coat of arms of Albany, New York. It's much appreciated.  upstate NYer  05:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
<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) 05:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of rabbis' bios
Hi Wizardman: Regarding your recent AfD at Articles for deletion/Moshe Sacks please see my responses there. This is a tough subject. I have been discussing the matter with User:User:J04n, see User talk:J04n. My points to him, as I note in the Rabbi Moshe Sacks AfD are that:
 * 1) On a point of procedure, that once articles generally directly pertaining to topics within Category:Jews and Judaism have been officially nominated as AfDs, then notifications should be placed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism (an official Deletion sorting project), and of course it helps that an additional note is also left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism (a forum for talk about Judaism topics).
 * 2) There is a great difference between Jews notable in academia and many famous rabbis and personalities, especially the more Haredi and Hasidic they are, because it is such an insular and hard-to-penetrate world they live in.
 * 3) Over the years, various editors have taken a stab at writing articles about such rabbis and subjects. The articles are known to many Judaic editors and they have let them stand because they are themselves familiar with the subjects and therefore know of their importance.
 * 4) But now along comes a new push to cite references in biographies and it's not easy. I have tried to deal with this issue over the years, see User:IZAK/Useful templates and pages and User:IZAK/Useful templates and pages.
 * 5) That is also why I am a firm believer in the editorial philosophy espoused at Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and at Give an article a chance. Articles take many years to be built up.
 * 6) Perhaps it would be a good idea to notify a broad range of the most active Judaic editors about the current need to update articles to inspire them to improve articles, but on average few are very active at one given time.
 * 7) But please remember, things often move at a snail's pace and it would be extremely foolish to throw out the baby with the bath water by depriving Wikipedia of a solid nucleus of excellent biographies.

Perhaps you may wish to broaden this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks again for all your consideration. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Albany, New York GAN and 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl FAC
Thanks for closing out the GA review for Coat of arms of Albany, New York for me; I got very busy in real life around the end of October and hadn't seen that a fair-use template was added to the image in question. I wanted to ask you for a favor, if you have the time; I remember you reviewed my article 2009 International Bowl at GAN and again at FAC. I have another UConn bowl game, 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl, currently up as a featured article candidate. The FAC has been open since October 13 but needs more reviews. If you have a chance would you mind taking a look at it and commenting as to whether you believe the article meets the featured article criteria? I would be very appreciative. –Grondemar 16:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)