User talk:Gary King/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

AfD nomination of Comedy workshop

An article that you have been involved in editing, Comedy workshop, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy workshop. Thank you. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Fratrum Arvalium

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Carmen Fratrum Arvalium, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Easys

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Easys, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Topbar logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Topbar logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup cats

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 16:16 30 January 2008 (GMT).

Speedy deletion of Union Square Ventures

A tag has been placed on Union Square Ventures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pollytyred (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi,

I have approved you for AutoWIkiBrowser. You can get to work immediately (you can download it from here). Good luck!

  jj137 (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to a more inclusive site

Hi Gary,

I see that you've been very active in Wikipedia, and as some of your articles are currently under review for deletion on the grounds of non-notability, I wanted to suggest that you consider transferring them to Wikipopuli, a wiki that I set up to host biographical articles without a notability requirement. Indeed, given your level of experience in the wiki world, I'd be grateful for any feedback you care to give on the site. Thanks TheYellowCabin (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you didn't like my suggestion. I didn't mean to offend you or imply and denigration of your work. If you don't mind I'd like to explain myself in a little more detail. I created the Wikipopuli website to be a potential home for Wikipedia bio articles that fall afoul of WP:BIO. (As well as any biographical material that people would like to put up on their own.) I've been visiting the talk pages of users who have created articles undergoing AfD for non-notability and suggesting that they transwiki such articles to Wikipopuli. While I can see how you might perceive this as using Wikipedia to promote another site, I was hoping that my intentions would be seen as wiki-friendly in that I'm helping frustrated users find a new home for their content, while Wikipedia is kept free of material that editors deem unsuitable. In short, I'd value your advice and guidance on how best to proceed. I'd like to offer helpful suggestions to those who might benefit, without falling afoul of Wikipedia rules or generally creating a nuisance. TheYellowCabin (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Real Capital Analytics worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. <3 bunny 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you testing

Or do edits like this constitute the final version of the pages you're editing? Also, if you're going to use a semi-automatic tool, please use one that makes the change in one edit. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase this. Your help is invaluable. But please stop using the tool for experimentation until you have it perfected. Use the sandbox if necessary. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorising Singapore Youth Flying Club

Thanks for helping! Bonchygeez (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Evermail, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Evermail is NOT an English word. It is a neologism, which is why I AfD's it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Hoosier Crossroads Conference, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. This is a conference in the sense of "group", not in the sense of "meeting". Are you reading the articles before tagging, or is this some kind of bot? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Guild of Italian American Actors, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Italian-American is explicitly NOT Italian. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Graphics coordinator, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Not a TV series. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Hello. I see that you've become a categorization machine! Alai has promised to run his bot on the latest database dump so we'll probably get a few thousand new entries to play with. Now we know how Sisyphus felt. I sort of feel like a dick for pointing this out, but I feel that you're categorizing things too fast. For instance, make sure that when categorizing people you include them into the XXXX births, XXXX deaths or Living people categories. While these often seem useless, they are in fact routinely used by Wikipedia bots for various maintenance tasks. Also, in a few cases, you have used categories which are too high level like Category:Writers, Category:Albums, [Category:Hungarian people]. Of course, these are better than nothing but such articles are likely to remain in Wikipedia nowhere land until they are re-categorized down the road. If you're unsure about how to get more precise cats, you can add Category:Better category needed or put a question at WP:UNCAT. The objective is not to quickly get rid of the backlog (there will always be a backlog, no matter how fast we work: its limited size is in large part due to bot operators unwilling to dump a ton of articles in it) but rather to make sure that articles we categorize are sufficiently well classified to be accessible for bots and interested readers or writers. Again, sorry if it feels like I'm lecturing. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to General Treviño, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified. If it has not been already, it may be removed if the category has not been deemed correct for the subject matter. Thank you. Not a ranch. Your bot doesn't work. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding Inappropriate Categories

I'm not sure what you're doing, but it doesn't seem to be helpful. Some recent questionable changes:

  • Debbie Meyer Green Bags is an article about plastic bags, so why would you add (Category: Cooking appliance brands) to it?
  • Dave Celentano is indeed a guitarist, since he is a guitar instructor, but the article is clearly CSD#G11, so why wouldn't you tag it while you're in there?
  • Daraja Academy is a school in Kenya, so why tag it as (Category: Non-profit organizations based in the United States)?

If you are running a bot to do this, it needs to be shut down immediately. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean those as rhetorical questions. Please respond. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Those were automatic edits. I have rectified the situation and will manually observe the edits before they are made from now on. --Gary King (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So you were running an unregistered bot to categorize articles? Is this a fair statement? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If that is indeed what is happening then a) please stop because it's hurting the project more than it's helping and b) please generate a list of all articles you categorized with the bot so that we can rectify the problem. Pichpich (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
By my rough estimation you have made around 2000 edits related to categorization in the past two weeks, roughly 75% of these to distinct pages. That's still around 1500 pages and a quick spot check has me convinced that all of these need to be double-checked for improper categorization, insufficient categorization or clear candidates for deletion which have flown under the radar as a result of the bot. I cannot stress enough that categorization is most certainly not something that should be automated. I could not care less about whether or not the bot was authorized but this really, really needs to stop and you have to figure out a way to generate a list of articles so that the WP:UNCAT team can fix the problems. If you cannot do that, I'll have to request a bot to automatically rollback your edits of the past two weeks. Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... How long have you been doing this? [1]? Pichpich (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I do care if it was an unauthorized bot. Gary, please give a clear answer to my earlier question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a bot. At the most, it was a Wikipedia edit form that wasn't on en.wikipedia.org and still requires a human to hit the Submit button for each change. --Gary King (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't reconcile your latest statement with your earlier statement "Those were automatic edits. I have rectified the situation and will manually observe the edits before they are made from now on". I would leave you and User:Pichpich to work out how to repair the damage you have done, except I see that you are still doing it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Hello. I am flabergasted that despite the complaints above you've decided to continue running a bot-like process that hurts the categorization process. Please stop now or I will request that your account be blocked. Pichpich (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bot; it returns the articles that require categories and I go through each one and give them a category. If you look at the latest articles that I have categorized, you'll see that they have appropriate categories added to them. --Gary King (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, the fact remains that you have categorized hundreds if not thousands of articles so carelessly that the work has to be redone. So please, help me and others find a solution. If need be, I'll manually revert all article changes you've made in that categorization blitz. I'm sure you meant no harm but the fact is you screwed up and the quicker we can fix this the better. Pichpich (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Man, the more I look into this the more absurd this gets. People have been telling you for at least 6 months that you're being too careless with categorization and your solution is to use a semi-automated process to do more careless work more quickly? What gives? You need to take a deep, deep breath and come clean so that we can repair the damage. Pichpich (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please follow various people's advice and stop doing this until its appropriateness can be reviewed. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Incident Report

Please see ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it would be very nice of you to comment on the ANI thread. Your unresponsiveness will leave no other choice but to block your account. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know I was supposed to respond to it; I'll do so immediately. --Gary King (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:American musical groups

Please be aware, that this is a parent category and should not be used to categorise articles. Please use more specific categories, which can be found within Category:American musical groups by genre. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing now? ARV notice

I've ARV'd you since you appear to be using a bot to reverse your previous edits, without having previously agreed this anywhere that I have seen. I doubt you will be blocked, but I wanted to let you know I'd done this. Your actions are very puzzling to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that this would be worked out with admins before proceeding, but you are right, User:Pichpich did say that. Personally, I think more caution is warranted, and given the trouble that has already been caused, I would still suggest waiting for more input. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should update the ANI with details of what you're doing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection templates

Please do not add protection templates to articles that are not protected as you did here and here. Nor should you remove protection templates to articles that are indeed protected as you did here. Normally, an admin who does an article protection will add the template themselves. For expired protection templates, there is a bot that handles that task so there is often no need for you to remove it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WOT

It's true, some people do use WOT to mean what... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.238.64 (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive Problem

Just want to let you know that something seems to have gone wrong with your archiving process. Archive 8 is empty (I think this diff is the relevant one). It's your talk page, but it may be helpful to have that info for anyone who is following the ANI entry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Porphyria's Lover

You reverted my edit, calling it "vandalism". Might i ask why? 81.140.99.185 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please reference the claims that you make in your addition, otherwise it is simply speculation. Gary King (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. Just letting you know: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot needed to repair mistakes of unauthorized bot. Feel free to comment. Pichpich (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Darfur Peace Agreement

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Darfur Peace Agreement, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6PM57E?OpenDocument. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's public domain :) I mention this on your Talk page. Gary King (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cherepovets article. I didn't realize I need to put a reason for edit, and I don't know how to do this after the fact. Thanks for educating, I will do this next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.150.143 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:JUSTAVOTE

You might want to read that... --Closedmouth (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware. I'll abide by that from now on.Gary King (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I don't mean to discourage you in any way, I just thought you might like to know. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Heart (band)

Thank you. (I couldn't work out if there was some perverse logic behind it, or if it was just simple vandalism! You have saved me from further mental effort ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Finding vandalism

Lupin's anti-vandal tool is very effective for filtering out bad edits. It can be hard to keep up with at times. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD

You passed comment in an AFD, but seem to have put your comment on the main AFD page rather than the appropriate subpage, it's not easy to see which AFD this relates to, so I've just removed it for now. Can you readd it to the appropriate place if still needed? Thanks. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Just saying "Delete" with no reason attached to it is considered bad form. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just A Vote

Hi, I noticed most of your comments on the AfD pages are WP:JUSTAVOTE, let us know what you're thinking! Thanks -Kevinebaugh (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Account

Hi, thanks for the message. I do actually have an account (unused for 6 months or so), I just had to stop actively editing wikipedia for various personal reasons (Change of job, illness and various other bits and pieces). I still don't really have that much time to contribute so I'm just feeling the water so to speak. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA Card

My RFA →→→

Delete of Brian Telestai

A tag has been placed on Brian Telestai, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

I Am Ghost is notable, but he isn't outside of the band. Most of this article is about the band, in an attempt to assert notability.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ~kevin talkemail 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nousernamesleft

Hi, Gary King, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, tough feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.
This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

Re: (User talk:ais523) User:Ais523/stubtagtab2.js

Thanks for letting me know! It seems that there was a change in the API that removed the API call the script used to use, replacing it with a newer one. I think I've updated it to use the newer method; bypass your cache, and let me know whether it works now. --ais523 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New articles

Please help... its quite easy. Not sure adding a cleanup box to a one minute old article is very helpful. Victuallers (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Article Creation

Hello, you can find the discussion here. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Marys dog

I think it would be safe to tag this for speedy under notability or even advertising. Google turns up nothing but a MySpace and another questionable source. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

Could you possibly slow down with the AFDs? Many of those articles could probably be salvaged, but we don't have enough time to do the research if you're nominating several every hour. Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zagalejo. I do, however, appreciate your comitment to clean up Wiki. Scipio Carthage (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, the majority are either deleted, on their way to being deleted, or are because I was not completely aware of the policies for certain types of articles, like radio stations or schools. Once I submitted an article for AFD and realized this mistake, I stopped submitting these types of articles. Look at my AFDs from my first ones and move forward through time and you will realize this. Gary King (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Go To Berlin

We created this page today, and read the terms. We would like to dicuss this further as we feel that although we do not meet all the requirements in a short period of time we may manage to meet them all.

If you aren't sure about an article...

If you aren't sure whether an article should be kept or not, consider improving it youself, or tagging it as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Notability}}, or whatever the main problem seems to be, and perhaps another editor will be able to improve the article. Only take an article to AfD if you are sure that it should be deleted. --Eastmain (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

right. It helps to be able to say where you have looked for sources, ad failed to find them. See WP:Deletion policy. Eastmain & I certainly often dont agree about deletions, but we --and others-- do agree you are not doing this carefully enough. DGG (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Pop

I declined the CSD. A7 only applies to articles on people and organizations, not genres of music. Suggest AfD. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dave best

Just saw your AfD notice on my talk page - actually I did not create the Dave best article - I just tidied it up a little. I see that someone has attempted to redirect to the band article -- I'll fix that and all should be good.--ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Glabrousness, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA

.: Thank you! :.

Confused

Hello. I'm confused by this edit and the edit summary that went with the edit. At first glance it seems like the edit summary and the edit are incongruous. Let me know what you think; thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I also see that you closed the AFD as a non-admin on an AFD that wasn't obviously a keep or a delete. Can you please explain why you closed it as "keep"? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I replied on my user talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin Closures

Hi. I see you've been helping out on the AFD backlog. That's great, but you need to be a bit more careful with the process. As per WP:DELPRO (and echoed in WP:NAC), the removal of the AFD notice should not be marked with as a minor edit, and in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owner earnings, it also looks like you missed adding the AFD result to the talk page. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'minor edit' edit summary was pre-populated, and I should have changed it to something more descriptive. You are right. I've also added the AFD result to that Talk page. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure of AFD for Martha Samuelson

Hi. It looks like you left out the addition of the closure notice on the talk pages for articles. I was going through and fixing them when I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Samuelson. You closed this as a keep, but there does not appear to be a clear concensus for keep. The nominator, and one other editor indicated Delete (2 !votes delete), and one other editor indicating a redirect or delete. There is one keep, and one weak keep from established editors. And there are two keeps from a single purpose account which should not hold much weight due to the conflict of interest noted with the IP address belonging to the company of the article subject. I don't see how this possibly be considered a clear concensus to delete. And as per WP:NAC, non-admins should leave these for an admin to close. Regards -- Whpq (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it back to normal. Gary King (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

redoing categorization

Hello Gary King. It's been agreed at Wikipedia:Bot requests that the simplest way to fix the unsatisfactory categorization that you performed automatically is for you to run AWB to tag these articles as Category:Categorization needs to be reviewed which I've just created for this purpose. Can you handle the tagging? Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've tweaked my message, but I'd also like to know if you'll do it or not. Pichpich (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on a few things right now, including a WP:FAC review, but I'll get right on it ASAP. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok great. There's no real rush if you're too busy with the FAC. I just want to know that you'll do it eventually. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Done Gary King (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman

I saw you tried to get Friedman through FA review. I too am interested in making this a featured article. Let me know if you need help working on this. I am pretty busy right now, but I will do what I can. Remember (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tips

Hi Gary, thanks for promptly addressing my comments. I tend to review FACs from a reference, citation, MOS point of view, so I've largely ignored the prose. The copyediting should take care of any outstanding MOS issues. There are four editors I recommend for review: Karanacs (talk · contribs), Awadewit (talk · contribs), Qp10qp (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is excellent for MOS issues, and Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) can advise on the inclusion of fair use images. I've written a few featured articles, so if you want any advice on anything just drop me a line. I look forward to supporting this article, and I see you've got a few editors willing to give you a hand. Best of luck, PeterSymonds | talk 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've archived my comments. PS, Sandy is the Featured Article Director's (Raul654 (talk · contribs)) delegate, ie. she promotes/archives nominations. Therefore she doesn't like to comment on articles that haven't reached a consensus. She recommended Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to review against the MOS instead. PeterSymonds | talk 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright thanks, I will contact that person. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Malaka Dewapriya AfD

Is it OK with you if I bring Sri Lankan Student Short Film culture into the same AfD? It's the same author, same subject, same notability issues. I'm really not sure myself which way I'll vote - there just may be notability lurking under all the promotion (self-promotion, I'm sure), but somebody would have to do a lot of work to get an acceptable article; and the way he is behaving, continually removing the AfD template, he's liable to get blocked soon. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Gary King (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait and see how your speedy goes; if that's turned down, I'll add it to the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The account has been blocked, too, after I just reported it. Yay, one vandal down, many more to go! Gary King (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman review

Hello Gary! Interested to hear that I've been recommended as a reviewer, but glad to be of service where possible! I'm certainly no Nobel prize winning reviewer(!) but I'll definitely give it a go. May be a day or so before I can bring in the full damage but I'll do my best. It looks good from an overview but immediately I'd suggest merging the single sentence para's and using an en-dash to separate year ranges (per the WP:MOS). I'd also avoid bullet point lists as WP:FA tends to shy away from that sort of thing. Anyway, just a quick couple of pointers. As Arnie said.... "I'll be back....." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, they are all great suggestions. I will go through each one and make sure that they are carefully applied to the article. Gary King (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like things have taken a funny turn - a {{POV}} template has been added to the page which, until its resolution, means the FA is doomed. I suggest you work with the editor(s) who take objection to elements of the article as it currently stands and hopefully resurrect the chance of promotion. Otherwise I fear the worst.... Bearing in mind I'm no subject matter expert, let me know if I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP: AIV

Hello. I think you might have messed up in a recent WP:AIV report. Malaka Dewapriya, the account you reported, does not even exist. Please fix, and put the correct username. Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Gary King (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you notice that he has two user names - he started out as Srilanka short film (talk · contribs) and then switched to Srilankan short film (talk · contribs), so if one is blocked you may need to block the other as well. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Good catch - reported the alternative account as well. Gary King (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman

Gary. I'm afraid that article is well outside my area of knowledge (now if it had been Milton!). It looks like it has some reviewers now, so please forgive me if I pass. All the best with it. qp10qp (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ganzfeld

You've just said delete in this debate, but it is not a vote, so you need to state your reasons for your position to be given weight. Tyrenius (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pál Balkay

Have you read the comments in this debate? You might consider withdrawing your nom, so it can be closed as a speedy keep. Tyrenius (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gini coefficient

Thanks for assessing this from an economics perspective to add to my assessment from a statistics perspective. It appears you set higher standards for quality than me, or maybe we're judging different aspects, but either way that's fine! Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing PHP or you will be blocked. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Good. --MisterWiki do ya want to speak me?, come there! - 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PHP review

No prob. I'm off out today so if I don't finish the review before I leave then I'll finish it tonight. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PR script

I've made a modified script in User:Jwanders/monobook.js that works for me. Just don't use the "Autoformat article per MOS" button. --jwandersTalk 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've copied it over to another page for now since yours is on your monobook.js page and you might change it later on. It works for me. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry Girvetz redirect?

I noticed that you recently created a redirect page for Harry Girvetz, pointing to Milton Friedman. From what I can tell via Google, Harry Girvetz (1910-1974) was a professor of philosophy at UC Santa Barbara and a liberal activist. There is no mention of him on Milton Friedman's page. I'm puzzled by the redirect. Kestenbaum (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

His name must've been removed from the article, then. Anyways, I would consider the person non-notable enough to deserve his own article. It was a red link, so I redirected it back to the only article that linked to it. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Student Short Film Culture in Sri lanka

Our friend is back, as Malakadew (talk · contribs). I have put {{uw-coi}} on his talk page, but haven't got time to do anything else about it just now. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Our friend is now blocked indefinitely (again). Nice catch on your part, once again. Gary King (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
He has introduced another of his films Transference-short film which I have AfD-ed.JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

François-Marie de Bourbon

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article François-Marie de Bourbon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of François-Marie de Bourbon. Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: No notification for deleted images

Hi, Gary! When you uploaded the image, you should have seen a large warning that looked like the text at {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}. However, I've taken a closer look and decided to restore the image since Milton Friedman is deceased. Please write a fair use rationale for the image within the next week. Thanks! east.718 at 01:24, February 25, 2008

Done. Good luck with the article! east.718 at 01:29, February 25, 2008
Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz talk 07:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Admin coaching match

Hello, I am pleased to announce that you have been paired with User:Sephiroth BCR as an admin coachee. You now have two important tasks to complete:

1. Introduce yourself to Sephiroth BCR and explain to him why you want to be an admin.
2. Once he has confirmed the relationship to you, edit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching to move your name to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to record the match.

Given the limited coaching resources of the Admin Coaching project, if you plan to take a Wikibreak of more than 30 days, please notify your coach or myself so that we will know not to tag you as retired and give your spot to another user. Remember that adminship is not a big deal and that it may take multiple RfAs before one becomes a sysop, even for highly qualified, coached, editors. Also, remember that while admin coaching will help you prepare for the mop, there is no guarantee that completing this program will ensure passage of an RfA.

Congratulations again, and happy editing. MBisanz talk 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gary. I would be happy to be your coach for your attempt to become an administrator. Due to the rather late hour here (US Pacific Time), we'll get into the finer points of your contributions and what you should start working on at another time. That said, I'll indulge in a brief review going off your post on my talk page concerning the areas you wish to focus on as an administrator. If you wish to be involved in administrator-related areas such as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and WP:CSD, my biggest recommendation is simply to start participating in them. Genuine interest and experience are what the people at WP:RFA are looking for, and participation is really the only way to achieve both. For vandal reporting, AfD reporting, and speedy deletion tagging, I've found WP:TWINKLE particularly useful, and would highly advise using it for the aforementioned tasks. How you wish to participate is ultimately up to you and how you wish to apply yourself in this regard. Watching a thread for recent edits, watching Special:Newpages for CSD tagging, or going down the lists of AfDs to participate are general ways to begin applying yourself. Firsthand experience instills more lessons than mere lecturing. Anyhow, I'm off to bed, and I'll get to some other things I want to cover for your future run later. Do be aware that attempting to become an administrator is a time-intensive process, and it may take months and possibly multiple RfA tries (although the latter is what we're naturally trying to avoid here :p) before you actually become an administrator. Don't worry though, a brief look at your edits gives the appearance you're going in the right direction, but I'll delve a little deeper later. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate to sound like a dick but I suggest that before spending time learning the ins and outs of adminship, your priority should be to repair the categorization problems. Pichpich (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Automonomous areas FLC

I'd be delighted to take a look. It may take me a few hours to get on with it but I'll do my best. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look. I'm no expert, as I've never had any contact with FL or FLC. It appears to be good, and I've supported based on other lists seen, with some comments that may/may not be helpful. Good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 17:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, it looks good. I've struck my comments and left with support. Good luck! PeterSymonds | talk 18:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! Now only if more people would even bother to vote; I'm worried that not enough votes will be casted, period, and if it's only yours, then I don't think that's considered a consensus. Gary King (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Malaka

I have been clearing up after Malaka and am in slight doubt at University of Colombo, List of Sri Lankans and Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation where, apart from inserting himself, he has also input other names and material. My instinct is that he is so untrustworthy a source that everything he has done should be reverted - if there are good names and material they can be added back later by someone with less COI; but I thought I would like to check with someone else before pressing the zap button. If you agree with my view above, I will happily go and do it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks - just the advice I wanted. I'll sort them out. I wonder how soon he'll pop up again? JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could be of assistance. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

uncategorized tagging has gone astray..

Please check your AWB session, you are double tagging, and tagging pages that are already categorized.. (some are fine, but I'm seeing a lot of errors) -- Versageek 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I realize that. It was the pattern I was using in AWB; I'm doing a second run to rectify the ones that were edited on first run. Gary King (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a Redirect you broke by marking Uncategorized [2], redirects should not be in categories to begin with. MBisanz talk 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, whoopsie doodle! That one fell under the radar. Won't happen again. Gary King (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Map creator

Good question, I'm not sure; there doesn't appear to be a WikiProject for maps. I suggest you ask User:Dark512 on the Wikimedia Commons, who made the map for the autonomous countries. PeterSymonds | talk 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps and I've requested for an image there, but I feel that it will just fall through the cracks. I was going to ask Dark512, but the user has not been active since mid-2007. I'll give it a shot, anyways. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I know you're busy with admin coaching, but I thought I might suggest one other thing. The maps WikiProject has a number of images by users, so it might be an idea to approach them directly (the talk page is, to say the least, backlogged). If you approach, say, 5, at least 1 might be able to do one. Thought I'd throw that into the melting pot as it were, but you may've already considered that. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, I will give it a shot. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from your coach

Well, I promised you a more thorough review, so here you go. I'm primarily going to stick with the three points you set out at my talk page since you've set them as your primary targets, and with all three, you have all you need for an RfA. Anyways, here it is:

  • Category Tagging/Assessment
Your efforts here have been rather impressive to say the least. A lot of administrator-related work is clearing backlogs and other thankless jobs, and your ability to show willingness to attend to such widespread problems such as adding/fixing categories and assessing articles shows as such. I don't indulge in either very much, but I can point to the positive benefits of doing so. I can't really say anything than continue doing it. You might need a bit more care while going through a such a pace (adding categories to redirects for instance), but good job regardless.
  • Vandal fighting/AfD participation/CSD tagging
Per my above post, the best way to show interest in the above items is to participate in them. When you say at your RfA (required question 1 to be exact) that you want to participate at WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and CAT:CSD, you want contributions to back it up. My primary and foremost recommendation here, however, is complete and utter dedication to civility. The easiest way for a RfA to be sunk is civility concerns, and a large majority of the people looking at your RfA will oppose if they feel you do not possess the proper "temperament" to be an administrator. Naturally, the opposite is true. Civility in the face of insults, threats, and otherwise stressful situations is an extremely nice item to have, and past sins, blunders, and whatnot are often forgiven if this is the case. I bring up civility here because it plays into all these activities, and goes along with the principle of assume good faith (another necessary item).
  • When vandal fighting (I'll assume you're using WP:TWINKLE), use the "rollback (vandalism)" item (or the rollback function you have) solely when dealing with blatant and obvious vandalism. If you're unsure, use the regular "rollback" function and leave an edit summary explaining the rationale for your revert. Do not ever, ever label a content dispute as "vandalism" unless it is blatant vandalism. Revert once, and if concerns persist, bring it to discussion. If the other editor is going to be an ass about it, then let WP:CONSENSUS sort him/her out. Having the page at the wrong or incorrect version for a short duration of time is not the end of the world by any means. In cases of genuine content disputes though, I would recommend discussion first, but if you do feel that you are correct, use the "rollback (AGF)" option (use it a lot, almost go out of your way to assume good faith). Naturally, this does not mean you have to be "soft" on vandalism by any means. Aggressively reverting vandalism is certainly nice, but taking special care with your edits, especially in cases of content disputes, is the thing you should be implementing. On the subject of edit summaries, try the best you can to keep 100% edit summaries. It's one of the reasons I like TWINKLE, and I do highly recommend keeping 100% edit summaries (you appear to be doing so anyways).
  • For AfD, the biggest two things you can show are civility and knowledge of policy. Adverse opinions are frequently present at AfD, and maintaining civility and an open mind are great things to have. For whatever discussion you're involved in, check the relevant notability guideline, its criteria, and make use of them in your opinions. For me, the most frequent guideline I am using due to the articles I commonly edit is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which stipulates that merging should be a venue sought before actual deletion is warranted. For instance, if a character of a work was given their own article while a character list existed for that work, and the character did not warrant an article, merging to the character list would be appropriate. Given your focus on Economics and Computer Science articles, you likely will rarely encounter this guideline in your AfD discussions, but it does illustrate using the nuances of guidelines in your opinion.
  • CSD tagging is more or less another way to show your knowledge of policy. Memorizing WP:CSD is largely in your best interests, and knowing how to apply them is necessary. For instance, check which articles you can tag with A7; you can't tag a fictional character, even if it asserts no notability, as it doesn't fall under A7's purview. In cases where it is uncertain whether speedy deletion is warranted, it's probably better to WP:AGF and move on. If you're really worried about the article, keep tabs on it, and prod or AfD it at a later date if you feel it is appropriate. Prodding is generally acceptable for new articles (for instance, that non-notable piece of fiction you couldn't get for A7), but never use an AfD on a very new article, as it is seen as an immediate assumption of bad faith, especially considering that the creator has had hardly enough time to flesh out a page. This applies to speedy tagging as well. You are naturally free to be bold in your tagging, but remember that the articles you're tagging should be fairly clear-cut. If an article asserts an iota of notability, don't tag it with A7. Civility also comes into play when you encounter users that use {{hangon}} and attempt to state a rationale for keeping their article. More often than not, you're dealing with a relatively new editor. Calmly explain why you are tagging the article, and if possible, suggest means of improvement. Administrators will not delete an article with a hangon tag unless it is blatantly in violation of policy (an attack page for instance). I stress that speedy deletion tagging is a double-edged sword much more than vandal fighting or AfD participation. While you can clearly demonstrate policy knowledge and the ability to properly converse with the editors creating the page, it can backfire if your tagging is consistently poor. That said, if you feel you know the criteria well, fire away. Experience gives you a better illustration of what I'm talking about then words. Don't feel discouraged though. This is one of the most difficult tasks for prospective administrators, but take it at the pace you feel you can.
  • Article Writing
Ah, something I'm rather experienced in, no? Article writing is what we're all here for, and nothing else shows a more comprehensive knowledge of guidelines or policy than writing decent articles because it's the reason we're all here and most of the aforementioned guidelines and policies are geared towards articles. If you look at my RfA, the biggest thing I was praised for was my article contributions. Even though my speedy tagging was a bit lacking at the time, I still received the support of a prominent editor (User:Pedro) for my article contributions (and answers to the questions, but that's another topic for another time). Again, my interests do not correlate with yours (anime, manga, and video games are my niche), but the general principles are still the same. What you chose to contribute to in terms of articles is up to you, but I can attest than out of all my article contributions, the FLs took the least amount of work, the GAs next, and the FAs were a royal pain. All of this is naturally subject to exceptions (Naruto: Clash of Ninja was rather easy to write and bring to GA for instance, and the difficulty of making an FL increases or decreases dramatically depending on what type of list you're creating. List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow was far more difficult to produce than say Soma Cruz), but it generally holds true. As you haven't brought a lot of articles through the relevant processes, I'll give a few pointers on each.
  • Good Articles - WP:WIAGA is the relevant criteria, and the biggest thing to be aware of is that the comprehensiveness, prose, and degree of referencing are much, much less stringent than the FA criteria, and you can often get away with some problems in the article's structure or prose (especially the latter). That said, my foremost recommendation is simply to get the content on the page, and start working from there. When working on articles, especially when it involves creating them or making major edits to them, I highly advise working on them in your userspace first (for instance, for Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, I worked on the article at User:Sephiroth BCR/Aria of Sorrow Draft), where you are free to work on it at your leisure, and the stress level is much lower. Again, get the content on the page and then you can start working with the prose, WP:MOS issues, and other stuff. I will note that making sure that your references are properly formatted (using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} for instance) is a huge plus that will save you problems in the future. The thing about WP:GAN is that the difficulty ranges widely depending on the reviewer, but generally, most reviewers are pretty nice about their review, and if there are problems, they will give a nice list of what you need to address. Work with their suggestions, be nice to them, and they'll go your way.
  • Featured Lists - ah, my most numerous set of achievements (I currently rank second amongst all Wikipedians in terms of featured lists produced). The biggest two items with the list you're producing is that it has to be comprehensive (including all items), and the format has to be aesthetically pleasing, easy to navigate, and otherwise accessible to the reader (WP:WIAFL for the relevant criteria). The former item can be resolved through researching your subject and including all relevant information, and the latter often through looking at articles of similar status for how they did it. Most types of lists tend to have relatively consistent formats, and modeling lists after one another is commonplace. The reviewers at WP:FLC are quite knowledgeable about formatting issues, and you'll get them resolved if you follow their instructions. If you're ever confused, simply ask them for clarification or even for their aid. Practically all of them would be happy to oblige - they want to see your list be featured, but at the same time, they want to uphold standards. It's always in your interest to work with them.
  • Featured Articles - hell so to speak. WP:WIAFA is the criteria you're looking at, and I would highly recommend bringing the article through GA before FAC simply because you're getting another set of eyes on the article first. Peer review has largely deteriorated into nothing more than an automated bot giving suggestions (which is useful, but you want a live person reviewing your article). The most important criterion you're going to find you have to fulfill is 1a, which stresses that the prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard." Your article can be perfect in every way but the prose (and have only one oppose over the matter) and still be sunk. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is the designated reading for 1a, but more often that not (unless you're a particularly good writer), you'll find yourself looking for a copy-editor to fix up your article. WP:LOCE is the relevant place, but its requests page is horrifically backlogged, and your request will never be reached before your FAC nomination concludes. As such, you should request a copy-edit by going to individual editors. The members list of LOCE are good people to get copy-editing from, or someone else you are familiar with. I stress 1a here more than the other concerns because generally, you have fulfilled all of them before coming to FAC via going through GA first (unless you had a rather easy reviewer), and if there are problems, you likely resolve them with little difficulty. The only one to note is 1b, as occasionally, GA reviewers will pass an article that is not fully comprehensive. Going to the relevant WikiProject or looking at similar articles of FA quality can resolve this. With all this said, my statements concerning WP:FLC are true here as well - your reviewers have a genuine desire to see your article pass. Work with them, act civilly to their objections, and you'll have no problems. Also note that after addressing an objection, leave a note on the talk page of that reviewer to come back and comment whether their concern was addressed. Having your FAC sunk (I've had it happen before) because the person who opposed or commented on some aspect of the text never came back is really annoying. This all said, FAs are more or less the easiest ways to gain prestige here, as they combine practically all elements of being an editor in the production of an article to the highest quality, and being heavily involved in the production of one is major kudos, especially at an RfA.
  • Featured Topics - I won't go here, likely because it's a rather lofty goal to produce a featured topic on your own, but if that does become the case, I'll be more than happy to show you through the nuances of the process. Again, I received significant amount of support during my RfA because I happened to have a pair of featured topics (Naruto manga chapters and Seasons of YuYu Hakusho), and it just illustrates how beneficial having significant article contributions is at RfA.

In any case, I'm rather tired at the moment, but I think I've addressed the major three points you want to become involved in. I am a firm believer in having a hands-off policy in terms of coaching and mentorship, and will largely leave you to your own devices in terms of how you wish to conduct yourself. Naturally, I am open to your concerns, questions, and thoughts of any kind, but I will not badger you to do anything, ask why you haven't cranked out an FA yet, or something similar. We're all volunteers here and your time is yours to use as you wish, and mine to respect. Anyhow, if you want clarification on any of the above, I will be more than happy to give it. Cheers and best of luck, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 10:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks =) A note on giving warnings for vandalism, generally try to start with {{Template:uw-test1}} or {{Template:uw-vandalism1}}, as they are generally "friendly warnings" to stop. If the vandalism is rather clear, then {{Template:uw-vandalism2}} is appropriate. Starting with higher levels generally isn't recommended, as it goes against the spirit of WP:AGF. There are cases where immediately giving {{Template:uw-vandalism4im}} is warranted (massive WP:BLP violation, en mass blanking, etc.) but they tend to be quite rare. Generally, work your way up from the smaller warnings to the larger ones.
As for your question, it depends greatly on the featured list or featured article you're trying to create. I tended to work on practically all my featured lists and featured articles in my userspace, where I could work at my leisure. Lists for me varied a lot. At times, I could crank one out in a day or two, while taking a week or so for others (nomination process is at minimum ten days, but almost always goes on longer). On average, about three to four days. On the other hand, List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow was a long, time intensive process that spanned practically my entire Wikipedia "career" to produce. Naturally, I wasn't working on it at all times, but I brought it through WP:GAN, WP:FAC, and finally WP:FLC (it was originally classified as an article, and then reclassified as a list at the FAC, hence why I went to FLC). Featured articles take quite a while. Remember that you're near-constantly working on the article even after getting the content on the page (ranges depending on the availability of your sources and content, anywhere from two weeks to a month or even two months is possible) due to copy-editing concerns, near-constant self-evaluation and reading of the article, and calling in others to help you with the article. For Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, I finished my draft of the article in about a week (in actuality a month or so, but this was sporadic editing over this time). The draft went onto the article on December 18, I got it to GA on January 9 (varies depending how long it takes to get a reviewer, as WP:GAN tends to be rather backlogged), sent to FAC, which failed on February 1 due to the editors who commented not returning to confirm whether their concerns were addressed), and then passed on February 15 on the second FAC try. The major waiting is thus not in the article production (although this is where most of the effort is involved), but getting through the nomination process, which is time-consuming. If you go directly to FAC and pass, you're looking at best three to four weeks between start of production and your shiny featured star, but two months is more realistic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Map image for List of unrecognized countries Wikipedia article

Sorry, but i haven't time to do that.

Sorry for my poor english, i am spanish.

Dark512 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Entourage episodes (season 2)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 2), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Entourage episodes (season 3)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 3), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Entourage episodes (season 4)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 4), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Entourage episodes (season 1)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Entourage episodes (season 1), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Entourage episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Map image for List of unrecognized countries Wikipedia article

OK then I'll create the map of the unrecognized countries, but I will do so if you tell me the countries in the world which arent recognised because I have no idea who are they are :), so please reply back to this message with the list of countries then I'll try to create the map, Thankyou. Moshino31 (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Just a quick notice, what three colours do you want for your map then?

Moshino31 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

- Sorry for the notice but I cannot seem to access the Paint software at the moment for some reason so I cannot create the map, may I suggest you to create yourself I'll give you the steps in order to create the map, yes?? Moshino31 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

- OK then first go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-World.png Once you're there click the map to go into the commons file. You will then have a larger version of the map which you can zoom in/out - copy that 'larger' image, then open up the software Paint, then enter the colours you want on the country by using the 'bucket'. < If this didnt help please say so! Thanks Moshino31 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: GH3 GA pass

No problem man. It was a great article. Mitch32contribs 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kingjames813

I'm just curious but did you block User:Kingjames813 because the user vandalized my User page? Gary King (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he was clearly a vandal only account. And it's not nice to replace peoples' talk pages with insults ;-) - Do you disagree with my block, friend? Take care! ScarianCall me Pat 23:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You've been here 3 years and you've never been vandalised before?! Hehe, if you wanna be a vandal hunter/admin, get used to it :-D Take care, friend! ScarianCall me Pat 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of countries without armed forces

Looks good. I did a little copy-editing. My only concern is that the statement concerning Haiti is confusing. Is the Haitian National Police viewed as too big, or the paramilitary forces? More clarification would be nice in the text. Other than that, it looks ready for a FLC nom. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine. Nominate it at your leisure. =) Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a look this morning but was away most of the day. It's great! Looks really good on the page as well. I like the references section in the separate column (providing all the information in the row is covered by the same reference). I'd be happy to support at FLC. Well done! PeterSymonds | talk 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How to create maps from blank world maps

OK then first go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-World.png Once you're there click the map to go into the commons file. You will then have a larger version of the map which you can zoom in/out - copy that 'larger' image, then open up the software Paint and paste it in, then enter the colours you want on the country by using the 'bucket'. < If this didnt help please say so! Thanks

Moshino31 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

VeblenBot for economics project

Sorry for the delay in responding to your note about VeblenBot. I don't mind setting up something for the economics project, but I think you might be satisfied with this table made by the WP 1.0 bot. If that isn't what you're looking for, let me know, and we can figure out how to implement it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I used the intersection categories you made as link destinations, and created this table: User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS. I don't currently have the option to hide the unassessed row and column when they are empty. I can hide them permanently, however, if you want. Also, unlike Oleg's code, I don't have an option to let users recreate the table on demand - it would get updated once per day. Will this work? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad this will work. Please feel free to tweak the formatting and width of the table. Your changes will get overwritten by the bot, but if you let me know how you would like it formatted, I can easily change the format that will be used for the table. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For your excellent efforts

The Editor's Barnstar
For a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia articles and lists, I, PeterSymonds | talk, award Gary King with the Editor's Barnstar

Thank you for your continued efforts in featured list candidates. Featured content is never easy achieve, so I commend your efforts, and hope that you will soon have some featured material to add to your future RfA... Best, PeterSymonds | talk 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've never gotten one of these before, so I don't know what to do with it. I guess I'll hang it somewhere on my User page, then? :) Gary King (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of subnational entities

I have created the page at User:Gary King/List of subnational entities. Good luck on restoring the article! If you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Malinaccier (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Looks like we're both changing colours. Will these greens never match? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one that can't color between the lines... :p Gary King (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed my green square colour to 00ff00 as you were changing your map to some mucky sort of a green. All yours; you get to decide which green you go with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Janurary

On "localize comments.js", you wrote "Janurary" instead of "January". Thought you might want to fix it. --Kakofonous (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although that script was copied from someone else who was no longer maintaining it, therefore not my error :) How did you know about it, anyways? Finding the script useful? Gary King (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I just took a glance at your contribs—wanted to see how the huge total was stacking up :). --Kakofonous (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, a lot of it is by tweaking my JavaScript files - but even that only takes up 100 edits at most. It's definitely not a few thousand :) Gary King (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Deletion of "Ralph Sperry, Ph.D."

Request for reconsideration of deletion:

Notability was in evidence by the following: Significant newsworthy actions noted in many reliable secondary sources for both hospital closures and for schizophrenia research; In addition there was competition at the highest level of amateur sailboat racing as noted in the NY Times. There were 3 people with arguements to keep plus the author The individuals "voting" for deletion gave no valid or specificly detailed explanations as to why there was not notability; they did not dispute the facts in the article which met notability according biography guidelines: For example one said sailing accomplishments were "grasping at straws" yet it was noteworthy according to guidelines; one person voting for deletion indicated there were no seconday sources which was not correct. You noted that the author "voted" three times, which was correct but done by mistake as acknowledged by the author in the disussion. In any case, notability for inclusion is not based on a vote but rather by the "merits of the arguments, not by counting votes" I don't understand the value of referring to votes when the mert of the arguements are what is determinative. The dimissing of notability out of hand, as some did, without clear arguements that either specifically refute the facts/arguements is not very persuasive especially if there is no reference to specific Wikipedia guidelines for deletion. --Waterwindsail (talk) 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article's deletion was not up to me. It was a consensus vote; plus, I only nominated the article for deletion. If I didn't, then someone else most likely would have. Anyways, why are you so interested in keeping this article alive? It would appear that you have a personal interest in the article. Gary King (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrecognised countries

Hi Gary, sorry I've taken so long to respond to your request. I made a list of things this morning, and went to type them up when I got back this afternoon, but they'd all been picked on! (As well as the more technical requirements about lists which I don't fully understand). I'll support when you've addressed the concerns; again, congrats! PeterSymonds | talk 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As soon as all my concerns are addressed I'll squish my comments into a show/hide section. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You also got to make sure to use the Show preview & when done, then Save page. Seems you kept saving the page every time a small clean-up was done in a very short period of time! That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, please use the Show preview button. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Tap, tap. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I try, but a lot of the edits are section edits because of long articles, and I save in order to see my changes reflected in the References section. Gary King (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
S'alright. Thanks for explaining. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

wtf

excuse me but how is my edit on gh3 vandilism it was correct u douche bag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron hanlon (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be a verified statement; source the statement or do not enter it. Gary King (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

List of recessions

Oh sorry. Aw, that's half my review gone! :P My excuse is that it's early in the morning here (2:52 GMT). Apologies again (and great list) PeterSymonds | talk 02:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Featured list nominations

My apologies for the late response, I've been rather busy lately. Just to note for the type of lists you've been nominating, the primary issues you are going to find are in the table structure and content, both of which I can unfortunately be of little help to you. I can copy-edit, however, and point out things from an observer's point of view if you wish. The other users you are consulting tend to be more knowledgeable on the subject. This aside, great work. At this rate, you'll beat me in number of featured lists written (meaning I better get off my ass and start writing :p). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There are only so many lists I make, though! (Although now that I think about it, there's a list for pretty much anything on here, and if not yet, then I'd just create it myself!) Gary King (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:Lists of countries seems to have more than enough. And by all means, fire away. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm getting tired of geography-related articles by now. I want to write some that are more related to my fields of interest (although I would consider myself to be interested in pretty much anything Wikipedia has to offer), especially gaming as that is far more entertaining to edit and I haven't done enough of that. I'm curious to know if you have set your sights on any article for a WP:FA yet? Gary King (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I might go to featured lists and good articles at the moment, although I'm looking around. The Advance Wars series is one that has my notice, considering that I've played all of them (naturally, it's infinitely easier to write the article when you've played the game), and I've just recently finished Assassin's Creed, so I might look at that too. Aside from that, I'm slightly interested in seeing whether I can improve a pair of good articles I've written, Soma Cruz and Alucard (Castlevania), to featured status, seeing that it would "perfect" (meaning making all elements featured) this topic I have at WP:FTC (it will pass as it is, but it would be nice to improve the remaining two to featured status). Writing featured articles is a really, really tiring process, primarily in formulating the research into content and getting that on the page. The two featured articles I currently have were long endeavors in the making, I assure you. That said, I'll probably decide on one in the near future. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're scaring me just a bit away from building WP:FA :) Oh, and I don't quite get WP:FT. What's the point of them? The groupings don't even appear to be highlighted on the article pages, let alone any page but WP:FT itself. I guess the point is so that if someone is reading one of the articles in the topic and decides to click over to another, related article then it will be of a similar quality? That's what it's trying to promote? Gary King (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Better to be forewarned and prepare yourself mentally than have the reality hammer hit (which it did for me while writing Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow). Anyhow, the goal of WP:FT is to show a group of interrelated articles of high quality, with a viewer easily able to access parts of a given topic. It also encourages the improvement of specific topics, which is a good thing. For instance, I created four new articles from List of YuYu Hakusho episodes covering the four seasons partly to have a shot at creating a featured topic. As for visibility, it's accessible from the talk page, see Talk:List of YuYu Hakusho episodes for a link to Seasons of YuYu Hakusho. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:obamagirlvideo.JPG

Hi, could you please restore this image and I will add a Fair Use Rationale? I was not the original uploader, but I think that the image perfectly illustrates its respective article, and I would like to be given the chance to add a Fair Use Rationale to it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I restored it and updated the tag, don't forget to add a rationale or else someone will delete it again. Melesse (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

List of companies by employees

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of companies by employees, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of companies by employees (2006). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Be careful

I was going through your contributions when I noticed this revert. Remember that the definition of vandalism is very strict here, meaning that essentially any edit that attempts to be constructive should receive a measure of good faith. In such cases, leave an edit summary explaining your revert in this case, or in the case of WP:TWINKLE, use the "rollback" or "rollback (AGF)" options. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Fair use

Sure. Fair use images need at least one article to use them in order to be valid. However, you do need to add a fair use rationale explaining its purpose in the article as well as other tidbits (use {{Non-free fair use rationale}}, also means that you need to have a fair use rationale for every article the image is used in) or the image probably will be tagged for deletion. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm asking because the image does not have a fair use rationale; although, the image has been around for nearly 3 years, so I would imagine that someone must have come across it by now and would have tagged it if it wasn't allowed. Gary King (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:FA sourcing

Standards change. That said, not all content necessarily needs to be sourced, and I believe the sources in the "Influence" section validate those statements. Despite this, you should generally try to source everything. Anyhow, g'night. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I'm sorry but redirects to user space from article space are not allowed. I think the only exemption is WP:JIMBO which is a somewhat special case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, alright, I wasn't aware. Go ahead and delete them then :) Gary King (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Questions

I don't quite understand your question regarding List of billionaires (2007). If it's whether you can't source other Wikipedia articles, that's certainly correct per WP:SELF, although I don't see where that is used in the article. As for your rant, it's certainly a sad fact that many key articles one would think indispensable to an encyclopedia aren't getting the attention they deserve, but we're all volunteers, and we each choose to devote our time in our own way. As for List of tallest buildings in Toronto, I'll decline to comment until comments arise, as it's not my area of expertise. If the nomination is lacking for comments for a while, then I'll look back at some previous featured lists of the same type and make my assessment. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For List of billionaires (2007), I'm talking about the Source column. All the links in that column are Wikipedia articles; would that be acceptable as a minimum to consider as references for each entry in the list? Gary King (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I see. I would think a reference linking the person and how he's acquiring the money is necessary. Shouldn't be that difficult. Also note you can make a "General" section in your references if you have a long laundry list that can serve as a citation for all of them, which would mean separating the in-line cites into a "Specific" section. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I've seen that done. I've never done that, but I'll probably end up doing that for the first time for this article. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the volunteer part, yep of course I totally understand that. But, I have seen top-level articles that are Featured Articles, so it's not impossible. I'm guessing those are one in a blue moon, though. I wouldn't have posted the rant in the first place if there wasn't any hope ;) Maybe I'll find the time to spearhead something in that area soon... Gary King (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLC

Could you please start using the edit summary "nominating _____" rather than "clean up". Also, you currently have several nominations, so could you please wait until some of them close before you nominate any more? Thanks, Scorpion0422 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will do that. Gary King (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Unprotect request

Given how busy that page has been in terms of repeated deletion, I would prefer you had a finished draft before I unprotect the page, as vandalism has apparently been pretty rampant there. Just type it up at User:Gary King/List of billionaires (2008), show me your draft, and I'll unprotect the page. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind per below. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Damn, everyone is quick on their feet in the evening... Gary King (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of billionaires (2008)

Unprotected. --Allen3 talk 02:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Great - thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

List of billionaires (2008)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of billionaires (2008), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of billionaires (2007). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's indeed very similar. Creepy... Gary King (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

THE NIGHTINGALE

Hello Gary King,

Thanks for your welcome message.

Are you the holder of "The Nightingale" section, which I have just edited?

Jean de Beaumont

Nope, just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia! Welcome! Gary King (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

List of autonomous countries now a FL

Congrats! PeterSymonds | talk 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FLs

The FL process is different that the FA process because we don't have a director so the task of closing FLs falls to those that want to do it. Basically one day I just started closing FLs and nobody said I can't, so I kept at it. Right now there are two active closers, and two semi-active so it's not just a one person thing.

And which school do you go to, the prestigious one, or that other one that split off from the prestigious one and nobody has ever heard of? -- Scorpion0422 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, ouch. I think I'm talking about the latter then, if the former is the one you're attending ;) Also, could you take a look at the following to see if they are eligible for a promotion? I think they are, but of course, I'd like someone else to take a look and if they feel, promote them: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries without armed forces (5 supports, 0 opposes, 7 days ago) and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of unrecognized countries (3 supports, 0 opposes, 6 days ago). Neither have had significant opposition; although, I will understand if you feel that they still need to gestate a big longer. Actually, none of my FLCs have any Opposes, but they have longer discussions, so I'm willing to wait longer for them to be promoted, but these two have nearly no issues and the ones that have been brought up have already been resolved. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The FLC minimum waiting period is 10 days, so they still have a few days left. -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right, forgot about that. Alright, I'll wait. Gary King (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First FL

Gary, excellent news! Well done.

The Original Barnstar
For your concerted efforts at WP:FLC and on your first successful promotion, I, TRM, award you this shiny barnstar! Keep up the great work....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added that to my wall. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Keep it going and don't hesitate to call on me if you need any help. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, Gary. It was my pleasure to support your list because you responded to all the comments and suggestions raised on the nomination page promptly and attentively. This is how Wikipedia should work. I wish you a lot of featured content! Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and other things

Congrats on your first featured list. You'll have plenty more in very short order =)

In any case, onto you and acquiring a mop. We've basically established your credentials as an editor, considering that you've cranked out more potential featured lists in less than a month than I did in like three, so great work. By all means, keep on going. As for other activities, you participate in anti-vandal work and a fair amount of CSD tagigng, although more of the latter would be nice. You don't have to be constantly tagging - visiting Special:Newpages once in a while is all I ask, although you can certainly do more if you wish. Just remember to read up on WP:CSD, and don't do things such as tagging fictional characters for A7 or inappropriately using A1 or A3. However, what I would like to see is more AfD participation. Similar to the CSD tagging situation, you don't need to go to a list of AfDs at WP:AFD and comment on every single one. Read through them, and comment on the ones you feel comfortable on. My biggest recommendation here is to formulate a concise response that demonstrates your knowledge of policy. Comments such as "per nom" or "per above" show a corresponding lack of understanding of policy. Saying "Delete per WP:WEB. Fails to assert any notability through reliable secondary sources" is far better than merely "Delete per nom." Feel free to take it at your own pace though.

On another note, I'll start to occasionally ask you questions that might come up at RfA, the first of which will be #1-3, the required questions for any prospective administrator. #1 has already been defined really by our first conversation - WP:AFD, CAT:CSD, and WP:AIV. #2 is all those pieces of featured content you're churning out. #3 is hopefully no significant conflicts and merely good shows of civility. Work out a formal response for each question and post it on my talk page. Naturally, it's at your leisure. Don't feel hurried or rushed - we have all the time in the world to formulate good answers to these questions. Feel free to peruse old RfAs for tips on how to construct them also.

Finally, I would recommend filing yourself at Wikipedia:Editor review. Just make sure that you clearly state you want to become an administrator, are being coached, and would like a third party opinion on how you're doing. Traffic there is practically nonexistent, so to garner responses, contacting editors and asking them to make a review is best.

Anyhow, that's it for now. Cheers and good night, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Acid3 on Firefox 3.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Acid3 on Firefox 3.png. 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Aria of Sorrow

In each case that I had a draft, I c/p the text in the draft and placed it into the article. In each case, the articles had so little traffic and so few constructive edits that my rewrite was vastly superior to whatever it was replacing. As such, yes, it was more or less building the article "from scratch." If there were other users contributing to the article on a daily basis, then I would probably make the draft more limited - rewriting sections at a time for instance. Another solution would be simply to contact the regular users that edit the article and invite them to work on my draft. What decision you make largely rests on the number of regular edits. If there are one or two, you can invite them to work on the draft, but if there are more than five or so, then it becomes impractical. In all of my cases, there were practically no editors fixing up the article, so I was basically doing it on my own. Hope that answers your question. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that for this AfD you brought up, it is for a very new article. Generally, we allow these articles time to grow as to see whether they meet the relevant notability requirements. If the article isn't valid for CSD tagging or a legitimate prod, then it probably should stay. Feel free to keep tabs on it and nominate it in about 3-4 weeks if notability concerns still persist though. If you do have a concern, however, and there's no speedy criteria that applies, then prod it. An AfD after a contested prod tends to be more legitimate. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. Yeah, traffic tends to be a significant figure in the above decision on drafts. Best of luck on the article though. As for the AfD, I deleted it. Use WP:TWINKLE next time for AfD nominations, as it cleanly transcludes it on the relevant AfD list, adds the tag to the page, and simplifies the process. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, when I contacted you before about AfDs, I meant go comment in exiting nominations, not try to find articles to delete. The latter activity tends to lead to significant problems, especially with disruption, and there's a load of relevant stuff you should be aware of before you nominate an article for deletion. For the moment, however, feel free to peruse the lists of AfDs at WP:AFD and comment. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And also, if a CSD tag is inappropriate, prod the article. WP:TWINKLE gives you the option. Be careful with prodding new articles though - only do it if the article has a blatant reason for being deleted but doesn't fall under any of the speedy deletion criteria. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:DELSORT is the place to go. Note that some WikiProjects may not sort AfDs for their topics, so there might not be any available for your interests. If this is the case, just keep on perusing the lists at WP:AFD until you find one that you are comfortable commenting on. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
As we're both interested in video games, you might want to peruse WP:VG/D. Recommended reading would be WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT#INFO. I can also help you out a lot more with these AfDs. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. To each their own. WP:WEB seems to be the relevant reading for your purposes. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. As a rule of thumb, you generally want to cite guidelines or policies when making your argument. For instance, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloob, you could have stated:

Delete per WP:WEB. Doubtful that Persian-language sources could be found to assert notability.

This naturally isn't always necessary, but it is good for reviewers at your RfA to know that you're constructing arguments with guidelines or policies in mind. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

Hi. Thanks for asking me to peer-review Facebook, and also for naming me as a recommended editor for reviews. I actually have never peer-reviewed an article but since you asked, of course I will. Be forewarned, I actually know nothing about these social networking sites, so all I can help with is WP:MOS and such, and making sure everything is correct gramatically etc.

One of the reasons I haven't done PRs or FA reviews is because I feel that I'm not that knowledgeable on a lot of areas, and there's already enough editors who can do the MOS and English stuff fine without me. Lists is a different matter though because usually, these things are easily verifiable and so are simply right or wrong.

Also, I don't know if you were aware, but Wired Magazine had an article on Facebook a couple of months ago. It was all about the history and such. I still have it somewhere I think, so I'll read it, see if anything there is relevent to the article and include it, or you could see if it's at their website. I'll look over the article in an hour or so, unless real world takes over. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the article? Gary King (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Possibly unfree Image:Judge Judy.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Judge Judy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, sorry, I reverted this vandalism to previous revision "Because Frank and kyle are awesome at DIMUN" - without looking that previous edit was also vandalism. So thanks for reminding. Best. Atabek (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Time 100.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Time 100.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of recessions in the United States

I was going to leave it open a few days because technically it has only been open for nine, and it has unstruck opposition. So a few more days may help in getting that struck. -- Scorpion0422 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Elton John.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Elton John.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ben Croshaw.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ben Croshaw.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yamla (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find that the actual license is different from the one that's on the page, I don't get why you can't just change it? I added 3.0 license when it should have been 2.0 license; I've fixed it now, but again, I don't see why the whole tagging process has to be done when it can be easily fixed and you already spent the time to check the license. Gary King (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually didn't see it, I thought it said "all rights reserved". I'm running a fever and should probably sign off from Wikipedia. Sorry. --Yamla (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Looking through your contributions, I see you spend a significant amount of time fighting vandalism. Thank you! Yamla (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gary King (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete my legit edit about Kurt Hahn217.7.211.221 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

kurt hahn

This can be found in the book:

Kinder sollen sich selbst entdecken: Die Erlebnispädagogik Kurt Hahns

  1. ISBN-10: 3828892043
  2. ISBN-13: 978-3828892040

could you please add this source, as I am unfamiliar with editing that. Thank you. 217.7.211.221 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

I suggest that you can add your crunchbase profile after the Facebook home page. Universal Hero (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Congratulations on your recent successful WP:FL promotions. You may be interested in taking part in our experimental procedure for the selecting lists of the day and lists of the month at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD reconsider

Seeing as this article happened to be on both the deletion lists we watch, you may want to reconsider your stance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thottbot (2nd nomination). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

man calm down this is wikipedia half of this is wrong anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethono21 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jin

At several sites I've seen, it is confirmed that Jin is a member, and on CTV the episode was promoted as revealing the final two. Besides, since his grave is off the island, then obviously he got off somehow. -- Scorpion0422 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook PR

Hi Gary. I've been following the PR, and the progress you've been making, and I'm impressed with how speedily they've been addressed. I'm surprised no one else has commented, but for such a controversial topic, I'd press for at least 3 reviews before GAN/FAC. You might want to ask someone from the volunteers list here or here. PeterSymonds | talk 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review the article, but it probably won't be until the middle of next week. I hope that's okay. – Scartol • Tok 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. Gary King (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I could review this article but I have first got to finish reviewing Crawley, then do Bode and then I could have a look at this. It may be a while... JMiall₰ 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I think it's ready to be taken to GAN; the reviewer will then tell you what s/he thinks needs to be added to get it to FA. PeterSymonds | talk 18:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Toronto FLC

Hmm, the 9th was the last time that user edited. Can you confirm to the best of your knowledge that you've addressed those concerns? They were mainly about style guidelines, but s/he also mentioned "substance", which was a bit vague! If the style guidelines conform, I think you should add a comment under the oppose and explain that the objections have been addressed, while also explaining that the opposer hasn't been active in the last few days. It might help if an uninvolved editor, preferably from WP:Skyscrapers, added a comment confirming that the list conforms to style guidelines (Raime (talk · contribs) seems like the best bet). That'll probably be sufficient for the oppose to be disregarded as acted upon. PeterSymonds | talk 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen that Raime's already supported the article. If the founder of WP:Skyscrapers is happy with it, then that should be enough hopefully. Perhaps ask him/her to confirm anyway, to be on the safe side. :) PeterSymonds | talk 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that just to be politically correct when you ask people to comment on featured article/list nominations, ask them to "comment," not to "support." The former is fine and neutral, the latter is canvassing. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I closed a few FLCs a couple hours ago, but there was a new comment on that one, so I decided to leave it open so you would see it. I'll close it tomorrow. As well, you should be aware that there is a discussion that mentions you here. -- Scorpion0422 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware. Seems to be okay now. The main issue is the wording I use when I ask others to take a look at my nominations; I shouldn't use 'support or oppose' but rather ask for 'comments'. I'll be changing that from now on. Gary King (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

You may want to address the concerns here. There is a fairly defined line between canvassing and asking for a comment. Just address their concerns, and per above, try to be politically correct in the future when asking for comments. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PHP

From: I removed the example code because this is supposed to be as encyclopedic as possible.

If you're going to remove a significant portion of an article then MAKE BETTER USE OF YOUR EDIT SUMMARY. You will also notice that Python syntax and semantics exists which makes it not a loss of information and I note that you didn't make PHP syntax and semantics and so you've removed the information that really separates one language from another: its syntax.

The way you've rationalized removing code examples is on par with saying Spanish language can't have any Spanish words or phrases in it at all. If you have to cut any and all code examples to make PHP a featured article then it shouldn't be done because it doesn't better this encyclopedia. Cburnett (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look, and the lead is fine: not too technical, while providing a good summary. It's an excellent article, and technical articles are, as you say, the most difficult to write, because of the balance between enough technical info and too much technical info! You've done a great job though, and once the copyediting's done, GA shouldn't be a problem. PeterSymonds | talk 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding your latest request on the talk page to the PR, for the benefit of reviewers, in case they don't check the talk page. PeterSymonds | talk 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look at this article also. I agree with Peter, it's really good for a technical article. It's a very notable subject, well sourced, pleasingly readable given inevitable technicalities, wonderful non technical, historical information there as well.
Although the code sample issue didn't strike me, on principle, I'd tend to be in favour of sample code. Helps even a casual reader visualise what the article is about. Most readers visiting the article would probably be technical enough not to be put off by a bit of code. However, I can completely understand the need to keep an eye on these kind of articles and watch that coding and jargon don't restrict them only to specialists in their field.
I have a maths background, but even so, some maths articles move too fast with stuff I'm rusty about. Mind you, I'd argue computer code is way more user friendly than foreign languages or mathematical and scientific symbols.
I had a look at FaceBook too btw. Hope my belated comments work with the community towards progress, rather than throw dust in the air. Thanks for all the work I see you doing Gary! Alastair Haines (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Hi, I just wanted to apologise for not contacting you regarding the post at the FLC talk page. It never even crossed my mind to do that. As I've said, I have nothing against you, or the lists you've nominated, so I hope we can continue to work on Wikipedia without this affecting anything. And I will still continue to support your noms, assuming they meet the criteria that is, and I don't see why they wouldn't as your previous ones all have. So again, I apologise if you felt picked on or anything. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's alright; I'm still making friends at Wikipedia, anyways. I hope I haven't offended you; I hope I am considered to be civil (WP:CIVIL) in all matters related to me so far. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Peter just reminded me of your Peer Review request, as well. I did look at the article, and as I said to him, following his review, I couldn't find anything else to comment on. Maybe next time though.. I see you have a backlog of articles you want reviewed! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review and FLC

Hi Gary. If you have the time could you look at Degrassi: The Next Generation and comment at it's peer review, please? It just got given GA status and I want to take it to FAC soon.

Also I have nominated List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions (here) and Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office (here) at FLC, and would appreciate any comments you might be able to give there too, please. Thank you. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Call of Duty 4

  • Merge the "overview", "single player", and "multiplayer" sections into a single "gameplay" section. Talk about the game and its general aspects (first-person shooter, objective, etc.) and then have level three sections for the single player and the multiplayer aspects. Condense the multiplayer section drastically. No need to list modes (comment on a few as examples); basically, your job is to show how the multiplayer works and how it fits into the normal gameplay. Basically, summarize the individual sections, keep it coherent, and cut the extra section headings.
  • Move the characters and story section into a "plot" section that covers both characters and the story. Try to keep the story as concise as possible - level four section headings to divide sections of the story are largely unnecessary. Just start a new paragraph. For the characters, describe them succinctly using prose. As for the in-universe referencing, you don't have to - I actually found it easier to cite using that style of referencing. You're free to use third party references or really, anything reliable and verifiable for them.
  • Turn the "marketing" section into a "development" section covering the game and expand more on the development of the game. Include the "game engine" section as a third level heading of the development section. Also, cut out all the headings when you merge the "marketing" section. Move the "music and soundtrack" section above the "reception" section and change it to "audio".
  • For the "reception" section, you want to cover how reception treats the different aspects of the game (gameplay - make sure you have comments on both single player, multiplayer, and the gameplay in general -, plot, graphics, game engine, audio, etc.). Listing the scores in the prose is largely redundant due to the table. I'm iffy about listing out all those awards as prose - a table/box/something else may be more appropriate, or incorporate it into the main body of the reception.

Do the above, get a good copy-editor, and you should be good. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

since there is already a CoD topic i just wanted to say that ill gladly help you on the article БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 06:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
likewise, I'll see what I can do. xenocidic (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, though I've been working on that article long enough to question whether it's considered "stable" enough for FA class. Lets get it to GA class first. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I already did so in the most recent archive, by outlining the consensus' of the page's editors. Specifically there is continuous insertion of speculation as to the fates of the characters who were involved in the nuclear attack, and involved in the attack on the bridge, and speculation as to the location and identities of the epilogue level. There are vandalisms involving fan site linkspam, adjusting reviews, etc. I'm keeping an eye out for it. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, good work. Add a single player section into the "gameplay" section. In the "reception" section cut out all mention of scores since you already have it in the review column. Work towards providing the praise/criticism/etc. of the gameplay, graphics, etc. (quotes are encouraged) - see Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow#Reception or Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow#Reception for how I did that. The story section could be reduced a bit also. As for your comment on different FAs, that's generally true. With these kind of articles you're gathering content and slapping in on a page and cleaning up, not constantly updating. As for where to find the in-game script, GameFAQs tends to have people post things like that. Otherwise, find some blog or fansite that does it or worst comes to worst, transcribe it from the game itself. Remember you can always condense the plot heavily and use third party sources for sourcing if necessary. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My bad for the slow response. Your message got caught in a wave of others. In any case, upon perusal of the article, you really don't need a single player section. Just give a sentence mentioning that the mode exists and what it is (follows storyline of so and so characters, etc.). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of my userpage

Thanks for reverting! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Call of Duty 4

Thanks for the offer. I pretty much stopped edits on that article after a group of editors made significant changes to the layout a month or two ago, and I was one of the few who supported the previous version. If there's anything significant you need help on let me know, but otherwise I'm spending most of my time on other articles and schoolwork (trying for a scholarship this year).

P.S.- After a cursory glance at the revamped article, I just want to know if the plot section is still a work in progress. We may have to scale it back a bit, and I wouldn't oppose removing the character sections altogether (they have been the source of much of the disagreements over minor details in the past, and quite frankly I fail to see why they need to be included in the article at all if there is a separate character list on Call of Duty (series)). Comandante42 (talk · contribs)

Alright. I'll introduce the character section issue a little later.  Comandante Talk 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Call of Duty 4 - War Pig.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Call of Duty 4 - War Pig.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Endoxon

A tag has been placed on Endoxon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of ImageAmerica

A tag has been placed on ImageAmerica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ImageAmerica

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article ImageAmerica, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend you contest the prod. Looks fairly notable with your recent cleanup. Naturally, adding more sources for notability assertion per WP:ORG is always good. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse on Hindi Wikipedia

FROM : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

www.hi.wikipedia.org

All Administrators of Hindi Wikipedia are involved and particularly (1) Rajiv Mass (2) Purnima Varman and (3) Manish Vashistha confirmed. Other three are in line of confirmation.

Rajiv Mass has opend dummy account in name of Ravi Jain on Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English and many languages with IP 124.124.36.4 of Rajiv Mass and harassing other members on many languages.

hi.wikipedia

gu.wikipedia

mr.wikipedia

en.wikipedia


Everything with fact is given on Hindi Wikipedia and all Admn. know.

In case all Admn. on Hindi wikipedia are involved, please, bring this fact to entire world.

I am from India and feel very ashmed that my brothers are involved in Vandals activities on wikipedia.

For this notice board fact can be seen by nacked eye on :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vkvora2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jainjain

copy of this is pasted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics

I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Economics for Dummies

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Economics for Dummies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Economics for Dummies. —Bkell (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin questions

As you're getting along pretty well with your contributions, it would be nice to turn to some of the actual RfA material. The first three questions are mandatory for all potential administrators, and they set the tone for the rest of your RfA. At your leisure, could you give your answers to the first three questions on my talk page? Feel free to take as much time as you please and peruse former RfAs for ways on how to set them up. We'll discuss them after you give the answers and whether there's anything that can be changed or improved upon. I'm confident they'll be pretty solid though. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:R. Kelly.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:R. Kelly.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your incredible volume of work towards improving articles, especially the featured lists and good articles you have worked on, as well as your work elsewhere. Keep it up. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work. Also note that if you're creating new articles, you might be interested in WP:DYK. If you manage to crank out a few DYKs, then you might start looking at User:Durova's triple crown awards, which are nice accolades to shoot for. Best regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Facebook user growth.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Facebook user growth.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

COD4

Why did you remove the downloads section? This is the best part of this article now that the game is widespread across the world. We like to know when the last updates were and any news on downloadable maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:FT

I think it's difficult to define a FT in such a manner. If you were to define the topical scope as "lists of billionaires," then the point is going to be raised as to where are the previous lists. Since Forbes has decades of lists, the topic won't be comprehensive. However, if you had 40-50 FLs, the topic would be too big. You need to narrow the topical scope to something manageable. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That leads to a cherry picking problem of only selecting a few articles in order to get a topic. You also have a problem in that List of billionaires isn't a good main article to define such a topic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The cherry picking problem still exists. Take it this way, can lists be created going back a couple decades? If so, the topic is cherry picking. Still, I could be wrong about this, but inquire with User:Arctic.gnome, who is the unofficial "featured topic director" of sorts. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay will do. Gary King (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Betty Rizzo

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Betty Rizzo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:PHP Hello World screenshot.png

I disagree that Image:PHP Hello World screenshot.png is a copyrighted image. It is well established that rendered fonts are not copyrightable (it's the generator that is) and basic coloring can't be copyrighted either. So a screenshot of just text can't be copyrighted.

That said, I don't understand why raw <source>...</source> isn't sufficient. Cburnett (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Call of Duty 4 - War Pig.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Call of Duty 4 - War Pig.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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Call of Duty 4 - Al-Asad.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Call of Duty 4 - Al-Asad.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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Economics for Dummies.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Economics for Dummies.jpeg. 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:061116.friedman.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:061116.friedman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Template

Seems like a good idea. You might want to bring it to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to get a wider audience on the matter though. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that if all you're doing is search and replace, you might be interested in getting WP:AWB. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It can do "What links here." It also has a nifty search and replace function. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Creating a WP:FT with Lists of billionaires

For a topic called "Lists of billionaires", I think that to pass the requirement of covering the topic completely, you would have to have lists for every year that there have been billionaires. To limit it to recent years, you would have to have a lead article that explained why those years' lists formed a complete topic of study by themselves. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Place holder

That would defeat the point. Place holder is used to replace people who don't want to be named in the list, without changing the numbering for people who do. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21 26 March 2008 (GMT).

List of acquisitions made by Google

Great job on your clean-up of that article. --Danny Rathjens (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

dts22

Hi Gary, just a quick word to ask if you'd noticed that the documentation on {{dts22}} still refers to {{dts2}}. It's very confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Gary King (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

dts2

Hi there - couldn't help noticing you've been changing dts to dts2 on various pages on my watchlist, including some in my userspace. Was there any discussion about this change that I missed before the template was "deprecated"? Did you realise that you've been changing people's comments on talk pages (e.g. where there was an old discussion about dts, which you changed to be a discussion about dts2)? Changing other people's comments in old discussions is generally not a good idea. What was the point of the change from dts to dts2 anyway, and why did it need a new template? Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point - the Talk pages were changed at the same time as the articles. They've been reverted. As for why, it was done in order to follow the ISO 8601 standard that is used across other Wikipedia templates. Gary King (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And the prior discussion about this was where...? And it needed a whole new template because...? BencherliteTalk 08:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
(cough)? BencherliteTalk 08:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
{{dts2}} was created so that the articles using the old template could continue to use it. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about dts2

I noticed that the template was changed from dts to dts2 on one of my sand box pages. Can you please explain what all of this means? I have no idea. Please reply at My Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

{{dts}} was changed to {{dts2}} because the date format for {{dts}} was changed in order to comply with ISO 8601, the date format used on Wikipedia. If you want, I can revert the change that I made - I made it because if it was not changed then it would be broken after the template changed. Gary King (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not understand a word of that. I am not a computer techie or a programmer. I have no idea what you just said (above). Can you please explain what this is all about in terms understandable to me ... or direct me to someone who can do so? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC))
The way that you use the template has changed. Gary King (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You're very skilled at explaining things. Thanks. Now, it's all cleared up for me. Thank you. Please take note of sarcasm. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

List of countries by formation dates

Mindful of the couple of country lists you recently got to FA, I don't suppose you'd care to enter into the task of sorting out List of countries by formation dates, bearing in mind the current discussions comments at Talk:List of countries by formation dates#This page needs to be radically reformed, and our ability to answer questions such as Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#oldest. Thought (hoped) you might be interested; will understand if it does not appeal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm counting on it being ugly enough to irritate you into doing something ;) But only if it grabs you; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I was involved in the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#oldest discussion, which brought the list page to my attention. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help

Do you see this link in your browser? Whenever I tried this link, my browser displays no connection found. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then there is some problem in the link. The link is about a research paper on a bridge. I found you by recent change patrolling. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I will ask one more editor to be sure if the problem is with our browsers or in the link. The reference is very much important to me. However I think the is PDF link has some problems, but I can view it as HTML. Thanks for your help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated Dts template

Hi, please could you point me towards where it says the {{dts}} template is deprecated? There doesn't seem to be anything on the documentation or on the talk page. thank you, Struway2 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Do you not think it's confusing if the bit that says it's deprecated only appears on the documentation for a matter of hours before disappearing again? Struway2 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo 64

I certainly am willing to help get Nintendo 64 up to FA status. I mostly do WikiGnoming, but I hope it helps. Useight (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - If you want to help out, I'm also trying to get Pikachu to FA. Useight (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:FT

Wow, you're really ambitious aren't you? I think it's a bit hard to justify Nintendo as the main article; creating a List of Nintendo video game consoles article might be plausible. Work the rest up to GA/FA status first though before inquiring. As for the supplementary items, I think just the ones at Nintendo#Consoles are sufficient; although I'm unsure whether you would have to bring just Game Boy line to GA/FA status or every single individual item (that's another FT by the way if you're interested) in that line. I think the former is fine. Just to note, you will highly impress and make a lot of people happy at WP:VG if you can pull this off. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Take that back. You probably would have to do every individual item since I can't see you justifying just Nintendo DS and not Nintendo DS Lite. You can exclude Game Boy line if you have all the individual items though. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Eh...I suppose you could create such a topic, and have a legitimate scope, but having a new article solely on the non-portable consoles would be difficult, simply because there's not enough of them. I don't think you have any recourse other than to get the portable consoles, since you can't justify a List of Nintendo video game consoles article that doesn't include the portable consoles. Nintendo also becomes completely unsuitable as an article for this scope since the other half of Nintendo#Consoles is the portable consoles. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I need more sleep (wrote List of Naruto video game consoles instead of List of Nintendo video game consoles, see my sandbox for why). Anyway, yes, there is a distinction, and that is a topic of legitimate scope, but your difficulty is having a main article on it. Having a list with seven or so items isn't really justifiable, especially since that list has to pass WP:FLC. I think expanding the scope for portable consoles is really the only way to go unfortunately. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Gamecube

Well, I'm not as big of a fan of the Gamecube as the Nintendo 64, so I will be helping out more getting the 64's article up to FA status. Again, if you want to help improve Pikachu to FA status, that'd be great, too. Useight (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Gary King (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

COD4 (2)

Congrats on making it a GA. Next stop, FA! ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:FT of Nintendo video game consoles?

I think those topics could pass a FTC together. Your biggest challenge will be writing a good introduction for your new lead article. It would have to give an overview of Nintendo consoles as a whole before going into the system-by-system list. Example things to talk about in the intro to your list include: What do all of these systems have in common (target audience and in-game characters maybe)? How do they all differ from other lines of system? What general trends have there been in the progression of systems in addition to improved graphics? How long does Nintendo usualy wait before making a new system? Have there been any abandoned ideas for systems? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas, I'll keep them in mind. Gary King (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Table of contents on WP:FT?

Right now there is a TOC that breaks it down into four fields of study, but it is a bit tedious to scroll through the big Ft boxes. I'll try to test a few ways of listing all of the FT titles in the header of the list. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks I look forward to that. Gary King (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars

Just wanted to say nice job on the Star Wars cleanup. I has needed if for a long time! Vertigo315 (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to help out - I need all the help I can get with such a popular topic. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that if you kick Star Wars to GA/FA, you can revive the Star Wars films featured topic (see Wikipedia:Former featured topics) that was delisted due to not having a proper main article (Star Wars would act as the main). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Star Wars

Holy crap, that's some improvement. Great work. FYI, you'll make quite a few people happy if you manage to pull this off. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable

Thanks heaps for the support. --Efe (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Star Wars to Featured Article Status

Gary King--Thank you very much for the offer, I am more into Star Wars: Battlefront and therefore know more about it then actual Star Wars. I will try to do my best to help make it a featured article though, you will notice however that my status on Wikipedia is "iffy" and I am not on that much. So I guess I am in, thanks Cheers! Stealth (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a longer time user than I am so it feels weird to remind you of this, but the Star Wars GA will be quickfailed unless you remove the cleanup templates from the article and fill in the citation needed tags in the article. Good luck though, this is key to getting the Star Wars featured topic back. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 :) Oh ok cool. Good luck! You should take it to FA when your done, it looks really good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Gary King-- Would you like it if I made a sub page of the SW talk page to talk about this? Stealth (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, I think we should do this as an archive so it is easier to keep track of things. I have started a sub page Talk:Star Wars/FA FA relating to Featured Article. Hope thats ok Stealth (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

Yeah, I did some promotions earlier today, so I'll get around to it tomorrow and then I can promote more than one. In the mean time, there is a large backlog right now, so if you could review some FLCs, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 01:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My response

Sorry, I didn't come to your talk page here before, so I missed the message at the top. Anyway, I responded here. Rocket000 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Featured topics

Heh, well, enjoy yourself. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User Page

Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me how your doing this stuff to your user page? I finally got a userbox from yours but I have never been able to do well with other stuff..... WOuld you mind if I took some things from your user page for myself? (mainly the Star Wars project) Thanks. Stealth (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Gary King (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Adminship

In the end, we're all editors, and very few administrators on the project involve themselves solely in project-specific tasks. A popular response to this case is that an administrator, even if he or she has only used her tools once (and correctly), has benefited the project. For me, I hardly ever use my administrative tools outside of WP:AIV and CAT:CSD, and I can still say that I am better off with the tools than without them. This attitude is reflected at WP:RFA to a degree, as article building is ultimately what this encyclopedia is about, and is a quality that many reviewers strive to see in prospective administrators, as it ensures long-term dedication to the project. Better to have an administrator that is going to stick around for a year or longer building articles and occasionally helping out in administrator-specific tasks than one who focuses solely on clearing backlogs and nothing else (that said, any such efforts to help clear backlogs are obviously greatly appreciated). A good illustration is these two RfAs: mine and this user's. I came to RfA with two featured topics, over twenty featured lists, a featured article, a handful of good articles, and some decent experience in speedy deletion, AIV, AfD, and the help desk. The latter use came with an impressive portfolio of anti-vandalism work and other administrator tasks, but little to no article writing. There's half-a-dozen opposes on his RfA over his lack of article contributions, and more than half of the supports on my RfA are from users who appreciated my article contributions. In any case, don't fret about adminship, it's "not a big deal" (the cliché commonly applied to it) and it's not a full-time position. Heck, I had a user on my RfA actually comment that he hoped my article contributions would stay consistent after I got the tools. You're in a pretty good situation for acquiring adminship as is. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to answer the last part of your post. I would say about a month and a half to two months more of contributions and you should be ready for RfA. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I had no consensus the first time I RFA'd, but made it on my 2nd try with nearly unanimous support. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing I'm trying to avoid here is having to do multiple RfAs by nailing it with the first one, as typically, 2-3 months are required between RfAs to demonstrate adequate improvement, and opposes tend to pile up if there isn't a significant gap between RfAs. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd rather not fail on the first RFA. One thing I notice, though, is that if there's one opposition to an RFA that is substantial, then people who would either have voted Support or not voted at all would instead join in to Oppose and say 'per above', pointing to the first major opposition example. Those are usually the crushing blows to failed RFAs. Gary King (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined - reason

Please see User_talk:Bibliomaniac15#Recent_speedy_deletion to see why Image:Incline.gif was not deleted (or was actually deleted in error and immediately undeleted). --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, gotcha. Gary King (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry about that rollback on Bill Gates; only read the diff as far as some (accidental?) gibberish-looking stuff at the start. If you were bothered by it you'd probably leave me a note, but all the same, my apologies. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stephanie Eisenberg

An editor has nominated Stephanie Eisenberg, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Eisenberg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Zelda GAN

I'm sorry for being so slow with the review, my internet connection has been failing on me all week long because of snow, wind, etc. Zelda is almost there, see talk page.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple FAC noms

I've removed your second FAC nomination per the WP:FAC instructions: Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. I also noticed that The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past has not had a recent peer review, and suggest that you consider the tips at the bottom of WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008, seeking out and inviting qualified reviewers to the PR to help you prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi on Bill Gates

I have re-protected it. :-) - Philippe 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for the hassle. Gary King (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org is THE reliable source for what USED to be on web pages long ago

You claim that archive.org is not a reliable source? OK, then, name something better for that purpose... oh, wait, there isn't any such better source for publicly available historical internet archives, is there? WTF! Zaphraud (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re (how to deal with when a website 'moves' in the context of archive.org)
It shows EXACTLY was at THAT website at THAT point in time. You are mistaking the location on the web for the company that owns that location. I explained this clearly by comparing it to a ground-breaking. When a company relocates, one does not assert that the ground-breaking for the building they moved into took place when the company was founded! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 02:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Zaphraud, relax. It's not the end of the world if this specific sentence is wrong, and there's no reason you can't discuss this in a calm and civil manner. To you Gary, good job on conducting your responses in the aforementioned calm and civil manner, which is certainly what every administrator-hopeful needs. Small things go a long way. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the Ivy League, I just got accepted to Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, and Columbia. =) Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If the intent is to convey date of the birth of the company, perhaps one might say that the company was founded on (founding date), and that it launched its first website on (date that is the subject of this arguement). I'm just about done caring now, but, it seems like there are so many ways to get this one right that once the dust has settled and everyone is good and satisfied that my edits are reverted for good and all, maybe you can peacefully work out amongst yourselves some replacement text that is so factually solid this incident need never repeat itself. Zaphraud (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Full protection on Grandfather paradox?

I know that it's being vandalized because it's linked to from Google, but so far, the vandals have been IPs or new members. I don't see why semi-protection isn't sufficient? No need to go into full blast full protection unless there's a dispute going on or for some reason, established users are vandalizing the article. Gary King (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Established users seldom vandalise articles, but we still sometimes fully protect articles due to vandalism (and have a template for this purpose).
In this instance, the semi-protection wasn't working, and and a page encouraging users to continue the vandalism just made the front page of Digg.
Please note that while I switched from semi-protection to full protection, I also substantially shortened the duration (in the hope that the vandalism will cease at day's end). —David Levy 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed that the article was previously semiprotected first. Still, full seems a bit excessive since I thought that was usually reserved for articles where established users debated on an article so neither side was 'right' and had to resolve the issue before editing again. I would imagine the attention the article is getting is also beneficial in that people might want to improve it since it's really popular now, but again, I'm just an idealist :) Gary King (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Full protection is not limited to content disputes. I agree that it would be nice to utilize the publicity as a means of attracting new editors, but even semi-protection prevents that (and this probably is the one day of the year on which such an effort isn't feasible). —David Levy 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

If you can give me about a day to clean up the film overview section (it'll look more like Friday the 13th (franchise)#Overview) then I'll go ahead and move everything over. I have a paper that I have to write so I probably won't focus on "real" editing of that page until I get that done today (I just wanted to get the cleanup and organization going). Please, feel free to edit inside my sandbox; if you're worried about losing edits then just hop over to the sandbox and work in there until everything is ready to come over.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. I'm sorry, I just got side-tracked.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I just copied it over. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, we'll start from there then. Gary King (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where any would be appropriate at the moment, because there isn't really a lot of information there. Much of it is unsourced, and what is there to begin with doesn't discuss anything that really needs illustration. I think Carpenter's musical score is rather iconic and I'm sure we could find something about that to beef up the music section which would allow us to put in a media sample of the Halloween theme song. The only reason Friday the 13th has an image in the body is because of the detail that went into the advertisement in Variety. What I usually do when I have a page that cannot really support images is I find good quotes that represent the section or paragraph they are beside and I place them in a colored box. This adds a bit of asthetic-ness to the page, without having to worry about violating fair-use laws.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the change in headers. It's inaccurate to name these things "Legacy" when that's such a strong insinuation that it was the film series as a whole that brought about the books and comics and merchandise. If anything, the first film brought it all. It's better to stick with the a similar structure like the other franchise horror film pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's actually what I was just beginning to work on. I was about to start shrinking all those plots in the sandbox and converge them into one section (like the Friday page). One thing that definitely needs to be done is we need to tag all the unsourced comments with a {{fact|date=April 2008}} tag. This way we know what isn't sourced and we can either try and find a source for it, or remove it later if we determine we cannot find any reliable sources to support it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not 100% comprehensive yet. There is more that I want to add in the "Impact" section...more on how people have analyzed the franchise. There only a little more that can be done to that page before it bursts, but I'm certainly proud of it. It's come along way from where it originally was when I found it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I obviously have all the Friday books, since I used them to write the article. ;) lol. I have all the DVDs for the Halloween films. Some have commentaries, some don't. The Halloween series has been seriously neglected when it comes to this type of information. I do have the 20 Years of Terror DVD, which is basically a huge DVD of interviews and behind-the-scenes footage. I was hoping they would have information so that I could finish the Michael Myers page - which I modeled after my work on the Jason Voorhees article. I think there will probably be some good information about the movies. The problem is that a lot of the times you get information that isn't particularly beneficial to an encyclopedia (like cast and crew rambling on about some random experience that has nothing to do with making the film directly...funny to hear, but not useful to the project).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the three Spider-Man pages, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and a couple others have been some projects that I have collaborated on with User:Erik and User:Alientraveller. We're always looking for some fresh blood to come in and help spruce up those articles. Especially Batman Begins, because we all want to get that to FA status before the new movie comes out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've done the first 5 Halloween films (you can check it out in my sandbox). I'll finish the rest tomorrow. It's after midnight and I have to go to work at 8 am...so, needless to say I need to get some sleep. It's coming along quite easily. I'll probably copy that information and paste it into an email and email it to myself at work, that way I can finish it before my lunch break and go ahead and copy it over to the mainspace by tomorrow afternoon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I know there are subsections in the "Production" section that need expanding. We never exhausted the DVD commentaries or the behind the scenes documentaries. I know Erik wanted to expand the "Themes" section. Other than that, I would post a note on the talk page and ask anyone/everyone what they think needs to be done to get this page to FA. Upon looking at the talk page, I see that we already had section ("FA drive") where we were doing that. So, I would create a new subsection in that discussion with a note asking everyone where we think we are with the article. Fresh faces to the talk page usually brings people back and gets them in the mood to edit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the plot section is too long. It's summarizing 9 films. If they were individual articles that would be approximately 6300 words. As the franchise page stands, it's 1400 words (about 155 words per film..which is rather small).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's where the extra words come in. Halloween has been retconned twice, and rebooted from the start. First, you have the continuity of Halloween 1 -6. Then, H20 retcons the events, making the new continuity Halloween 1, 2, H20. Then Resurrection was a sequel to H20. Finally, Zombie's remake in 2007 started it all over again. Plus, the Star Wars page doesn't name all the actors in their respective roles, nor the names of the films themselves. The overview here is written with a touch more out-of-universe tone, where it identifies what each film did - instead of what the overall films did. It's just a different set up. The amount of detail isn't that much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If you remove the last 3 films from the section, and all the names of the actors and the names of the films and reword each opening to reflect a similar structure as Star War, they're about the same.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Way to go Activision was NOT a forum comment

How is that a forum comment? I was stating that the article was incorrect in stating that downloadable content would be available for Wii in Q1 2008. Q1 ended today. I have not changed the article yet, but probably will. Anyway, aren't you supposed to flag it before deleting it (I'm not sure, I'm not that experienced in all of Wiki's guidelines? In closing, I am going to repost a similar content that doesn't seem as forumish. frogTape: Covered in flies for your enjoyment (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, feel free to repost it. It felt a bit too forumish and it still looks like trollbait; if you rephrase it, then post it. Gary King (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I already did. I guess I didn't pick a very good section title. frogTape: Covered in flies for your enjoyment (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Zelda

I'll see what I can do, but I'm not able to contribute much right now because of pressing schoolwork. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you get Zelda II to GA status, I'll give you a barnstar :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)]
I like to reward good users, and this article seems somewhat hopeless, as the black sheep Zelda game and all. It will also get us one game closer (3 more to go) to a Featured Topic of Zelda games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Zelda II

I am working on improving Zelda II: The Adventure of Link to Featured Article status and noticed that you have made substantial contributions to the article. If you have time, I would be delighted if you could help with this endeavor. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cocoapropo"

I would be happy to help out, and I will try to remember to check back regularly to lend assistance to the project. I appreciate it!Cocoapropo (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to help out, but how do I edit the article such that it adheres to the standard of a featured article? Kiwi8 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still dunno how to edit the article to satisfy the standards of a featured article despite you giving me the guidelines. How about you highlight the things that need to be done and perhaps some of us can split the work amongst ourselves?Kiwi8 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I don't want a list added, I want a character section with about a paragraph of information on the characters, like many other articles have. See Final_Fantasy_IV#Characters. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with that too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mebuy.pl

Hi i really don't understand what the problem is with this articel.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin72 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Rental Magica episodes

Is past the ten day mark and in need of more commentary. Also, for the issue with the billionaire lists and User:Colin, don't worry about it. He's probably one of the most experienced editors at WP:FLC; just follow his suggestions for the merging, etc. and you'll be fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:PHP Hello World screenshot.png

A tag has been placed on Image:PHP Hello World screenshot.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gary King (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Expanding articles

Sort of. I would only write articles for games if I had already played that game extensively, and thus, I would know about the content that would need to go into gameplay and plot, and would instead look for sources that verified what I placed. For development and reception, it is intrinsically limited to the sources you can find, and I simply go through the sources I can find and tack them on, organizing the information coherently as I go. I tend to list out all my available sources before writing either of these sections though and devise the best way to present the information I have. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Practically all featured articles nowadays are primarily written by one person, perhaps two. Another person might concentrate on sourcing or copy-editing, but the bulk of the content is largely going to come from one person. The main reason is the simple consistency derived from having one person's style constant throughout an article and then copy-editing through that several times over. Yes, there are different methods, but the greater amount of people you get, the more difficult it becomes to coordinate. Just the way it is. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Food and drink articles are infamous for having the fewest number of featured articles out of all present categories that do have them. See WP:FOOD. You're talking to someone with zero experience in the matter. :p Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The preview version is fine; that said, I would think you could find the same information from the preview in a full article from another source. Still, it's fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I do it manually. I have looked into getting a bot to do it, but it would take the bot runner quite a bit of work to get it up and running, so I decided to just do it by myself. -- Scorpion0422 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It could, but he told me he would have to build lists of promotions from the past years, and it would all have to be checked manually, thus causing a lot of work for him. I basically decided it's easier just to do it myself. -- Scorpion0422 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PHP in dutch

Hi Gary, I like all the work you've done on the PHP page and thought I'd check out the links in prep for featured status. The second link was to a manual page in dutch! So I assumed vandalism and tried to find the person responsible. Guess who did it... You!... Either you're cleverer than the average vandal or this [change] done by you using Link_checker seems to have a problem. I've put the link to the english version. I guess the Link Checker tool can't always get it right lol. Keep up the good work. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

what a clever tool it is, PHP is one of the few sites with so many international mirrors, it makes sense that it would choose its home site. If I get time I will propose the tool be given a language option. What fun this wikipedia life is :) --Brian R Hunter (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think you're right. Time for bed :) --Brian R Hunter (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Michigan State Spartans Championships

I moved the championships to List of Michigan State Spartans championships. Peanuts5402 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better. Gary King (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Waterwindsail

Can you please review this sandbox article and let me know your thoughts on notability at this time ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waterwindsail/Sandbox thank you --Waterwindsail (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article needs inline citations. Gary King (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

re WP:WBFLN

Hi - The bot I run could update WP:WBFLN, but it takes as input pre-parsed versions of the nomination log files, see for example Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2008. I maintain these in a semi-automated fashion (the bot helps), but fundamentally what happens is the bot makes a guess about who the nominator is for each promoted FA, I manually verify it, and then the bot updates the by-year (pre-parsed) list. If someone were willing to create and maintain similar by-year lists for featured lists, I'd be happy to have my bot update WP:WBFLN but I don't think I can take on (at least not at the moment) creating and maintaining these lists. Perhaps an alternative might be for me to run the entire process fully automated, i.e. the bot would update the by-year lists based on its guess without review. Then, if someone simply updated the by-year list if the bot got it wrong, the WBFLN list would be updated the next time the bot ran (daily). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Autobiographical sources

For a non-controversial claim, it's fine. Relevant reading is WP:SELFPUB. If at all possible, use secondary or tertiary sources, but an autobiographical source is fine if that is what you have available. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer online sources if they're secondary sources over his autobiography if that is what you mean. Especially since he's a living person, WP:BLP dictates that you want to use the best sources possible to verify everything. That said, feel free to use it from then to then; however, if the claim is controversial, either don't use his autobiography or note that "according to Gates' autobiography..." Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. As for the image, we generally don't protect things that get on the main page. Every recent changes patroller worth their salt watches the main page article, and any vandalism is reverted quickly. Same thing with the image. It's a bit hypocritical if we have the main page article protected when we claim "anyone can edit." Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
*Shrug* Different practices I suppose. I'm not that familiar with the relevant guidelines concerning images on the main page. Any vandalism to the picture itself would be reverted pretty fast though. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Facebook Chat

I appreciate your warm welcome to wikipedia and I also appreciate that wikipedia is based on the need for citing sources. However, in this case, the new chat feature has not been discussed on the facebook blog or in media of any kind. Wired magazine came out with an article saying that facebook would come out with the chat feature, but that was a few weeks ago. http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/03/facebook-adds-c.html


I believe that this is an example of a time the cited source is implied or not needed. In my opinion, this also serves as an example of what is great about wikipedia: catching on to something before the media picks up on it.


But let me know what you think. Geo19_4 (talk)

Bill Gates

While your work on this article is appreciated, those of us who monitor articles for vandalism or other changes that are against policy would find it very helpful if you could combine your edits into fewer larger ones, and if you could provide a descriptive summary of what you've done. Dozens of edits described as "cleanup" helps nobody. This is a community effort -- help the community understand what you're doing with good edit summaries. -/- Warren 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Microsoft; GA review

Instead of making any decision i would like to request you to expand the lead of the article. it is insufficient for this article. the rest of the article seems to me perfect and factual. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

fine i will. wait for just a few minutes (40 minutes time please). thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
WELL I HAVE PASSED THE ARTICLE. congrats! you would be delighted to know that i reviewed this article on iMac. it was fun. hahaha, just kidding! fine i will be reviewing the next article too. but i need some time if you don't mind. Sushant gupta (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
yeah this morning i will be dealing with it. i will make my decision within 35 minutes (i need to review it completely first). thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

:::: well no problem with the factual aspect but there is inconsistency in the units used in real estate subsection. you can use square feet → m² instead of acres → km². also instead of having subsections in the investment section you have bold emphasis by inserting ;
for example instead of ===Real estate=== you can have ;Real estate. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC) (i have addressed these issues myself)

pls. add ref to the statement→ Allen also owns three professional sports teams: the Seattle Seahawks of the National Football League, the Portland Trail Blazers of the National Basketball Association, and the future Seattle soccer franchise in Major League Soccer that will begin playing in the 2009 season. (in the introduction). thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry to revert your edits but kindly have a look at Geology of solar terrestrial planets, Evolutionary history of life. these are GAs. also it is used in many FAs. until we have articles on those sections it really gives a bad impression. anyway i think the article is now ready for being a GA. Sushant gupta (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

replied on talk page! Sushant gupta (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Featured Topic Revival

Please do the honors of nominating it for renewed Featured Status, as the lead article is now GA :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Facebook to FA

Hi Gary. Thanks for your messages and my apologies for not replying soon. Unfortunately, I am presently very busy with university work (it is getting close to the end of my 3rd year so lots to do!) so won't be able to help with anything "full on" like FA nominations. However, good work on the article and I hope it gets it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Zelda II

I passed it because it has massively improved, and has attained GA. It will be a hard fight to get it to FA, but the beauty of trying is that it will greatly improve that way too, and may even pass. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Video Game Barnstar"
This is for making Zelda II: The Adventure of Link a Good Article, and making us dream of FA, which I didn't think was possible. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Added to User:Gary_King#Barnstars, although I'm trying to collect different types of barnstars :p Gary King (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I switched it for you so you'll like it :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice—thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Zelda

I first need to thank you for turning Star Wars into a GA, making the Star Wars FT viable again. Also, for turning the Zelda articles which still needed development GAs. But just a reminder: for Featured Topics There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together.. So, you still need Four Swords and FSA in order to make a Zelda FT... and you should include Link along only if other characters articles/lists are developed enough. igordebraga ≠ 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess needs a bunch of references to get ride of the fact tag at the bottom, because as long as that's there it is at risk of delisting. Judgesurreal777 (talk)
I reformatted the Four Swords article to have more standard formatting, it should be clearer now what is needed. Go ahead and do anything I have recommended on previous articles and I'll have a look and see if I have more thoughts. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
VERY IMPORTANT; I found a Six-part retrospective on Legend of Zelda series, http://www.gametrailers.com/player/14063&type=mov&pl=game.html?id=14063&type=mov&pl=game

Gametrailers is a reliable sources, so fill the articles with information from here! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WBFLN

Hi - You archived this without replying. Does that mean you're not interested in an approach where I run my bot in a fully automated fashion (relying on after the fact corrections to its guesses about who the nominator is)? Just curious. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Featured lists nominated in 2005, exactly as the bot would have done it. I haven't checked this against the nomination logs. I can pretty easily create similar lists for 2006, 2007, and 2008. After these are scrubbed, it would be trivial to update WPFLN from them. Let me know what you think about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. In 2007 sometime, the nomination closers started using a "closing box" template that makes the tool guess the closer as the nominator. I'll have to fix this before completing the 2007 and 2008 by-year lists. Shouldn't take long, but won't be immediate. In the meantime, if you want to verify the 2005 and 2006 lists that'd be helpful. I dropped the main page column from the 2006 list (lists don't appear on the main page). I could easily zap this column from the 2005 list if this would be at all difficult for you to do. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've populated the by year lists through April 2008. If you want to look through these and verify the contents that'd be good. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, hold off on this for a bit. I'm thinking about changing how the bot guesses who the nominator is. It currently does it based on the contents of the nomination file (first link to a user). I think it might be much more accurate if the guess is the user who created the nomination file. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've now updated the by-year lists to use the creator of the nomination file as the nominator. I can have the bot add any new noms (on a daily basis). If you could verify (month by month) the noms are correctly attributed and let me know when you're done, I'll add a step so the bot regenerates WBFLN based on these lists. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

pp-semi-vandalism issue

I think I've fixed it, can you point me to the original problem? Nihiltres{t.l} 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted)

List of unrecognized countries

I am confused as to why the Holy See is not included on the list, as it is currently unrecognized by 18 countries. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the vandalism

You can tell you're getting popular when they vandalise your userpages! Must be all those Good articles you've done on the highly vandalled articles.. Congrats on the GA, by the way. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What did I do wrong?

what did i do wrong?Xp54321 (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that since the review all had support opinions, it was a featured article.Xp54321 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on your Talk page. Gary King (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So how is it accepted?Does an administrator make it featured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xp54321 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So if there is consensus, User:Raul654 promotes the article?Xp54321 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference for the process of promoting a topic from an article?Xp54321 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I annoying you?:)?Xp54321 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing due to my "vandalism", will be blocked in the future after one more bad edit?:(? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xp54321 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine.I'm sure this will be the start of a wonderful friendship.......................................................................I'm kidding.Xp54321 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AoL Help

Hi Gary, Yes, I'll certainly help in making the article better. I haven't seen it in a few months now, so I'll take a look over the next few days and see what I can contribute. -As I recall, the plot section was definitely an issue with me; my potential solution was to use a very short, highly abridged plot, but to somehow allow for the user to expand it for more information -similar to the way the table of contents works. Perhaps you know more about whether this is feasible or not.

Thanks, -Justin. Zixor (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topics

It is awesome and commendable that you are set on getting all those featured topics back. I would strongly recommend you read over their removal nominations, as there are sometimes reasons other than articles were no longer FA or GA. In the case of the Michigan University one, it was thought that it was unrepresentative of the topic, and the Halloween movie topic failed because it only included the first 3 movies and was thus "cherry picking". Look over each of your featured topics and make sure there are no gaps in them, like important people or items left out.

I'll see if I can get to your new nominations, I am trying to build up the Zelda LCD and CD-i Zelda games articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Michigan State, I am not sure but I think you should perhaps start at discussion at the Featured topics page about what would constitute appropriate articles for the Michigan State University topic. Halloween definitely needs all the Halloween movies included, Microsoft I am not familiar with enough to say, but make sure the three articles you picked exclude no crucial figures or events. On Guitar Hero, why isn't the Rocking the 80's included and its list of songs article? Half Life 2 seems fine, the Nintendo console article directs back to Nintendo FYI, and there are a bunch of other consoles not listed in the topic first and foremost is the Virtual Boy and the handhelds. You could probably get away with the Half Life topic, and the Apple topic also requires you to know that there are no gaps, so make sure nothing and no one important is excluded.

In general, the best way to determine is look at other articles in the category or in the template with the articles you want for a featured topic, and ask the question "Is there a compelling reason or justification to exclude these other articles?" and can't think of one, you can't exclude them. For example, the Final Fantasy topic includes only the main numbered games (except for Final Fantasy Adventure), so there was a clear cutoff that said that all the millions of other Final Fantasy games and remakes and re-releases would not have to be included and would be part of their own Featured topics like Chocobo games and Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles and such. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

In the case of "Michigan State University", "Apple Inc.", and "Microsoft", you will probably have to add many more articles to keep from being accused of cherry picking. For "Halloween series" and "Guitar Hero series", you should add the rest of the series, like Halloween IV-IX, Guitar Hero 80s, etc.. For "Half-Life series", the lead article only briefly mentions the Portal game, so you should either exclude it and limit the scope or add the other articles that are loosely connected to the topic. "Half-Life 2" might be good now, but I would recommend including other stuff about it like Content cut from Half-Life 2 and Half-Life 2: Lost Coast. Finally, the Nintendo video game consoles is probably complete as is, though I would recommend expanding it to include the hand held systems. "The Legend of Zelda series" should be good now, though it might be useful to add the unlicensed games. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC) --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here

Hello i'm new here could u tell me about wikipedia?Pc12345 (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I did NOT commit vandalism. I honestly thought if enough people said support the article became featured. It was an honest mistake, everyone makes them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xp54321 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4 prestige icon picture

I found a picture of the icons for the prestige mode in the multiplayer mode.

http://paveldolgov.com/downloads.html

hes not stingy with sharing it as long as he gets credit. i thought it might be something people would be looking for on wikipedia. like i did. since i dont know how to edit all that i thought i'd ask someone that did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrod84 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not yet

He has yet to be approved King Rock Go 'Skins! 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Do not delete my discussion page or violate it again,you need a life and I will block you if you do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destry11 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your request[3] on User talk:Destry11. Let me know if there are any more problems. Ty 11:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode One

Sorry for the late reply - I was unable to attend to the article during its painfully brief second attempt at FAC. Good to have some extra hands on board, and you've already brought the article to a far higher standard. Great work! Qjuad (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Lol, nah I enjoy pulling out the tool and doing a little work! I was like wtf at first, but now Im going through them lol « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah so far so good, and I am also surprised that some werent protected before. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired now, lol. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have to get going now, thanks for the workout ;-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha yeah we did, look at WP:RFPP, its a little crowded cuz of you, and my signature in everywhere, lol. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, you where adding them faster than I could process them. Keep up the good work. Tiptoety talk 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No, no: it's fine. :) I just saw they had to be done, and went ahead answering them. :) Acalamari 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Hi. I just removed two reports that you added to AIV, can you please have a look at the reasoning I gave? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. TigerShark (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem! :) Gary King (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi Gary. It might be best to slow down on the vandal reports, and give some the chance to change. Only two edits doesn't mean they should be blocked; it's best to go through all four warnings if possible. Especially for IPs, but usernames can be reported early if there's quite a few vandalism edits. It's just a suggestion. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm more adept at WP:RPP, which I've helped out a bunch so far today (check out my additions to there right now :) ) I'll leave vandal fighting to the pros! :) Gary King (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I noticed those RPPs! Great work keeping those admins on their toes! PeterSymonds | talk 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Words, Words, Words

hmm... I'm not sure how altering the Words, Words, Words entry so that all of the random 'Strike-through text' are gone is unwaranted... please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.123.179 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it appeared as though you added them because they were still there when you made your first edited. I have warned the original editor who added that information. Gary King (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:RPP, RFA

Yeah, WP:RPP is an area not many prospective administrators go into. The administrator tasks that seem to be the most common are CSD backlogs and dealing with vandals at AIV. In any case, I'll get you a full evaluation in a sec (will take a while to draw up :p). Also note that I'll be in and out the next couple days since I'm currently visiting Princeton and Columbia next. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The evaluation of you as an administrator at RfA primarily takes on four parts: your contributions in terms of administrator work, your contributions to mainspace articles, your knowledge of policy and guidelines, and your conduct with other users, or in other words, your civility. Intangibles are also present, which I will dictate after these.
  • Your work in administrator-related areas is pretty solid. I see the occasional AIV report that perhaps is too soon (give at least two warnings before going to AIV), but otherwise seem good. Your CSD contributions seem solid, and your spree of recent RPP reports look good. The category tagging you add also adds the implication that you don't mind doing repetitive work such as clearing backlogs and the like, so that works well towards your chances.
  • Your article contributions are probably the most solid part of your portfolio so-to-speak, and seven featured lists and twelve good articles are more than enough to garner points here. You could have one featured list or even one good article and that would probably be adequate for RfA (I'm trying to push my other coachee, User:Vivio Testarossa, to go edit some articles, something he apparently has an aversion towards, and is probably his biggest problem right now).
  • Your knowledge of policy and guidelines is primarily shown in CSD tagging, AfD participation, and everyday discussion, all of which you apparently look pretty solid on. I don't see any major gaffes that would cause you problems. Your biggest concern in this regard is giving good answers to the "optional" (in reality, they're not, you pretty much have to answer all the questions thrown at you) questions people give you. I highly encourage you to peruse old RfAs for answers (successful ones naturally) for tips on giving good answers and the like. In doubt, stick to the most civil, neutral solution and the one that follows the relevant policies/guidelines.
  • Your civility is pretty much unquestioned. You don't have any bad blood with anyone, and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, people take civility for granted.
The biggest problem I think for you is the length factor. People generally want to see so many months of contributions before an RfA, and while you have a fairly long period of active editing, you have that annoying break in December. That said, I'm being really picky right here, so it shouldn't really be a problem. Also the fact that you have a couple thousand edits in the previous months engenders a lot of good will. The problem that is associated with this is that the person that's becoming an administrator is someone that's going to stick around and help with the project. I think you should be alright though. Other minute stuff includes not self-nominating yourself. In reality, it's perfectly fine, but having another user, especially ones with good contribution histories and name recognition so-to-speak, nominate you adds another dimension to your RfA. I'll nominate you, so no worries here. :So yeah, if you want to go for it, I think you can probably pass right now. I'm starting to think more time might just be overkill. When I was looking into becoming an administrator, I actually received a nomination request a month earlier than when I intended to nominate myself, and passed practically unanimously anyway. You're ready as far as I can tell. When you want to go for it is up to you - you can wait longer to feel more secure, or you can bite the bullet and go for it. Do note that if your RfA does fail, you generally should wait about 3-4 months before trying again, as you'll get a maelstrom of people who will complain about you not following proper procedure before then. I'm pretty confident that you can pass now though. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sephiroth BCR would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Sephiroth BCR to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Fire away before I fall asleep :p Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There you go. Answer the three required questions and feel free to transclude it at WP:RFA when you're ready. Feel free to check with me concerning your answers to the those questions (they're obviously really important) before you transclude it (you're free to adjust as you see fit before you actually transclude it). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Add in how you will exercise due caution and care when you initially get the tools and will steadily utilize them more as you learn the ropes. Include in question two the subject material you like to tackle, and especially make note of your future goals that you want to achieve in terms of articles. Also add tidbits of your administrative work or categorization work that you're particularly proud of. Question three looks good. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Your present answers look pretty good. Just elaborate a bit more in question two about the aforementioned editing. Sleep beckons. Best of luck, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Star Wars FT

I keep them up for at least ten days so that people who don't check it often or take a long time to review articles can still comment. When there is such strong support I'll promote it right when the ten days are up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Just like WP:FLC, an area where I'm pretty familiar with by now. :) Gary King (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Gary, I see you've gone for it. Well good luck! Just as an aside, it's probably best if you don't leave messages for various people to tell them you're at RfA. While it's entirely innocent I'm sure, it can easily be construed as canvassing which can be costly. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's any help I was going to support your Rfa as you answered my questions with good reasons and without being prompted to give reasons. SunCreator (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Altering responses

Hi. I am of course, watching your RfA, and, since in spite of the fact that I feel I must oppose I wish you well, I wanted to bring this up more privately rather than addressing it there. I'm not sure its a good idea to revise your answers by changing them, although you might certainly choose to strike something or contextualize it with a sub-response. I don't know if is addressed directly, and it's possible it isn't, but I should think this would be related to editing your own comments on talk pages. We are discouraged from doing this because it "robs" replies of original context & can be confusing. If I were you, I would restore the original response, strike it and put a comment beneath it explaining the change. YMMV, and I only make this suggestion in the hopes of proving helpful here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know for sure that there is a proper way, but I think this is how it's handled, and I'm hoping to save you some drama. I remember how insanely stressful RFA is. :/ Anything that avoids more stress to the process is, in my opinion, good. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gary. That was a good call, striking not removing. I'm sorry about the number of "Per Pedro" opposes, and can only reiterate Moonriddengirl's comment about how horribly stressful RFA can be. You've noted, and rightly so, that the opposes are based on your technical and policy based contributions and are certainly not slanted at your wonderful contributions. All of the opposers seem in agreement that if you can fix the AIV and CSD work then your next RFA (if it comes to that, though I suspect this one will fail) will sail through. Again, your encyclopedia building skills are stunning, and that is why we are all here. Adjust the way you approach project space, give it 12-14 weeks of solid improvement in that area and I'll be delighted to support. Very best wishes, and, as ever, Happy Editing. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck in the future, mate. You'll get there one day. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)