User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday: Difference between revisions
| Line 2,504: | Line 2,504: | ||
<small>Delivered for the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] by [[User:Thehelpfulbot|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulbot|<font color="red"> '''Bot'''</font>]] at 20:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message [[User talk:Thehelpfulone|here]].</small> |
<small>Delivered for the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] by [[User:Thehelpfulbot|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulbot|<font color="red"> '''Bot'''</font>]] at 20:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message [[User talk:Thehelpfulone|here]].</small> |
||
== A point to note == |
|||
I find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFeatured_picture_candidates&diff=291982982&oldid=291982409 this] really annoying. If you had taken the time, you would have seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVanderdecken&diff=291553773&oldid=290268771 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFeatured_picture_candidates&diff=291657845&oldid=291657090 this]. Those together mean the nom wouldn't have been closed until I returned or until ''somebody else'' did it, which is doubtful since I already had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FGuy_Mannering&diff=291552962&oldid=291552843 started] the process. Not everybody is out to get you. [[User:Wadester16|wadester16]] | <small>[[User talk:Wadester16|Talk→]]</small> 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Yay! == |
== Yay! == |
||
Revision as of 00:27, 26 May 2009
Template:Archive box collapsible
FSCs promoted
| Template:Multi-listen item |
| Template:Multi-listen item |
| Template:Multi-listen item |
Mozart music
The clip in the Mozart in Italy article looks fine, and thank you again for all your work in setting this up. I'm pleased to hear of possible progress on Grand Tour music, too. I have no immediate plans for bringing more Mozart to FAC, but will keep you posted about this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll work on Agrippina. What would you like me to do, and what's the timescale? Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll copyedit this weekend, & let you know what I think then. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently started the Dermatology task force and want to create a subpage for the taskforce that addresses dermatologic photos, giving guidelines/recommendations for good images. On that page I was simply going to link over to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_criteria, but also wanted to added a few comments specifically geared towards dermatologic photos (like something about always having a ruler, etc in the picture to keep size in perspective, etc.). I also found a paper online (see [1]) and thought I could integrate some of its pointers into the page. However, I am a dermatologist, not professional photographer, and therefore wanted to know if you, or any of your friends, would help me develop this page? kilbad (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I created a basic page at WP:DERM:PIC. Perhaps you could look it over and post some feedback? kilbad (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Agrippina (opera)
I have left a number of suggestions on the article's talkpage. I hope to begin copyediting later this evening (UK time) Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want me to add for the new references. Details were given on the talkpage, and they seem to have been carried correctly into the article. I am preparing a "list of musical numbers" section to add to the article, and will post it later today. I have also gathered more background and general stuff which can be fed into the article, which should enable us to expand the background section. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, the Grove I have used is New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (British special edition) Volume 8, edited by Stanley Sadie, published by Macmillan, London 1980. IBSN 0-3333-23111
- Sorry, I imagined you would add the New Grove reference to the bibliogaphy from the details I provided. I have now done so. There will be other books/sources, for some further material I will add later today. Do we have an author for the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Recitative and GFH"? Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I reckon we're on schedule. Just to let you know what I'm doing, I'm currently expanding the "Context and Analysis" section and reorganising some material. This should be posted later today, assuming I can postpone some non-wiki work (which I can). I then intend to revise the lead. Finally I want to do a line-by-line read-out-loud to see how the article sounds (I have done this with every FAC I've submitted - it's amazing what gets overlooked in preparation). My target is to have done with all the major work by tomorrow (Wednesday) evening, leaving us a couple of days for tweaks, adjustments, and the incorporation of any last-minute material that arises from the peer review or elsewhere. Are you happy with this? Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I imagined you would add the New Grove reference to the bibliogaphy from the details I provided. I have now done so. There will be other books/sources, for some further material I will add later today. Do we have an author for the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Recitative and GFH"? Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, the Grove I have used is New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (British special edition) Volume 8, edited by Stanley Sadie, published by Macmillan, London 1980. IBSN 0-3333-23111
WikiCup Newsletter
| The WikiCup Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How many FSs is this?
| Template:Multi-listen item |
RfAr
Please see this change I made, specifically to your comment. I was assuming your comment was directed at Sandstein and made some changes to reflect that. If I made a mistake in thinking that, feel free to correct it. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Featured Sound
I saw your article in Signpost and feel I need to create a featured sound. Any advice? Please reply at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Consider three speaches. 1. Barack Obama's 11/4/08 Grant Park Speech. 2. Lou Gehrig's Farewell Address. 3. Barack Obama's 2004 Convention speech. Can any of these be found? I guess the second might require some restoring.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't I just see the Obama Inauguration speech pass featured? Explain the subtleties a little more if you can. I think the 2004 DNC speech might be PD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that his acceptance speech is not work performed in the normal course of duty as an employee of the federal government. It is not a part of the job of a Senator to make such speeches. Thus, it may not be PD. His DNC speech occurred before he was a federal employee and thus may not be PD. However, I think the latter is likely to be considered a part of a National Democratic Party event. It would be a PD as work of a DNC chairman if such is PD, IMO. Of course, that may not be considered PD and thus the rub. Obama essentially appointed the new DNC chairman, so it is possible that this is a federal job. I am not sure how the DNC is affiliated with the federal gov and whether its work product is normally PD. Who do I talk to?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have not gotten a ruling yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that his acceptance speech is not work performed in the normal course of duty as an employee of the federal government. It is not a part of the job of a Senator to make such speeches. Thus, it may not be PD. His DNC speech occurred before he was a federal employee and thus may not be PD. However, I think the latter is likely to be considered a part of a National Democratic Party event. It would be a PD as work of a DNC chairman if such is PD, IMO. Of course, that may not be considered PD and thus the rub. Obama essentially appointed the new DNC chairman, so it is possible that this is a federal job. I am not sure how the DNC is affiliated with the federal gov and whether its work product is normally PD. Who do I talk to?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't I just see the Obama Inauguration speech pass featured? Explain the subtleties a little more if you can. I think the 2004 DNC speech might be PD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
Pictures
If you have anything that would be useful in illustrating any of our articles on shows by Victor Herbert, that would be nice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, also shows by Noel Coward, but those are mostly after 1923. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You wrote: "I have images for The Black Crook and Gaiety Girls in my queue, so if you be interested in those, poke me and I'll get them done." Sure! Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I do not think that The Ameer should get an article. There are lots more important Herbet musicals that do not have articles, including: Cyrano de Bergerac (1899), The Singing Girl (1899), It Happened in Nordland (1904), Miss Dolly Dollars (1905), Dream City (1906), Little Nemo (1908), The Enchantress (1911), The Lady of the Slipper (1912), The Madcap Duchess (1913), The Only Girl (1914) and My Golden Girl (1920). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Progress on Agrippina
- I have revised and extended "Context and Analysis", subdividing it between Background, Composition and Libretto. I have also put the section in its logical position, before rather than after Reception.
- I've extended the Reception section with info. on some recent New York and London performances
- I have also rewritten the lead.
- I have taken off the size forcings of the in-text images. There are possible questions about best image placement to be considered.
- I have yet to run through to find typos, other prose issues, and to ensure adequate citation, etc. I am a bit concerned about the "Music" section, which has a different sound to the rest of the article. I don't have access to the sources, but some of it sounds, well, iffy. Take this sentence, for instance:
Handel's music emphasises the irony of Grimani's libretto by variously emphasising the surface message of characters attempting to deceive each other, the hidden truth of the matter, or, in some cases, such as Agrippina's aria "Non hò che per armarti", where she promises Poppea that deceit will never mar their new friendship, at the same time as deceiving Poppea into ruining her beloved Ottone's chance for the throne, both (in that case by the winding melody for Agrippina and minor modal key pointing to her deceit, but the clearly-defined structure emphasising the ostensible truth of her words).
What a sentence! (What the ????? does it mean?) Some work is obviously required on this section, and I'll have to ask you to do it. Overall, however, I think the article is looking promising. Let me know if you have problems with anything I've done. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re Britannica: to format the refs properly we need author if possible, title and page number of the article, most definitely. A cite to "Britannica" isn't enough. Where did you actually read the article in question—is it possible to ring through and ask someone to provide that information? Brianboulton (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Britannica refs probably OK now. I will do the citation templates, this evening: I hate them, too, but I've found from long experience that they usually save trouble in the end. I still have to do a thorough prose check on the article - I'll try to do that this evening, and report back tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm about all done, now. I will probably keep nibbling at the prose and making odd alterations, but essentially I have finished, subject to oversights, unspotted typos, etc.
- One point slightly concerns me: we have not used Dean and Knapp's book "Handel's Operas 1704-1726" as a source. Some Handelians might say that this is the definitive text and ask why we haven't used it. I have tried without success to locate a copy, even through inter-library loan—it's a hard book to find. We have used other Dean writings as a major source, and have plenty of other scholarly references, so I think it highly unlikely we've missed anything significant. However, I think it looks odd to have this major work listed as "Further reading", so I've deleted it from there.
- The article has changed a great deal from its peer review some days ago. I wonder if it's worth contacting one of the peer reviewers and asking for a quick once-over, so that a neutral pair of eyes can make some judgement on the article's current quality? Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is worth holding the FA nom for a few days while we try to access the Dean/Knapp book. Your target date for TFA is 14 April; Today's featured article, Saxbe fix, was only promoted on 28 February, and quite recently Edgar Speyer, promoted on 10 February, was featured on 1 March. So there is no need to rush. The FAC will be quicker, and much less painful, if we are seen to have sought use of the best sources. I personally doubt that Dean/Knapp will say much of significance regarding Agrippina beyond what we already have, but if you can access it though the National Library of Scotland, we can at least cite a couple of facts to it. I don't understand your comment about the nomination, can you explain more clearly why you want me to do it? Brianboulton (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Britannica refs probably OK now. I will do the citation templates, this evening: I hate them, too, but I've found from long experience that they usually save trouble in the end. I still have to do a thorough prose check on the article - I'll try to do that this evening, and report back tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion re books: A few relevant pages from Dean on Handel are available as previews at Google Books, [2] and [3]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re above, the first link relates to Dean & Knapp Vol II, 1726-1751, which is not relevant to Agrippina. The second is a general Handel book which I am looking through. Meanwhile I have found quotes from Dean & Knapp Vol 1, and have incorporated them into the article. See last sentence of Composition section, end of first paragraph of Music section and first sentence of next paragraph. Anything more you can add will be good. User:Ruhrfisch, who did the recent peer review, has agreed to look at the article again later today. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Latest: Ruhrfisch has revisited the PR and left further comments which I've dealt with. I am a bit worried about the status of some of the images, and have asked an image expert to take a quick look. Haven't heard from you today - perhaps you could let me know what if anything you have dug up. We can then decide when and how the article goes to FAC. I will be out most of Saturday (7th) but will be online later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re above, the first link relates to Dean & Knapp Vol II, 1726-1751, which is not relevant to Agrippina. The second is a general Handel book which I am looking through. Meanwhile I have found quotes from Dean & Knapp Vol 1, and have incorporated them into the article. See last sentence of Composition section, end of first paragraph of Music section and first sentence of next paragraph. Anything more you can add will be good. User:Ruhrfisch, who did the recent peer review, has agreed to look at the article again later today. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Notable? If not, please nominate for deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Pinafore
I reformatted the dates in Brit date style. Can you please fix the historical cast tables so that they look neat like the ones in Trial by Jury? Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, Should the G&S project subscribe to this?: Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing
- If so, kindly subscribe us. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Is it possible to make the tables a size smaller, and maybe fit them onto two tables instead of three? I think that would look better in the article and reduce the complaints that we received with Trial about how much room they take up in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- That looks nice. Only one thought: When text wraps in a box, why is there so much space between lines. Can you get it to clos up so that there is not so much white space? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Super! That's just what I was hoping for. Can you fix the line height in the previous "productions" table just above it? It this works for all browsers, we should definitely do it for all the articles - I agree that it's good to wait and see if there are any comments about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You wrote: "Oh, god. More newspaper diving. Oh, well! Might not get this done before the final FA polish - I'm already a little behind with some essays for University, but if I have a chance, I'll try and find 3-4 contemporary reviews and discussions." Please don't nominate articles for review until you are in a position to be able to help out with responding to reviews in reasonably prompt fashion. Otherwise your nomination is as good as saying "I nominate Ssilvers to respond to this review." Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
Agrippina update
Are you back with this project (saw your responses on peer review)? Please contact me for further discussion and agreement on a rational timetable for taking the article forward. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK. From the peer review you will see that I have removed unlicensed images and replaced them, where possible. I have also replaced the apparently dodgy Handel portrait. I am continuing to scour my shelves, and the library's, for more information, and have added further material into the Music section (which I have basically rewritten), and elsewhere. I am currently going through the synopsis, checking it against Hall's original summary. I also want to reintroduce into the synopsis references to arias which someone has cut out.
- My belief is that we need at the very least until Saturday 14th before going ahead with an FAC nom. Assuming a 12-14 days' candidacy, and a successful outcome, that gives around 16-18 days before 14 April. As soon as the article is in FAC I will leave a note on the TFA talkpage requesting that this date be kept free, for the moment, on account of the Handel annversary.
- I am only interested in going for this as a co-nom. If you want me to field most of the FAC comments, that's fine, but since you initiated this project, I really think you should make the nomination with me as co-nom. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- As to what needs still to be done, my next main job will be a rewrite of the synopsis. Although I agree that the present version is OK (except for some third act confusion), there will be no answer at FAC to the question as to why we are relying on a translation of a summary of the libretto instead of summarising the libretto itself. I have the libretto - in Italian, but I can work out the meaning - and can base my version on that. Where the existing phrasing is adequate I won't change it. I will also use this opportunity to restore to the synopsis references to key arias, which were taken out some days ago by a visiting editor.
- Apart from the synopsis I am still trying to improve sources. Anything you can do in this line would be great. The Dean-Knapp 1704-26 book continues to elude me, though I shall be in London on Wednesday, and hope to make it to the ROH library. I also want to think about the best response to the Opera Project criticisms of the article's structure, and finally I want plenty of time for a line-by-line final edit to ensure grammar and prose are up to standard. I, and no doubt you, have other things to do meantime, so I reckon that Saturday 14th March should be our target FAC nom day. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re your last comment on my talkpage, I said I wanted "to think about the best response to the Opera Project criticisms of the article's structure", not that I wanted to capitulate. I prefer emmolient language to confrontation. Nothing will be done in this line without your agreement. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
Pinafore
Thanks for the message. I've been working pretty hard on the article. Please check my changes. Also, I have left it up to you to integrate in any further materials from Stedman and Jacobs. Note particularly the "analysis" section, which could use some more research. It would also be nice to have a review from the New York opening if you can find one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
Agrippina - latest
I hope you are feeling less ill. The situation on Agrippina is now as follows:-
- I have redone the synopses, using an Italian libretto as my base rather than the second-hand summary. My Italian isn't great, but I can understand enough so that, with my knowledge of the plot, I can do a pretty accurate summary.
- I have tried putting the synopses and the cast list in the article after the Background, composition etc stuff. This is as far as I want to go in the direction of the Opera Project's preferences. I think it's OK, it's a logical and defensible sequence. If you have a real problem with this, let me know quickly.
- I was not able to dig up any further source material at the ROH, so that's it—we go with what we've got. Tonight I will begin to go through the prose line by line, and try and rid it of typos, redundancies, poor phrasing etc, so that it is as crisp as possible. When I've done this, it will be ready for FAC.
- Since the article history shows that I am now the main editor, I had better do the nomination, with you as co-nom (I had intended it the other way round, but it will be expected that I do as the main editor). Unless I hear from you otherwise, I will do this some time tomorrow (Friday) evening. Then it will be in the lap of the gods. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agrippina is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Pinafore comments are up
See Talk:H.M.S. Pinafore/GA1. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. I see you are one of the main editors for H.M.S. Pinafore. I put up some review comments a little while ago. While the content of this article is great, and I don't doubt it will reach FA in due course, I made suggestions about the structure of the article which so far don't appear to be being implemented. (Not that I'd expect them all to be implemented, and I have noted some of Ssilvers comments regarding particular issues). I still feel the structure could improve and I'd like to be able to tick this off. As reviewer of something that represents the painstaking work of a small group of dedicated editors I'm reluctant to "be bold" and attempt a re-structure myself. If the main editors want me to have a shot at that, let me know and I might be able to have a go this weekend. Otherwise, though, I'm figuring this article will be in your and Ssilver's capable hands :-) Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What a lovely surprise!
|
The Barnstar of High Culture | |
| Because the dream of having a featured article with a featured picture is not the "child of an idle brain". Thank you for your beautiful contribution! Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
Agrippina references
OK, but can we agree that in future, disagreements between us arising from the review need to be sorted out here and on my talkpage, rather than being advertised on review page itself?
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WikiCup Newsletter
| The WikiCup Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your comments would be appreciated
As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Urgent
Please look at the W. S. Gilbert talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Rhyolite images
I'm not quite sure whether you mean for me to look for more images or whether you are offering to look. I was also not sure what you meant by "Featured Pictures"; that is, I couldn't tell whether you meant to pursue a project separate from the Rhyolite article or whether you meant that the images in the article should be replaced by better ones. I'm also curious to know what wing of the Library of Congress to search. Any research tips or links to archives would be appreciated. Up to now, I've used mostly my own photos or images from the Commons that had what looked to me like proper licenses. The mine image was, as far as I can recall, my first attempt at hunting down, modifying, uploading, and licensing an archived image from someone else's collection. Much obliged for any advice. Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- And, oh my goodness, I just noticed above that you have lots of experience with Featured Pictures. I have none. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Agrippina edit conflict
Judging by your edit summaries, you were editing at the same time as I was, and changing things before I had finished. I suppose I should have put an "inuse tag" on. Anyway, all is well now I think. I have been firefighting an intervention which late last night introduced new problems into the page (see talkpage). I am trying to keep a lid on this to avoid it spilling on to the FAC, so please try not to be provocative! As to why the recitative was included in the list, it is the one and only accompanied" recit in the opera, and is mentioned twice in the article, so I included it with the arias, marked "accompanied recitative". Someone else relabelled it. I'm too tired to bother, now, so I suggest we leave it out unless someone notices. Please ping me when you have read this so I know you are up to speed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Shoemaker's, I just noticed your intervening edits. To answer, NHHA usually numbers (and FC has included) everything that will be rehearsed with orchestra, including accompagnati but excluding secco recits. Logical enough, though a pain when one is rehearsing from mixed Messiah editions!Sparafucil (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: New Norfolk, Tasmania
Aye, Surprised that it looks like it'll pass actually Noodle snacks (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Please address the comments, since they've been up for a while. I have already left my responses. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- When can you work on shortening the Reception section? You need to summarize The Times review (I don't have it) as well as the hostile Figaro review, which is just a ridiculous bunch of lies from a reviewer who probably didn't even see the production, and you need to explain why Figaro was hostile to WSG. I'll leave it to you, since I added all the other reception stuff. OK? Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Upcoming FAC
Re: the article you plan on taking to FAC, Sandy suggested getting User:Eubulides in advance. Raul654 (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
 |
No communication?
We are supposed to be co-noms on the Agrippina article, but since the FAC opened there has been virtually no direct communication between us. The impression to outsiders might be that we are not working together. This may be partly my fault, and if I have offended you in some way please let me know, but in any event I would like to hear from you how you think the FAC is going, and whether you think there is more to be done to improve the article. If you have issues with the article, or with the way I have responded to reviewers' concerns, it is important that these are raised directly with me, via my talkpage, and not on the article's talkpage or through abrasive edit summaries. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tameing a Shrew etc
 |
colour correction
Hi, I just found this for someone else and thought I'd share it with you, as you seem to be tearing your hair out with colour corrections these days! When the LoC provide colour charts, spot on colour is usually just a couple of clicks away. Cheers, mikaultalk 11:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- GIMP isn't quite so easy but the same principle applies. If you sample any of the colour chart's grayscale patches with the Colour Picker tool it'll give you three (R,G,B) numerical values for it. They should be equal. If they're not, you have to tweak the individual (R,G,B) channels with the Curves tool until they are. White is always 255,255,255; Black is always 0,0,0; neutral gray measures at any triplicate of equal values between them, depending where on the chart you sample. Get that right and the colour balance of the image should just fall into place. --mikaultalk 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
Hi SH,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:HMSPinafore2.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 22, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-03-22. Note that this image wasn't actually in the H.M.S. Pinafore article, so I stuck it back in. howcheng {chat} 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you and your opera friends for all your work and material, here and in related articles. I have cleared Pinafore at GA, and I don't doubt it will be on its way to FA in good time. Best wishes. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Agrippina - Dean & Knapp chapter
If you let me have your email address I will forward the chapter to you. It is essential, however, that we don't work at cross-purposes in incorporating any of this material. When I have finished reading, before making any edits I will let you have a brief summary of what I think we should use; you can then add your own suggestions to the list. From what I have read so far there won't be any major changes; some additional analysis in the "Music" section, some further performance history, a few added details here and there, and some stuff on the thorny issue of the editions. Let's try and get this done quickly: the FAC has been stalled for nearly a week, the clock is ticking on towards the anniversary date, and we both have other things to move on to. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Glad you have the chapter. If you can weave into the synopsis a few scene indications, e.g. "Outside the palace,..." or, "The action now moves to Poppaea's bedroom, where..." - then fine, provided the narrative isn't too much disturbed. Why don't you have a go, post it and see how it looks? My general view is that the chapter confirms a lot of things already in the article, adding more detail in a number of areas without containing anything problematic. I am currently dealing with a small number of non-contentious points, for example date of performance, place of composition, additional performance history, instrumentation of the music, etc. These are small additions, which I will post shortly, so you can see them & comment if you wish. I want to add something to the Music section, and tonight will look closely at the tangled mess of information about editions, alternative arias etc, about which the chapter, on first reading, is far from clear. Keep pinging me here if you see anything which causes you a problem. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Have responded to your detailed points on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have done most of the small things. The main thing I've done is to rearrange and add stuff into the Music section (I've taken some stuff out too). Let me know if you have problems with this. I'm now in the murky world of editions - will report on that tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've done the rest of my stuff, and I propose shortly to ask Awadewit to start looking at the revised article. That shouldn't stop you going ahead with your bits, but it might be prudent to go carefully until she has spoken. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Awadewit has given the article unconditional support now. Another editor has added support. I suggest we leave any further changes until after the FAC closes, which I imagine will be fairly soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry you've been ill. Like I say, at the moment best do nothing. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Awadewit has given the article unconditional support now. Another editor has added support. I suggest we leave any further changes until after the FAC closes, which I imagine will be fairly soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've done the rest of my stuff, and I propose shortly to ask Awadewit to start looking at the revised article. That shouldn't stop you going ahead with your bits, but it might be prudent to go carefully until she has spoken. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have done most of the small things. The main thing I've done is to rearrange and add stuff into the Music section (I've taken some stuff out too). Let me know if you have problems with this. I'm now in the murky world of editions - will report on that tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Have responded to your detailed points on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
Can you make this collapse?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sullivan_operas&action=edit Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. We don't need to include the G&S operas, because they are already in the G&S template. But, if it's collapsed, I wouldn't object, if you prefer it. I like the way it is, because if someone looks at one of the SWOG's it helps them easily navigate to the other SWOGs without getting bogged down in the G&S operas, which the G&S template covers. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Just go ahead and collapse it, please. Don't worry, I don't need to see it in advance; I have seen the other ones you did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Ero e Leandro
|
On March 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ero e Leandro, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Dravecky (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe your concerns have been addressed. Please look at the alternates. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Vis a vis WikiCup
Any particular reason why? No need to actually say, I'm just curious, as you appeared to be doing very well. GARDEN 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
Hey SH, there is an edited version of the image you commented about at the nomination. Could you please check it out? --Muhammad(talk) 10:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
PD review
See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Agrippina main page request
I was going to ask you to do the request anyway, as the whole thing was your idea in the first place. Let's hope it succeeds, and I trust you are feeling better. Brianboulton (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re barnstar - it's the thought that counts - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you're feeling better. Can you get to this soon? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think I figured it out. See if I did it right. Also, can we crop the photo of Sullivan to get rid of all the unused space at the top? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
RFC on signature subst'ing
Since you were involved in shaping the current guideline on substing signatures, you may wish to see WT:SIG#Substrfc. –xeno (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Frak, that is a sure sign that reading too much postmodernist magical thinking claptrap has rotted my brain. That whole range of modalities sentence I tried to compromise into the lead is weaselly and undersourced. Really, that article desperately needs a good source describing the frequency with which practitioners avail themselves of different modalities. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Or whether your particular batch of supplements was made from the right part of the right plant that if the mixture was well-homogenized each of the big green pills will contain a therapeutically-relevant amount of the putatively active ingredient. Good luck if you try to whack some more sense into that article before I get back. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikicup
Never! 
–Juliancolton | Talk 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Verdi
Thanks for your note. You may be aware that I have been doing a lot of work on the Verdi opera articles over the past few months, especially the early operas which were lacking quite a bit. This work has included:
- Performance history sections are expanded, again especially for the early operas.
- Roles boxes exist for all.
- With one exception, Aroldo, all the synopses are act-by-act and scene-by-scene fleshed out and arias integrated into them. I'll work on that soon. Un giorno di regno lacks an English translation of the first lines of the arias, but I don't have an Italian/English libretto.
- Selected recordings exist for all, I believe.
Clearly, many are lacking a more detailed opening paragraph and further infomration of various sorts. However, the later operas also need attention and I see in the case of Otello that there has been a flag on one rather "essay-like" rambling section for quite a while.
So, I'll be happy to contribute what I can to the work on any of the operas. All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD on Sheree Silver
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Please be informed. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
: 30 March 2009
- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Userpage kats
Ur userpage was below the minimum kat quota but I haz fixed this for you. Ceiling Cat (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Pinafore
There is already an "Analysis" section. Your discussion of sources should go in there, I think, or be a subsection of that. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
_09633u.jpg)
Hi SH,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 3, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-03. howcheng {chat} 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget
to sign your comments. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Cochineal
I'd suspect just two points. An insect is an insect, and 12 year olds are unlikely to do reports on this one. This article was nommed in January for Australia Day, can't remember if you did it or someone else, and the comments were (from Sandy, I think) that it was in pretty poor shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Serif font
Wikipedia used what is now called the "Classic" skin; sometime in (I think) 2004 it changed to Monobook, the current skin. Classic used serif (I think Times), and as you observed Monobook uses sans serif. Complaints at legibility were made at the time (see Wikipedia talk:Serif or sans-serif), and speakers of slavic languages complained that the font Windows actually used to render sans-serif Monobook incorrectly rendered slavic diacritical marks on latin characters correctly (although I checked Czech now, and it's in monobook, so I guess that's fixed). For yourself you can change to classic skin in the preferences panel (although Classic's rendering on the modern mediawiki engine differs enough from Monobook to sometimes be an issue). Dog Day Today (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to drop you a note to assure you I'm not a nutjob homeopathy-POV pusher, and if you come across anything else I've written that appears to fall into that category, let me know and and I'll fix it. I'll put the Bovista article higher on my "to-do" list, and by increasing its length, reduce the relative proportion of the homeopathy paragraph to the remainder of the article. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just dropping by to say the same thing. If Sasata's maintaining the article and intends to take it to GA, I don't think you need to worry about a thing. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XI
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Agrippina
Your original request was for the 14th, and here you asked (after I had already left to go on the road for several days) for the 6th or 9th. Now it's too late for the 6th, but I can still make the 9th or 14th happen, if that's what you want. Raul654 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Sheree Silver
Thanks for the head's up. I don't know what to add at this point, since at this point the issue has progressed to the dead horse stage; Black Kite might just appreciate as many of us staying out of it as possible. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- And I agree with your reasoning: it's always nice for someone to know when she/he needs to defend one's opinions. Despite my instincts, though, I can't help but mull on adding my two cents' to the discussion. (Primarily, I don't care especially either way, but two appearances on a reality show don't merit an article on Wikipedia.) I just worry that if I add to the discussion on his talk page, I'll ramble far too much & harm my case. -- llywrch (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up from me too, though my ability to keep my mouth shut is compromised by not having a little voice over my shoulder warning "no!" :) --WebHamster 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks from me too - I have commented on Black Kite's talk page but I refuse to defend my comments in the Afd, they were reasonable and supported by other !votes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to personally apologize, Shoemaker's Holiday, if I offended you in any way by the discussion on Black Kite's page. I was just making sure the closing admin had read the consensus correctly. Spring12 (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Wicked World
No problem. I guess I've been spoiled by almost excessively enormous image sizes when viewing other restorations. SpencerT♦Nominate! 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
FS promoted
| Template:Multi-listen item |
Four Award
|
Four Award | |
| Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Creatures of Impulse. |
♠TomasBat 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're still interested
Hello SH. Another editor provided info about the methods requested. If you're still interested that is. And again, thank you for attempting to help. :)Synergy 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
Hi SH,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Watsonandtheshark-original.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 10, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-10. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
FPC Update
Any update on this? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Opera/Selected audio/22
Portal:Opera/Selected audio/22 - Any ideas on how to fix this one like the others? Cirt (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
 |
Pinafore
Hello, Shoe. I've put in info from Stedman, Jacobs, Ainger and Allen. Those are all the books I have. Can you add anything or is there anything else that you want to do to the article before we go to peer review? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Agrippina
I told you so. I told you so. I told you so.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations on getting an opera project article to FA and on the main page! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 |
Image question
Hey SH, I'm wondering if you can give me some very quick input on an image concern. File:KarenMok HKfestival2009.jpg was recently uploaded by an editor who claims s/he took the photo. In the past, this editor has uploaded other people's photos and claimed them as his own, so I just want to be cautious. In this case, the file page does have extensive camera metadata, so I am more willing to assume that the uploaded really did take it...is the camera metadata enough, or is there also a good way to search the internet and stuff to verify that the image isn't sitting around somewhere else? Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see; I jumped to conclusions because of how active you are at FP :). Anyway, I'll keep asking around; thanks for your reply. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Le Cid
I'm afraid I can't consider this at the moment, with too much going on. I have virtually no stuff on Massenet beyond what's in the basic reference books, and I don't have any time for in-depth research in this area. Best of luck with it, if you go ahead. On the bright side, I'm glad your almighty strop did the trick with Raul and that Agrippina will be on main page on 14th. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
What's that? Tippett, you say?
Surely Knot Garden can't be as bad as that - though granted I've never heard a note of it. Still, I've got a soft spot for Midsummer Marriage (which I would have loved to have seen when Chicago put it on a couple of seasons back). And I find myself liking what little I know of his other music more than I think I should. Ah, well...I doubt, at least, that it could top that absolute horror I saw in Baltimore some years back. The Alien Corn, that was called. Now there is an evening worth forgetting - totally useless piece of junk. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 08:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...oh. In that case, consign it to the dustheap. I confess that I don't know much of his vocal music at all; most of what I've heard is purely instrumental. It's Britten with wrong notes, and pulled apart a bit. As I say, I like it more than I ought.
- By the way, congratulations on making today's Featured Article! One of these days I mean to take my copy of John Tyrell's book on Janáček's operas and give Jenůfa the FA treatment; is that something you'd be interested in helping with? Or are your tastes more Baroque? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
: 13 April 2009
- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XII
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.\
Please rewrite Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC
And while you are at it archive your comments please. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Plot RFC comment
Hi Shoemaker. My best guess is that you created the RFC on the inclusion of plot summaries in WP:What Wikipedia is not (please let me know if I am wrong). Accordingly, I wanted to let you know that I have reworked the RFC intro. Please understand that this is not any sort of criticism of what you have written. I think it was a great start. Also I have moved your original statement into the discussion section so your argument is preserved, and I would request that you sign it. Please let me explain the rationale for my action. The intro to an RFC should state the nature of the disagreement and briefly summarize the main points in made in support of each position. Your previous intro was more of a pure position statement in opposition to inclusion of plot summaries in this policy. In addition to summarizing the points in favor of inclusion, I have tried to honestly and briefly summarize the points you have made in opposition. Hopefully this will present the most neutral introduction to the RFC to editors who may be entering this discussion for the first time, and allow for a balanced and well thought out discussion. Similarly, I have removed a few of the lines leading into the straw poll that I felt could polarize discussion or imply that the straw poll was a substitute for discussion. My hope is that we can all work together to find a consensus through discussion instead of just 'duking it out' in a poll, so to speak.
In order to hopefully allay any concerns you may have along these lines, let me also mention that I am undecided on this issue. There are many pages that are pure summary that I very much like and feel are valuable and would be unhappy to lose from Wikipedia. I very much understand and empathize with many of the arguments in favor of allowing pure plot summary in Wikipedia, and am concerned about the potential ramifications of a policy statement against it. On the other hand, I understand the arguments against plot summary and feel that there are strong points there too in terms of the overall quality of Wikipedia as a source of real world knowledge. My point is that I am on the fence about this, and I hope that solid, well reasoned, amicable discussion from both sides will help me decide, and will work towards a consensus policy that is best for Wikipedia.
Given the above, I feel like I am in a good position to be able to facilitate an RFC intro that everyone feels is fair and that maximized the quantity and quality of the debate from the community. Please do not take this as any sort of negative statement toward people of either persuasion; sometimes it is simply helpful both for execution and appearances if someone less invested in either standpoint helps with the wording. If you feel that there are any main points that I have missed in the RFC intro, or that I have mischaracterized any of your points, please let me know. I'll volunteer my help in clarifying or adding points that each side feels is necessary, in order to keep things orderly so there is not a giant edit war over the RFC intro, and so that there is an appearance of fairness to people of both perspectives. To be clear; I am not in any way trying to impose this approach; if you wish to make more edits to the intro you are clearly free to do so. I am merely suggesting that having a more neutral person do so might help things go smoothly.
In any case, my apology for the long comment, and I look forward to what will hopefully be a productive discussion in the RFC. Thanks-Locke9k (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 |
Colors
If you could take a look at Red, that would be great. Wrad (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment
FWIW, I really think this should have passed. I wish you had the votes. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
 |
 |
WikiCup Newsletter XIII
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Portal:Opera/Selected picture/11
Please remember, in the blurb text, to bold the article that is the focus of the text. Also, please remember not to wikify or otherwise code (bold, italics, etc) the text in the caption field - as the caption field is simply what appears in the rollover text on the image itself - it will not recognize the wiki coding. So, with that in mind, I made these fixes: [4]. Please keep that in mind when adding new entries to portals. :) Cirt (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Imponderables
This used to display. Any guesses why it doesn't anymore? DurovaCharge! 21:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 |
Hi, Shoemaker. Hamitonstone suggested that I contact you. He passed this article through GA review but suggested it could use a good copyedit to make it more user-friendly for people who are not musicians. Could you please help me out? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd appreciate whatever help you can lend. The goal is FA. Jonyungk (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 |
 |
WikiCup Newsletter XIV
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
POTD notification
Hi SH,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Tortilleras Nebel.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 27, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-27. Yes, I realize that's today, but I'd forgotten to notify you last night when I wrote the blurb -- sorry about that! howcheng {chat} 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Sorry I missed your IRC PM, I'm running home right now! howcheng {chat} 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
: 27 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
FPC and litterature
Hi, regarding the current discussion on the FPC talk page, i would like to clarify some personal points, without cluttering the talk page.
First i would like to say my intervention was in no way a rebuttal of your work. I have great respect for all the time you dedicate to Wikipedia and I must say i was even more surprised to know you had to buy something to do it. Moreover i took the Tristam Shandy submission only as an example of a broader problem. I could have used others, such as your Grant submission (where I don't even understand either point on the debate).
Now, on to the main point, i would like to try to explain to you why I can't assess your work as well as I would like. I'm also a big fan of literature. If you check my contributions, you will see that the main article I contributed to is literature-related : Les Rougon-Macquart.
This article is a good example to try to explain my point. The Rougon-Macquart are one of the main novel series in French literature. However, since there are almost no English translation of the book, nobody (even on the Wikiproject:Novels) is able to cross check what i wrote about it, or suggest improvements on it (except cosmetic ones). Were this to happens on the French wikipedia, almost anybody with a passing interest on literature would have something to say about the article.
For Tristam Shandy, I'm on the opposite side. You mention that it started a lot of English tropes, whereas I never heard about the book nor the author (but i do know about the four most important influences you cite). The article is well-written, but doesn't ring anything for me because it's written for people with prior knowledge about it. I sense that this book may indeed have a profound impact on English-speaking countries, but I can't tell how much. As for as i know, it could even be a biased viewpoint from some fans (note that I'm not accusing you of any bias, I'm just saying others articles on non-notable subjects may have this kind of bias). Therefore, I feel I'm not qualified to assess the picture.
Best regards, Ksempac (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 |
Signpost Interview
Thanks again for the offer :) The first three questions are here. Thanks again! GARDEN 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
 |
POTD notification
Hi SH,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Beethoven opus 101 manuscript.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-04. The audio files are included too, but I'm not sure how I'm going to get those on the Main Page yet. howcheng {chat} 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Henry Purcell
Hi. I'm planning to overhaul King Arthur and The Indian Queen over the next week or two. Just thought I'd let you know so we avoid treading on each others' toes at this early stage. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. There's no hurry with the Purcell project (remember, the anniversary is in December). I'll get back to you about King Arthur when I've done my bit. --Folantin (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
 |
 |
Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XV
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Featured content dispatch
Hi! I noticed this suggestion you made at WP:FCDW:
- How to find, scan, and prepare engravings from old books well enough to make a credible FPC run. - This would pretty much be me (Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)) explaining how I work, in collaboration with one or two others who I'd lead through such a process. Might work best as a series.
I think this is a great idea. I'd be happy to help with the 'making it a dispatch' part of the work if you are still interested in writing it. Maralia (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
RFC?
The RFC did not wind up with a clear consensus to removed WP:NOT#PLOT from policy. If you think it did, please explain to me how.—Kww(talk) 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Policies are only changed with clear consensus to change. There's an inertia to policies that must be maintained for stability. I agree that something has to shift, and the RFC clearly indicates that something has to shift, but removing it from policy is premature and excessively bold.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
RFAR
Hi -- can I suggest that you expand your statement by explaining why you feel this falls within the jurisdiction of Arbcom? It seems at best unclear. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
RFAR clarification request
SH - I don't usually get involved in RFAR issues that don't concern me. However, your experience regarding the MH case is close to something I've had happen to me in real life (not wikipedia). I made some errors in judgement in executing some responsibilities, which happened to fall on the radar of a certain group that was seeking to effect some changes. I was publically excoriated for what I had done in a way where the reaction was far in excess of the stimulus and more a reflection of a certain clique's agenda than my actual performance. It wasn't a pleasant experience, none the least since I had to agree that to a certain extent they had a point.
Ultimately others spoke up for me, and clearly many more people felt I was being unfairly singled out. With time the whole thing blew over. But someone searching hard enough for me by name can still come across traces. This type of blowup happens all the time - politics is the best example, but anytime you do anything with any public face, it is a risk. What is more, anyone who does anything worthwhile knows others face that risk, and will not judge you harshly for having had the experience.
My advice, as an impartial observer to this situation but also having been in a similar position, is just move on with your life. Ignore it. The cat is out of the bag and periodically someone may write something unpleasant about you and it somewhere. That will not change regardless of what Arbcom would do now. If someone stumbles across it, most likely they will ignore it. If they decide to investigate further, there is enough in the record from more than a year ago that they will discount it. However, to be rather blunt, your repeated attempts (a year ago and now) to reopen the discussion look more suspect and less mature than ignoring the issue altogether.
The bystander comments at your clarification request are by and large supportive of you and critical of Arbcom. That probably feels good but don't let it gear you up for a fight where winning doesn't mean anything. As usual, NYB has it right. In fact, I would go even further than what I wrote above: to "ignore it". I would withdraw your clarification request, requesting a clerk close it (not blank it, hide it, ... - just close it and archive it in the usual way), thanking both the current arbitrators and peanut gallery for their comments and in particular for their reaffirmation that findings reflecting adversely on you have been withdrawn. Then I would go on doing worthwhile things to the best of my ability with my head held high, without ever letting myself be provoked to discussing it again in a public or semi-public setting. There is nothing to gain. Martinp (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely my opinion. With time, all this will pass, move down the google rankings a bit etc, and stop being talked about; if it doesn't keep being brought up. Sticky Parkin 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate file
Hi SH, I deleted File:Handel - Fitzwilliam Sonata 3.ogg here (on Wikipedia) as it was a duplicate file (also on Commons). I am unable to find an English Wikipedia Featured Sounds template on Commons to add, though. I assume you know where this is an can add it. If for some reason you want it restored here, please let me know and I will do so. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks - I had it on my watchlist from DYK and generally clear our duplicates when I notice them, but understand having this here too. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Útgarða-Loki
Pretty sure it's Louis, not Charles. See File:Giant Skrymir and Thor.jpg. But, wow! Awesome scan! Haukur (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your work is appreciated, it's great to have such high-quality versions. And I'm certainly still keen on the other book! Haukur (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Grant FPC
I know reaction to this is really pissing you off, but ranting probably won't help you any. I agree with you, but the sarcasm won't help you any, I expect. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Signpost again
I'm putting it up for publishing now. Thanks for your help! GARDEN 19:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
: 11 May 2009
- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Red Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to the revolutionary Shoemaker's Holiday, for his/her continued work on policy pages. Thank you for making a difference in so many wikipedians lives by helping chart the course of what wikipedia is an where it is going. Ikip (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
- Have you considered deleting or archiving your comments? I am having problems loading your page because it is so big. Ikip (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'll get to that shortly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
plot stuff
Just wanted to say that it's helpful to see the discussion shift away from "ideal" or "principled" proposals, and instead towards incremental changes that most people can live with. It's not pretty, but that's how consensus building works. I think your latest proposal is more or less bang on, and better than what we had before. But above all, patience goes a long, long way here. Give people time to simmer on it, and maybe massage the language, if only so they can feel important. Process matters. People don't like to feel like they're being force-fed something, and often like to feel included. For an issue that's as contentious as this, we have to expect some amount of bickering. Randomran (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- When people can't agree on how to sculpt something, find ways to build coalitions that will help you chip away at it a bit at a time. When the coalition to leave it be is bigger than the coalition to chip away, you'll know you've taken it as far as it can go. We're making progress. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Consensus
Yeah, but we don't slap disputed tags over everything we don't agree with, especially on policy pages. If there's a discussion going on, that's fine. If the discussion doesn't reach a consensus, then that's fine as well. Otherwise practically every single policy on the Wiki would have "dubious" tags plastered all over it. FWIW, I think PLOT needs overhauling. What it doesn't need is removing - that's a fancruft nightmare waiting to happen. We already have enough useless, redundant, plot-only non-articles which waste endless amounts of time. Black Kite 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
 |
Archiving of Amendment Request in MH ArbCom Case
Hi Shoemaker's Holiday, FYI the request was archived by AGK on a private direction from some member(s) of ArbCom. I have posted to AGK's talk page about this, and also notified Carcharoth. Best, EdChem (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Per list
Very well; I'll see what I can do. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 |
Speedy deletion nomination of File:N. M. Price - Sir Walter Scott - Guy Mannering - At the Kaim of Derncleugh original scan.png
A tag has been placed on File:N. M. Price - Sir Walter Scott - Guy Mannering - At the Kaim of Derncleugh original scan.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FASTILY (TALK) 04:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Lemavia hoaxes
You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Series_of_possible_hoaxes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Apollo 11 featured picture version
Thanks for doing the promotion. I see you've tagged File:Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000629.jpg with {{FP}}. But isn't that the unrestored version? Why not tag File:Apollo 11 Launch2.jpg? Sorry if I've got this confused! - Pointillist (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks again - Pointillist (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 |
Pinafore
Wait. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, take another look: The Bab ballads are most important to the Background section - the fact that Gilbert used them in writing the show is an important part of the show's genesis. We should also say that the Bab Ballads had been very popular, no? Then, in the Analysis/satire section, we can just expand upon the ones that Stedman said were important to the satire of the show. The fact that a character was introduced previously is not an explanation of the satire, it is just part of the background. If you want to discuss what is satiric about it, that can go in the satire section, but I am certain that they fact that these Ballads were used must be mentioned in the Background section. As for the Lead, I think it's enough to say that he used some of the Bab Ballads, and list them out in the Background section. Now I'm going to read your newest message to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, linking them from Wikisource is a good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Did you look at the peer review comments? There are a number of issues, especially re: some references, that I did not have a really good response for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Awadewit promised to give us a review, but has not gotten to it yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us.
BTW, isn't it time to archive this very, very long talk page? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is, but I really need to copy over all the FP promotions into my gallery first, and I've been lazy. I'll have a look at the project in the morning. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000629.jpg
Hi you marked File:Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000629.jpg for speedy deletion. However it is a Featured picture for the en:wikipedia, and the commons entry does not mention this. When you nominate this type of thing for speedy delete, can you please transfer the marking to the commons file entry so that nothing is lost when we delete it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, now deleted, I should have compared the name of the image rather than the look of the image, and thanks for removing the full sized display yourself! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XVI
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Treasure Island illustrations
I don't even own a copy of Photoshop and have never restored an image of any kind. I'm not sure what kind of contribution I could make. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: Vauxhall image
Unfortunately, with Highers currently ongoing I'm trying my hardest to avoid doing pretty much anything on Wikipedia :/ I'm a bit annoyed at my own lack of self discipline in that issue as you can probably tell I am still editing at my usual rate (not good). I'll get to your image as soon as I can or as soon as I would like to, that is, after exams are over. This year my final two Highers, Spanish and Art & Design, are both on June 5 so I will likely be able to get round to those on the weekend following that. Sincere apologies Shoe, but I really do want to at least attempt to study :) Hope you understand, GARDEN 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
: 18 May 2009
- From the editor: Writers needed
- Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
- Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!
 |
Pinafore peer review
Did you review Ealdgyth's comments yet? Can you please let me know what you think? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please also see what you can do here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/H.M.S._Pinafore/archive1#Awadewit_comments_.28finally.29 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Question
Hello! By any chance, might you reconsider on the Anastasia discussion? As you can see, I have been working pretty hard to improve this one. Given the historical basis for the character, the titular appearance in a film, video game, and novel as well as having been marketed in about a half dozen different dolls, I am coming across a number of sources from which to construct an out of universe article. I next hope to see if I can find any interviews for a production section, but anyway, I truly believe we have the basis for something here. One other note, the ones for Anastasia and Drizella Tremaine essentially concern the wicked stepsisters from Cinderella. These could easily be merged into a Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella type of article. If you check Google Books doing a search of that nature, they are discussed in academic books in an analytical and out of universe manner, because these characters' have origins that go back to at least the early 1800s with the Brother's Grimm. Their transformation from the original literary characters to the Disney film appear in such books as this. Whether their role in the individual film is notable, their place in a centuries old literary and then film culture is something that has indeed been covered in academic resources and in this case, a merge to a new article on the wicked stepsisters together seems appropriate, because these are characters that certainly at least English teachers/students as well as those studying folklore and its reception in modern culture have written on and have an interest in. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding this, thank you for keeping an open mind. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Matthew Hoffman
A statement covering the points you requested is being drafted. However, progress has been slower than we'd like because of the simultaneous efforts to clear our case backlog. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
NPOV/FAQ
Per your comment on the NPOV/FAQ talk page, can you rewrite Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion so that it's a concise statement suitable for inclusion in NPOV Policy instead of its current question/answer form - similar to what Dave did for the Wikipedia:NPOV#Making_necessary_assumptions and Wikipedia:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 sections? Once that's done, we can move it to WP:NPOV proper. Thanks. Dreadstar † 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Pinafore
'Nuff said. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Promoting and delisting
Sorry, but I didn't know how to do what you asked me! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XVII
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 20:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.
Yay!
 |
- Also, ya might wanna archive your talk page ;) — Jake Wartenberg 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
DRAMA report
In answer to your question from a few days ago, it's the "Discussion report", about ongoing discussions of policy and other issues of community-wide interest: "Discussion Report And Miscellaneous Articulations" (like TROLL and BRION, the punnish acronyms for the arbitration and technology reports).--ragesoss (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)