User talk:thedemonhog/2009

Hey, Happy New Year!

And congrats on MKJ passed as a FA. It certainly took long enough! --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 07:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, [1] And Happy New Year !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Faerie Tale Theatre

Hi. In this edit from half a year ago, you added an image to an episode article of Faerie Tale Theatre, a TV series that you seem to know comparibly well and that I don't know at all. The articles don't seem that popular to expect improvement and the plot is likely very close to the original fairy tales, so I am currently looking into how far this show needs individual episode articles in the first place. Google News/Books/Scholar indicates some notability, but I am not sure if that is because of the notable actors or because of the notability of the TV series or in fact notability of the episodes. I have redirected some stubs, and wonder if the remaining articles should be bold-redirected, tagged for lack of notability, or be proposed for a merger (i.e. "redirect proposal"). What's your take before I proceed? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Happy New Year. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That was weird: I had no recollection of making that edit and I have never seen the series and did not know how I could have found that article and picture, but after some digging through my contributions, I found out why I did that. Happy New Year, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And the LOL prize goes to... I'll decide what I can do there, later. Thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Not that you are going to see this…) Ehh, I was hoping for a userbox when I saw that link, so no thank you. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes i am going to see this :) And there is a userbox flying around somewhere, ill see if i can find the link   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just knocked one up, see User:Promethean/No2   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that is less in-your-face. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice anything about Faraday's left foot?

His left. Got pointed it out by someone on Google Talk. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What the heck!?!? That's not just hidden, it's actually not there. You can see up the sleeve.. Wonder how that happens.. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me it gets chopped off halfway through the season! lol. I'm guessing it was just a photoshop error, but the right shoe also looks empty... Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 15:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah (sorry for the late reply), I saw that a while back. It's amazing how they missed that or how they were able to send this off to the press a couple of seasons back. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'll probably write the Jughead article, depending on what I have doing on next Friday (I'm still not readjusted to the shift back to Wednesdays, and I have more free time on Fridays anyway). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost premiere

Following a big debate with my son over dinner about the date of the Lost premiere (he insists it's the 21st, I said I had it on good authority it was the 22nd), can you clarify at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#January 22? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wednesday 21st Jan, according to http://abc.go.com/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

January 21 EST & PST/January 22 UTC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:TFA/R page; isn't it better to run the article the actual day it premiere's that night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TV episode article

Hi, if you are not too busy I would appreciate your help with a TV article I've written. As the person with probably the most experience in episode article FACs, I wondered if you could take a look at Premiere (The O.C.), and comment on anything that might need doing for an FAC at its peer review. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, I get to it eventually, but for now, read the notices at the top of this page. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia

Sorry for waiting over a month to respond, but just to let you know, I listed all of my issues regarding the article in the GA reassessment. It's been delisted anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because You Left

Hello, sorry to bother you, but I've been recently reverting certain and possibly nonsensical edits from an anon (IP address 190.66.135.205) concerning Because You Left. I have warned him or her to not do it again, and pointed out the Three-revert rule. That said, I'd rather request that this user be temporarily blocked for editing, since a very similar IP user has done the same edits anyway (possibly from the same person), and I don't like to go into an edit war, since it could prevent the article from being an FA, or even a GA. But of course, if you think I may have over-reacted or have done something else wrong, then feel free to warn me instead. Thanks for your time. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your watching this article anymore but...

I thought I would reply. Best TDH. — R² 09:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost episodes

Hello, I was wondering if there is a reason why the Lost episode infoboxes use Episode chronology rather than the list of season episodes that can be found on most episode pages. I've been considering switching to that format, but I wanted your opinion first (and if it's the fact that the boxes would be very long, the list can be made collapsible, like what can be found here). Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do already have those templates at the bottom. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Clips.

Sorry about the spoiler. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It has and always will be the price that I pay for being a part of WikiProject Lost.  :) –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, I know, but if I would've known, and I should've thought about it actually, I would've put a warning. Once again sorry. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Spoilers from "This Place is Death", if you haven't seen it: Damn, you were right about Charlotte. It's a shame, though, as I really liked her and her relationship with Daniel. Also, what's up with the ever-changing backstory of Danielle? They should've just stuck to her originally story, i.e. contracting the "disease" from the Others, and not smokey. Still, all in all, it was a fantastic episode, and I'm loving the new bad-ass Sun. Hopefully the rest of the season's maintains this quality, and the episode "The Life and Death..." sound really intriguing. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was disappointed by how Rousseau's backstory changed and surprised by how highly praised the episode is at DarkUFO's website. Better than "The Man Behind the Curtain", really? And based on what Damon and Carlton said in the latest podcast, it looks like they will not be returning to Rousseau's story. This season is actually my least favourite thus far, as I feel that it is lacking in the character aspect of the show (versus the mythology), but I am quite excited for "316". –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind (them not returning to her story), but the way it was executed was too short and uninteresting. It provided hardly anything new, and what it did provide just contradicted everything we thought we knew. Oh well, as least it wasn't as bad as Michael's return, which was the biggest wasted opportunity. I am actually loving this season; the time travel aspect is really intriguing, but you're right, the character aspect is lacking somewhat. Hopefully they get back real soon (Oceanic 6), and I already know what Kristen has said about the topic... Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, d'you reckon Mrs Hawking is who Widmore says she is? I also just made the connection between Ellie on-island and Mrs. Hawking, thanks to the IP on the TPiD talk. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Who did Widmore say she is? "A very private person"? I do believe that Ellie and Eloise Hawking are one and the same. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, ABC/Lost definitely need a new photoshopper. New episode was nice, btw. Jeff Fahey without a beard is weird, maan. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't get the new Lost. At all. Especially Ben throwing away three years of character development. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank god I found a centralised discussion for what's going on. I've spend the entire morning watching this season's episodes all at once. I have three questions: (1) How come the Oceanic 6 have had 3 years pass, but those left behind is only a week? (2) Have we seen The Temple before? I can't remember. (3) Who is this Ellie you speak of? If anyone can explain, I'd be really grateful. Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The island was jumping in time between Ben and John turning the wheel. Sometimes it was in 1950 (the H-Bomb episode); sometimes in the 1980s (the Rousseau episode), and probably now either in 1970 or 2007 (the last two episodes).
2. Ben mentioned it at the end of the third season.
3. Eloise Hawking. The white-haired woman from Desmond's drug-trip lucid flashback in the third season who tells Desmond to go to the Island. The one who was living in a church season. And quite possibly the blonde Other that held Daniel at gunpoint in the H-Bomb episode. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with Ben, Will? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He strangled Locke! And I thought he was one of the good guys (or maybe he's just that good at being evil). Sceptre ^(talk) 10:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But for the people left behind, only a few days had passed. Yes, they had jumped in time, but their time was only a few days.. :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewedwards (talk • contribs) 04:47, February 27, 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia.

A minor "edit war" seems to be occurring at the Lost page. I don't want to go any further with it without getting input. Do you have an opinion over the addition/removal of Lostpedia? --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FLC nominations and reviews

Hi, Thedemonhog. You may not be aware, but the new Featured list criteria was implemented Sunday 5 April, 00:56 (UTC) following two weeks of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion.

I've gone through the nominations and have noticed the following have received reviews from you, but no indication whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL:

1. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille/archive1 (List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille)

Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, check them against the new Featured list criteria, and indicate whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL. It would be much appreciated as the nomination will not have to be kept open any longer than necessary.

Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly three years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I guess we all have two birthdays now? Anyways, have a happy WikiBirthday from me too! Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay! –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And from me too. May your editing be peaceful and your interactions be insanely pleasant. :D – Quadell ^(talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

hi

are u josh holloway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.34.92 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Awww, damn. There goes that theory... ;) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have gone with Evangeline Lilly. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lemony Snicket task force

Hello, Thedemonhog/2009 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to the works of Lemony Snicket. I'd like to invite you to become a member of the Lemony Snicket task force, a task force aiming to improve coverage of Lemony Snicket and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the task force page for more information. Thanks! — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 06:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Very off-topic Lost discussion

Just putting this here for tommorow for the LOST cabal (me, you, Jackie, Cornucopia, and 97198, et cetera) given that the finale airs tonight. If you want a laugh beforehand, check it.

Incidentally, so sorry that I wasn't able to do article writing this season. Coursework for the first half and exams revision for the second half, yeesh. I'll make an effort next year, I promise. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally do not really agree with this kind of discussion on Wikipedia, but I feel quite honoured to be hosting. I will second what Sceptre said about not article-writing or contributing much of anything since last summer. I hope that I do not find myself back in the eleventh grade if I ever go flashing through time. Anyway, this is definitely my least favourite season. There have not been any terrible episodes, but I think that there have been far too many plot-driven stories, fake deaths, disappointments, continuity errors and writing contrivances this year, not to mention those horrible submarine special effects from last week (and the lack of Jack). My favourite episodes thus far are "LaFleur" and "Follow the Leader", but I anticipate that "The Incident" will leave those in the dust. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Three words: What. The. Fuck. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I can totally relate. I just saw the final on the internet, and well... I'm a bit disappointed/in disbelief so I think it'll take me a couple of days to determine if I loved it or hated it. The whole Jacob vs. other guy thing is interesting, and so were the flashbacks. I REALLY hope the final scene doesn't mean that person is dead, because he/she is my favourite character!! Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 09:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, it says something about Lost when the Grey's Anatomy season finale outshocks the viewers. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

End of Lost (season 5) puts Seasons of Lost FT under retention

Hi, just to let you know you have 3 months from the end of Lost season 5, or until 13 August, to get the article to FL, or else the topic will be eligible for nomination for removal. Thanks ;) rst20xx (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, update. It seems Lost (season 6) was created on 26 August, so this means you have til 26 November to get that article peer reviewed and added to the topic. Further, the Lost season 5 retention has now ended, so someone could nominate the topic for removal at any time :/ rst20xx (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic has not met its retention period, so I am sorry to say I have nominated it for removal - rst20xx (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In need of your mentorship

Hi,

I need the advice of an experienced Wikipedian, and I saw your name over at WP:ADOPT.

I need advice concerning a WikiProject I've been coordinating. Here's the situation:

The project is WP:WPOOK. The set of pages the project concerns is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Projected outline, and has grown to about 500 articles in the encyclopedia. I also run a team of 5 advanced wiki-editors - the team communicates via user talk page posts. We use a variety of tools such as AWB, bots, Linky, etc. to execute tasks on batches of hundreds of pages at a time. Three of the team's members are admins, and 2 of the members have bot accounts. The team works on tasks that I assign, on the OOK and also on problems that the OOK has revealed in the encyclopedia-at-large (reverse outlines are good at that) - we've worked on things as diverse as creating country demonym disambiguation pages, to cleaning up the CIA World Factbook data on country "Demographics of" pages, to renaming "Cuisine of" articles to their demonymic form, to organizing the "Index of x articles" pages, etc. I also send out a newsletter or project update to the team, to the WikiProject members, and to anybody else who has been involved or who has expressed interest (20 to 30 Wikipedians).

So you see, we can implement just about any strategy. But we need more strategies. Your ideas on the following would be greatly appreciated...

The goals of the WikiProject are:

1. Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Wikipedia
2. Complete the existing outlines
3. Create an outline for every subject that is exensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields). There are thousands of these.
4. Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
5. Surpass portals in number by the end of the summer, and leave them in the dust by the end of the year
6. Get the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in place of or in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
7. Increase the OOK to higher quality than Britannica's Outline of Knowledge (published in its Propaedia volume).

We've posted over a thousand banners and notices so far, which resulted in just a couple complaints - one complainer posted at WT:WPOOK & WP:AN & WP:VPP and the other posted at WP:VPR. Not a bad negative feedback level for such a large posting. The complaints went nowhere, as several users came forward in defense of outlines.

I've proposed a 200-Wikiproject contest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and I had notices posted on the talk pages of all the corresponding country WikiProjects' talk pages.

I've created some pointers for developing outlines to guide editors through the process of building outline pages, because once many editors are attracted, I won't be able to instruct them one-on-one. I've also been working on a new article for the subject, since the current article is very lacking.

I was hoping you could comment on how to achieve the goals above.

Also I'm interested in every possible way of reaching readers and editors of Wikipedia. How can I get the most eyes and typing fingers on Wikipedia's outlines? Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. So how do I do it? Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your help.

I would also like to know how to find or attract editors to create new outlines. And I need advice on finding editors to help write the new outline article mentioned above (it needs to be fleshed out, completely referenced, and brought to featured article status).

Every little bit helps. So anything you know or come across would be most appreciated.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oldham's Station

And where do you suggest Oldham's station be mentioned? Should it just be relegated to that one episode? I'm pondering what to do, but if it shows up next season, that might be sufficient to put into the article.

You can't just call something a station—it needs to have its own Dharma logo, the metal doors, etc. It does not need anything more than a mention in the episode's article, as it is insignificant in that it only appeared in that episode and irrelevant to basically every other page. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead Is Dead

Hi! Judging by your comment at Talk:Dead Is Dead, you probably wanted to support the move request to "Dead is Dead" (you wrote "oppose capitalization"). The way you wrote it seems to suggest you're opposing (like I am, just above). Just in case someone just reads the oppose/support part, you probably want to make it clear which one it is :) Jafeluv (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine......but perhaps the Keamy 'apparition' should go in the Mythologies "Vision" part then. Whippletheduck (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hurleys Season 6 Video

They said it shortly before they announced it. They talked about how at Comic-Con over the years, they launched LOST for the first time, the pilot at Comic-Con 2004, and go on about how the fan's here have been so helpfull to them over the years. They talk about the other video's they have released over the years (like last years Orchid Station complete video) and then thank us the fan's with a first peak at season 6, and they air the Hurley video plus another one about Oceanic Airlines perfect flying record over the years. Whippletheduck (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to need a link. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

They have ALWAYS stated it that the videos they release at Comic-Con are canon, they said it for the entire Orchid Station video, the one that shows Dr Halliwax with the part where he is holding the rabbit and then the rabbit appears on top and Dr Haliwax shouts at the cameraman to turn it off. Anyway, I used Zap2It.com's analysis of Comic_Con and it's LOST implications if it will satisfy you. Are you going to get rid of the Orchid Station video reference that was also off the comic con video? Whippletheduck (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Keamy's apparition in DEAD IS DEAD

On the one hand I hear what you are saying, sure.

On the other hand.....he did appear in some sort of apparition form in a meaningful way. On the other hand....you have been kind a harsh towards me lately and it's clear you are looking to start problems.

So I could just put it back in, because it DID happen, and when someone appears in some sort of vision, it is notable. And if you remove it, i can just make a big deal about how it did happen and try to 3R you. Maybe I succeed and maybe I don't.

Lucky for us both at least I have better things to do. Whippletheduck (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Libby

Please move her back to the original page. we already have a precedent in these cases such as Alexandra Rousseau Linus so to avoid confusion to viewers, the name most commonly used in the show should be used.--23prootie (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You moved the article to Libby ( Lost ), which is completely incorrect with the spaces in the parentheses. When you were unable to move it back to its original place, you should have asked an admin and not moved it at all. This has created a further mess that needs to be cleaned up by an admin. Regardless, there is no current consensus as to what the name of the article should be, as evinced by the multiple page moves (not just by you), and now we should discuss what the title should be. To thedemonhog, I figured it would be easier to continue this on your talk page, instead of starting a new thread elsewhere.... --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What a mess that was—and from a good article writer! 23prootie, you are backing up your arguments with irrelevant matters. Alex is located at "Alex (Lost)" because their is legitimate confusion over what he last name is. If you are looking for relevant precedent, remember the articles for Rose Henderson and Bernard Nadler. And using "the name most commonly used in the show should be used" does not make sense. Why is Jack Shephard then not at "Jack (Lost)"? And what kind of confusion is going to be created among viewers? As for the "multiple page moves" that Jackieboy87 referred to, those have been on whether or not Elizabeth should be included in the title, i.e. this is the first that her last name in the title has been disputed. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I truly apologize for the mess I made, I kinda rushed the editing since I thought was made without consensus. Again sorry. Anyway, back to the topic. I would prefer the original since it was the one used when she was still a main character on the show. While the "Smith" version is official, it did not appear until more than two years after she was written off the show. Using it may lead to confusion with regards to the fandom and with the published literature about the character out there in the media. The character is known as "Libby" nothing more so suggest it be moved back.--23prootie (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that most fans know what Shannon or Michael's last names are and it explains in the article where the "Smith" came from and as you said, it is canonical. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article. Anyway. Smith was never used to refer to her on the show so it is mostly deutero-canonical.--23prootie (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, canon is defined as what is true within the fictional universe as confirmed by writers, etc., so it is fully canonical. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lost 6 Casting.

I hope this doesn't put too much of a spoiler for you, but I thought I'd ask your opinion. Would this be a reliable source to add to the season 6 test page? I know for at least season 5 we had what characters were being casted. I figured I'd just ask seeing as you're one of the major contributors to the overall LOST project. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

Hello, I want to use your photo of Jason Reitman on LibraryThing (librarything.com) and I wanted to know what you want me to put for the attribution. --chemica (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess just say that you got the image from Wikipedia or that it was taken by thedemonhog. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I am glad I can get more use out of such a great CC licensed photo. --chemica (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured

Hi, there is currently a proposal to raise the percentage of articles featured topics need to have featured to 50%, from 1 September 2010, and as someone with a topic with less than 50% of articles featured, this change if passed will directly affect you. Any input on your part to the discussion, and opinions both for and against the proposal, would be most welcome - rst20xx (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Adoption (and current advice) requested

Hi, TDH, I'm a relative newbie and find it difficult to edit or author without searching for hours among the policies, guidelines, essays ... well, you get the picture.

I'd like advice on the following current question, but would like to have a ongoing adoption relationship with you for advice as well.

I have been doing some research on a home which on first glance is exceptionally similar in appearance to known, unique Frank Lloyd Wright (FLW) works and which is located in a city where Wright did work. The identity of the actual architect/designer of the house is unknown.

I've been in correspondence with the descendants of the owner who built the house, the Getty's archive of FLW correspondence, and a well-respected multi-published author on FLW. There is a family tradition that FLW did the initial design for the project, but abandoned it after a dispute with the owner. The Getty has no FLW correspondence with, or which mentions, the original owner and the respected author says, without further comment or citation, that Wright was not connected in any way with the project. Closer visual examination of the current house also reveals design details which are significantly different from those uniformly used by FLW.

I'd like to put up an article in Wikipedia about the house. I believe that I can, under Wikipedia policies, identify it, put up a photo (subject to copyright guidelines, of course) and - because they are set forth in a citable published source - note that the architect is unknown and note the family legend (and clearly identify as such) about FLW's involvement in the project. Can I, however:

- Without violating No Original Research note the visual similarities and dissimilarities to FLW's works?

- Without engaging in deceit or violation of unpublished personal correspondence or self-published sources somehow include the information which puts doubt on the family legend.

While the house is a nice, historic old Prairie School house in a historic neighborhood, its notability principally derives from the fact that anyone familiar with FLW's work who sees it cannot help but wonder whether or not he or one of his students designed it. Said a different way, the notability of the house is that it looks remarkably like a FLW house, but probably is not and that no evidence supports that fact and observable characteristics of the house suggest otherwise. It is that question, which is raised by the appearance of the house, itself, that makes the house important. To leave out any mention of FLW in the article badly damages, if not destroys, its notability, but including it - even clearly identified as a family legend - gives a false impression that FLW's involvement is at least possible, whereas my observations and research strongly suggest that it is not.

I'm not sure whether the proper protocol is to wait for your response on my talk page or to look for your response here, so I'll monitor both places.

Many thanks, in advance, TransporterMan (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, TransporterMan. Basically, what is published on Wikipedia should be verifiable through reliable sources. Even though the house may look like something of Wright, that is technically your opinion and not fit for Wikipedia; if someone such as a published author or newspaper columnist noted the similarities, that would be allowed. In theory, every fact on Wikipedia should have a citation next to it, so that readers may see the original source of information. If your citation backs up your sentence, it should be okay. A larger concern that I have is if there is actually enough for an article here. Based on your post above, it appears that you have information from descendants (probably does not meet WP:V or WP:RS), a lack of information from Getty (dubious), your opinion on the house's design (fails V and RS) and thoughts from an author on what the house is not (verifiable and reliable, but dubious). Is this subject notable enough for an article? Would the article even have a title? Unfortunately, there is not really a protocol for talk page responses; I prefer same-page replies, while others prefer discussions split across talk pages. Just in case you do not know (it took me a long time), your watchlist is a great way to monitor changes. Well, good luck with your house article and any future edits! I look forward to talking with you in the future, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your tutelage. You've confirmed the doubts which I already had and just didn't want to accept. I'm looking forward to working with you in the future. All the best. TransporterMan (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification

I have nominated List of Heroes episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —  MateyAhoy  19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural

Hey. Just checking to make sure that you hadn't forgotten about List of Supernatural episodes FLC. Thanks :) Ophois (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Was your concern resolved at the FLC? Can you clarify your stance; it's a bit unclear right now. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdw^talk 11:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)