User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/05

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

FLC

Well, Truco has decided to enter semi-retirement, which leaves a huge gap on the reviewer front. I guess we'll both have to do some more reviewing for the time being. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. Thanks for doing closures today. I was out all afternoon. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleek new signature, dude. I'm envious. Tony (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can't take any credit at all! It's User:Pedro's, which I took on April 1, along with about 200 other editors. I just didn't bother changing it back! Matthewedwards : Chat 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor withdrew ST:TOS. I removed the transclusion, and was going to follow the latter of User:Matthewedwards/FL#Withdrawals (move to /archive1 etc.), but thought I better let one of you make the judgement call, as me doing it would probably be overstepping my bounds. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassingly we both missed that it had already had a peer review, albeit a very short one. I'm gonna blame you for this! I assumed you'd checked! :p Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no I hadn't! I haven't archived it yet coz I've asked the nominator if he wants me to move it to PR or just close it as a withdrawn FLC. The comments need recording somewhere. My preference is PR, but I'm not too fussed. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having users notify relevant wikiprojects, but it might become a bit of a headache because some projects might complain about having a flood of messages, and it would be hard to keep track of. Maybe, for the next few weeks, you and I could start leaving messages for wikiprojects and we can see how that goes? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. If we get no complaints, we can ask reviewers to do it themselves. Nominators are, or should be, doing it already at FLRC, and I don't know of any complaints about those notifications. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the awards, I plan to return in the Summer, hopefully if things calm down in real life and here on Wiki. Well this may be my last message, so thanks again for everything and my experiences. Hopefully my leave doesn't hurt FLC, even though I can see it will with all these comments. :(--Tru co 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Gimmetrow#FLC for instructions on changing the FLC template system. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Step 2 is confusing. edit [{{Template:FLC}}] so it handles a parameter. What parameter? Also, Step 4: replace {{FLC}} with the subst-template. What subst-template? Matthewedwards : Chat 04:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it... Things will be wacko for about ten minutes. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're a star! Matthewedwards : Chat 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the major steps have been done now. I'll leave steps 5 and 6 on Gimmetrow's page up to you do; also please make this new system known to others. We can do FLRC tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. There's two "}}"s at Template:FLC -- Are they supposed to be there? Matthewedwards : Chat 05:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions should be pretty much the same as Template:FAC-instructions, right? Matthewedwards : Chat 05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yep, to both. If something is amiss, just check the page with the FAC counterpart. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you edit the instructions? Matthewedwards : Chat 05:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two other questions (I don't want to mess anything up!). Each FLC needs moving from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of foo to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of foo/ArchiveN where N is the number of the archive to be used? And then update WP:FLC with the new nominations? Do I need to leave redirects behind or can they be safely deleted when I perform the moves?

Yep, you will need to move all the FLCs (best to do it all at once). Remember that if a current FLC has been nominated before, you will need to move the current FLC to archive2, or how many times it has been nominated. The redirects can be deleted. Check Special:WhatLinksHere for the old non-numbered archives and correct them as necessary. I edited the instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award Matthewedwards this Original Barnstar for the phenomenal job he did making the article for Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 8). I just went to check something and was blown away by all of the work he put into it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I haven't watched the recent episode yet (can't find it on Torrent), so someone else will have to write its summary. But thanks! Matthewedwards : Chat 04:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC proposal

See discussion here. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 8)

On May 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 8), 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) 21:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd forgotten about that one. Matthewedwards : Chat 21:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XV

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 08:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes

Hi Matt,

I've addressed many of the issues in the article's peer review, and I wondered if you might take another look at List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes for me. The only thing I think I have left to do is re-write the episode summaries, but I'd appreciate any more advice you may have. Thanks in advance! - Aatrek (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to go though at least one, but I can't promise anything, I'm afraid Matthewedwards : Chat 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I'm going to be gone tomorrow and most (if not all) of Sunday, so you'll have to do closures tomorrow. One of mine is closeable too, so it works out. Have fun. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll handle them. Have a good time Matthewedwards : Chat 01:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated

A very belated thank you for the barnstar, how silly of me to take this long to get back to you about it! Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome! Matthewedwards : Chat 01:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2009. Looking forward to it? ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap! My hard work ruined! hehe. I didn't know that was going to happen. I wonder why Raul picked that one -- there's hundreds of FAs that have been featured longer, and I was kind of hoping to nominate it on August 26 :(

Oh well, I suppose we can expect a lot of similar sites being advertised on the page. Thanks for letting me know, I would have had a heart attack had I just happened to see it on the main page tomorrow! Matthewedwards : Chat 19:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an excellent choice for the main page. At the very least, it'll give us a break from military operations and video games. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. And at least I can still nominate Degrassi: The Next Generation when the 2-hour television movie set in Hollywood is broadcast. :) Matthewedwards : Chat 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Putting this here as I feel it's too big for the RfA page:

Big support First, Rambo's Revenge's is an excellent article editor, he knows and understands how articles should be written and what should and shouldn't be included. His featured content goes to prove that. Other than the conflict Ottava speaks of, which I know nothing about, I can't think of a single time when Rambo has been discourteous, rude, or otherwise unfriendly towards another editor; even during the FLC discussion Rambo himself pointed to, he stood firm and explained his belief and the reasoning with poise, restraint, and professionalism, seeked input from other editors, and avoided getting into name-calling arguments that so many disagreeing editors can. At FLC and FAC he provides excellent feedback to other editors to help improve artices, and is willing to work with other editors to do so. On the flipside, he isn't afraid to ask for help or assistance when he feels he needs it, and I have o reason to think he wouldn't do so with regards to admin-related work. I can't think of a single reason why I would distrust Rambo for even as second with the tools, and to give them to him really is a positive for the site. Also, his answer to question 6 seems spot on. There is no right or wrong way, but when I dealt with a similar situation I worked with a CU and IRC to determine the user and his local law enforcement agency and contacted them. Rambo is absolutely deserved of the admin bit. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Dollar Homepage

Hey, congratulations on the main page for your article. A great main page selection! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's completely unexpected. There's going to be a lot of copycat sites being spammed to the page today, I think. :( Matthewedwards : Chat 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly 2 years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd forgotten that, actually. Hmmm, a nice WikiBirthday present then, today's TFA. :) Matthewedwards : Chat 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC closures

I saw your closures, and I had a couple questions about them (I hope you don't mind my queries):

I was puzzled by why you failed Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of chemical arms control agreements/archive1 (3 supports, 1 oppose, where most of his comments were resolved) but promoted List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada (3 supports, and 1 oppose—opposer seemed to believe that there were more problems than he had pointed out). I'm not saying that the former should be promoted or the latter demoted, but it seems to me there were inconsistencies.

I hope you aren't offended by my questioning. I think you're a great FL director, and am in no way questioning your abilities. Just wondering. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Chemical arms control agreement, it appeared that User:Hassocks5489's comments had not been resolved. I actually pretty much ignored User:Gökhan's support. :/ It looked like a fly-by !vote from someone I've never seen at FLC before, so it's likely that he doesn't have sufficient knowledge of the criteria. He hadn't made a single edit to the article, and hadn't attempted to review it, although he said it was well presented, sourced and easy to read; however, following his post other issues were found. I also didn't think the image was completely appropriate as it was a bit off topic. It shows the victims of a chemical attack in the Iraq-Iran war in 1988, but chemical attacks are not the subject of the page. Nor is that war mentioned elsewhere in it to justify its use. I noted that the opposer's comments (TRM) had been addressed or refuted with sufficient explination, but he had not revisited.

For the Olympic one, I looked at the opposer's comments (Tony), and the nominator had also addressed or sufficiently refuted them, but in this case the opposer rarely returns and is usually satisfied if his comments are acted upon in some way. The supports were made by regular reviewers and nominators at FLC, who all sufficiently reviewed the page to be able to offer support. Tony suggested a copy-editor, but I fail to see any glaring irregularities in the prose, but I'm fairly confident that if there are, Scorp will still find someone even after promotion to fix them.

So ultimitely, there were a couple of things with both the Chemical arms page and nomination that I was uncomfortable about before promoting, but was more comfortable with the Olympic one. And don't worry about asking, I think this is one of the things we should be accountable for. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I won't bother you more. I must say that these first four hours of the TFA have been quiet! Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way to Go!

For taking an article from AFD to RFA. Great job!

Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 18:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shappy! :) Matthewedwards : Chat 22:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article made it through without much damage. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm amazed at the low amount of spamlinks. I saw in my watchlist you undid a lot of vandalism, so thanks for keeping on top of it.I had other commitments today so I couldn't be around for most of it. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Marathon Winners

Hi there, I brought the male and female lists together to more closely mirror List of winners of the Chicago Marathon, a featured list which passed just two months ago. I wouldn't say that List of winners of the Boston Marathon is the best article to copy from, in my opinion it's featured status is rather dubious given an unreferenced introduction. What would you think about moving towards the Chicago style? Also, please see my suggestion on that talk page if you interested. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 02:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good call on the "(h:m:s)" link by the way. I shall be stealing that one in future! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I'll look at the article talk page after I reply here. To be honest, I actually prefer the Boston Marathon winners page's table layout. For me, it's a bit too squashed. I don't know if that's because the full date is given for each year's event, or the country cells are forced onto two rows, but I found it a bit too blurry to read. I also wanted to keep the Wheelchair race information, and as it's an equally important event in the London Marathon as the "regular" Men's and Women's races, I didn't think it was right to relegate it to a lower section. I know it's still in a lower section, but I don't think it appears as if it's been pushed out of the way.

This isn't to say the Boston Marathon winners page is without fault. I agree that there are some faults with regard to referencing that need addressing, but it's not a big enough issue for it to be delisted or ignored as an example FL. It needs a bit of touching up, but it is still factually correct, it does present all the necessary information, and meets the majority of criteria.

I dunno... hopefully the two styles can coexist as FLs. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's not factually incorrect and is merely in need of a touch up to keep up with FL standards. My move proposal remains unanswered as do a few other questions. I think listing the full date is too much and merely a year link would suffice. I think the date choice might've been a way of avoiding red links to non-existent yearly summary pages of the event. I'm not even sure if that's entirely necessary however, I presume just stating a plain year would be enough and would help un-squash the text. My main idea at the page was to create a related FL series of the 5 major marathons. Obviously consistency in presentation would be a boon here.

I wouldn't worry too much about listing wheelchair results after the main results. We all know that the able competitors are more famous and notable than the wheelchair ones, however biased that may sound. The fact that I had to search out another source to get the time of Amanda McGrory's winning run is the proof in the pudding. A thing which is of much more concern is the fact that men's results always come before the women's. These are the relics of the fact that only one piece of information can be in the topmost left-aligned section, and years of male dominance have ensured that men will be there first. There's no reason for us to get bogged down in issues like these, as long as it's well presented then you have nothing to worry about. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to insert myself, was gonna leave a note about the same article and saw this discussion. I actually helped get Boston through FLC a while ago, and I think the decision at the time was that whole-article referencing was OK, and in-line citations weren't necessary. If that's changed, we should go back at some point and fix Boston. But since you two seem to be moving towards eventual FLC with this, I added the nationality table and had a question, given that I've been absent from wikipedia for a long while: will the FL reviewers prefer to have the redlinks fleshed out as stubs or for them to be de-linked? Geraldk (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured list criteria has changed twice since the Boston list was promoted; however, despite its flaws I do not think it deserves to be delisted. With a day's hard work it could probably come back up to current standards. Throughout Wikipedia, in line citations are generally required for any statement that may be challenged. At the Featured level, almost all statements need citing. Because lists usually do not have any prose other than the Lede, it means that lede sections in Featured lists do require inline references. Anything in the lede that is then repeated in the main body does not require citing as it should be cited in the body itself. Now, as for citing the winners, you can add a "Refs" column to each table and put a reference there, you could put the reference in the already existing notes column, or you can put a "general" reference in the article in the Reference section. It may often make more sense to do the latter so as to not clutter the page with a hundred reflinks to the same webpage. As for WP:Redlinks, it is generally okay if a page has a few. If there are more redlinks than bluelinks, questions may be raised as to the notability. With these pages, all World Marathon Majors winners are notable, so even if they do not have an article yet, it is likely that they may at some point. This is one reason why redlinks are okay; a reader interested in the list may be inspired to create the athlete's article. Removing the links is frowned up unless the subject is not notable and does not deserve an article, so removing them from these pages would be wrong. At FLC, some reviewers may ask for some reds to be turned blue, some may expect that they will be created after the promotion, others may not care. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll work on turning some of those redlinks blue then. Geraldk (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Matthew, I'll try to help out with the FLC where possible. Also, would you like to sign up for WikiProject Athletics? I'd appreciate your contributions to the project! Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 12:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple questions for you...

What are the benefits of a tree structure?

The article doesn't say.

I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).

I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question. :)

What are the benefits of outlines, over and above regular articles?

What benefits have you noticed?

How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?

I look forward to your answers on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 04:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Helicopter prison escapes should be moved to List of helicopter prison escapes per WP:LISTNAME. Can I ask you to perform this uncontroversial move rather than go through the usual process and have to wait? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, which of the two archived FLCs were withdrawn? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maryland hurricanes (1950–1979) (nom), though it would have failed anyway. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPOOK Update - 05/17/2009 - Blockbusting!

This project needs another shot in the arm.

So here it goes...

Countries WikiProject Collaboration - Contests!

I've contacted all 59 members of the Countries WikiProject to help in designing and conducting contests for the further development of the country outlines.

You are invited too.

Houston, we have a problem

The guidelines and outline article still aren't complete.

Which means you will be needed to help explain to the newcomers mentioned above what outlines are and how to develop them.

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Hosting country coverage contests.

The Transhumanist 22:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question for you, concerning a possible contest...

To promote work on the country outlines, maybe a contest between country WikiProjects could be run, to see which WikiProject could develop the best country outline.

What do you think?

(I look forward to your reply on my talk page).

The Transhumanist 23:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XVI

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Deleting page histories

Hi, I see you are a fresh admin (since 10 months). You have deleted

03:42, 2 April 2009 Matthewedwards (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:MutterErde" ? (CSD G6: User talk page of Indefinitely blocked user)

3 questions:
Is there a new policy on wp.en?
How many more histories you have deleted?
Does Jimbo know about that? Should I ask him?

Regards 92.228.213.92 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/04#User talk deletion for previous discussion I've had regarding this issue.

Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users are put into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages after a suitable time has passed to allow them to appeal the block. Users blocked between 2005 and 2007 have had sufficient time to appeal their block. If they haven't done it yet, they're not going to. There are only three exceptions to this; users who are not indef-blocked, IP addresses, and user talk pages tagged with {{Sockpuppet}}. Talk pages of indef blocked users have been getting deleted for many years. The Category page doesn't say they have to be taken to MfD; it says they are temp pages and that implies to me that they can be deleted without process, ie speedied. WP:CSD#G6 (Non-controversial maintenance), seems to be the best fit. Additionally, we have an admin bot approved to do the same: User:CAT:TEMP deletion bot. You can also read Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages.Matthewedwards : Chat 18:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More than 50, less than 60.
I have no idea. You can if you want. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found a simple reason, that you are allowed to delete historical pages from times long before you have found out, that there is an encyclopedia in the web.

Especially referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G6 seems a crude joke to me. But I stopped laughing after User:Vassyana has found out, that you have even deleted the page of a deceased user too. I give you a day to restore the 60 pages. Please don't forget one. Unbelievable 78.49.114.97 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a mistake that I rectified as soon as I found out. Tell me, what will happen in a day if I don't? Because I won't. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have proofed also, that the others are still living? Interesting statement. And btw: It was not you, it was User:Vassyana. 78.52.210.200 (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was me. Why do I need to prove the others are still living? If they're dead they don't need their talk page. Anyways, all the deleted talkpages are those of indefinitely blocked users. Additionally, the talk pages are protected, or the blocking admin set the block so they can't edit their talk page. They don't need it. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

As you know I'm not very active at the moment, and won't be for another week and a half. As such the only comments I'm leaving at FLC are ones I can keep tabs on, i.e. no thorough reviews. This is fine, however I started an image review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Maryland/archive1 (per request) about two weeks ago. It has only looked at a small part of the images, and some of the issues raised with those don't seem to have been addressed. I don't have time to complete the image review before I return fully, and I have noticed that supports have started coming in on the list. I think the list probably should have a full image review, so ideally someone else would continue it. However, I realise this is unlikely, so if the only thing preventing promotion is the images, I don't mind you closing it. I realise there is no deadline, but waiting on me to return for the images might not be your ideal scenario. Basically, if you wish to close it without more image stuff from me, do so and I'll endeavour to go through them all when I return. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just another heads up, I'll be going away again this weekend, so you'll have to do the Saturday closures. This should be my last weekend break until late June (and after that I'll be gone a lot more). By the way, this one was withdrawn. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one is withdrawn, as well.--Crzy cheetah 07:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabomb87 (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Matthewedwards : Chat 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help has arrived

Hey! I decided to make an early comeback, and I will do my best to try to help the backlog again at FL/AC. =]--Tru co 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XVII

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.[reply]

Has the shit hit the fan? - WPOOK update, 05/25/2009

Maybe...

We've started the next phase

I was experiencing mental block on the article draft for "outline" and on the outline guideline draft. And this was holding the whole project back. Without these (which are intended to explain the type of lists known as outlines in detail), the danger is higher that a controversy could go the wrong way.

I requested help on them, but there was none forthcoming.

So I went ahead and started us on the next phase of operations without those 2 pages...

Our AWB'ers and I have placed about 1600 notices all over Wikipedia. And the plan is to place several thousand more.

This generated only one complaint, but it was a very vocal one, and attracted a few other detractors who seemed unfamiliar with the concept of hierarchical outlines and their benefits. However, just as many or more editors came to the defense of the OOK, and there was no consensus formed. But, dab is still trying to rally opposition to outlines at the Village Pump. See below...

Administrator noticeboard incident and Village Pump policy discussion

It appears that the banner placed on the talk page of the Outline of Switzerland caught the attention of an editor named Dbachmann who posted a rather forceful message on my talk page, another on WT:WPOOK, another at WP:VPP, and still another at WP:AN!

He went well out of his way to use negative hype to cause a stir.

It appears that Mr. Bachmann doesn't understand the nature of hierarchical outlines and their applications. And though he implied that he has never seen an OOK outline before, he was involved with a discussion on these when they were called "lists of basic topics".

His primary argument is that outlines are content forks of articles, and violate WP:CFORK.

But "topic lists", of which outlines are a type, have been around for almost as long as Wikipedia, and fall under the WP:LISTS and WP:STAND guidelines. They aren't intended as forks, as they are lists, bringing the benefits of lists to the corresponding subjects, such as grouping and navigation.

Someone suggested an MfD, but lists are articles, and are within the jurisdiction of AfD. Only the portal page, which merely lists the outline articles, falls within the scope of the MfD department.

The administrator's noticeboard was considered the wrong venue for the discussion, and the discussion was closed.

But Dab's discussion at the Village Pump is still active. Hopefully level heads will prevail there too.

Now what?

Am I disheartened or deterred? Hell no. I say "full steam ahead!"

But we really need to finish the article draft and the guideline. Otherwise there will continue to be confusion.

Over the next week or two, we'll be posting another 1600 or so notices. It's a good thing we didn't send out 10,000 of them all at once. :)

The Transhumanist 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Another related thread has popped up at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. --TT 04:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter XVII.V

This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009. I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.

Pool A

Shoemaker's Holiday (647)

Pool B

ThinkBlue (247)

Pool C

Theleftorium (455)

Pool D

Candlewicke (539)

Pool E

Durova (479)

Pool F

Sasata (961)

Current Wildcards

Useight (393)
Scorpion0422 (372)
Rlevse (329)
Wrestlinglover (307)
Paxse (285)
Ottava Rima (248)
Mitchazenia (226)
Juliancolton (181)
the_ed17 (179)
J Milburn (168)
Bedford (156)
Gary King (147)
97198 (142)
Ceranthor (111)
Tinucherian (106)
Matthewedwards (98)

GARDEN , iMatthew : Chat , and The Helpful One The Helpful Bot 00:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC (2)

Are you closing today? By what time? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look now so that the Cup entrants can get their stuff listed. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have outlines in addition to...?

Wikipedia:Outlines was growing so large that I split this section off as a separate page.

I look forward to your feedback and improvements.

The Transhumanist 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Can you come back on for a minute or two? iMatthew : Chat 18:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Sorry I didn't get round to all the lists you asked me to review, but I've had a look at the ones that are still open. Not a bad bunch, but the extant papal tombs is, in my opinion, quite a way off. It seems to have a lot of support already so I've added a bunch of a comments and an oppose. Obviously as FLC director you're at liberty to ignore my opinion, but I'd prefer this FLC a while longer to see if my issues are addressed one way or another. Best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I did some closures yesterday for the WP:CUP, so there won't be any today. Hopefully by Tuesday they'll be addressed. I've also replied to your review at the London Marathon winners FLC. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat 22:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1)

Re. GA Review

Thanks for working through the notes in the review; I mostly put them there so that a) things were documented, and b) I'd be able to just check that all the things had been sorted out. I've added a bit more in the same spirit.

As it stands right now, I see no GA criteria that are lacking. I'd like to see some prose improvements, and I think that I can do those myself - maybe an hour or twos work. Then I need to check that things are fixed.

So, I am 95% sure I'll be able to pass it off today.

I will be working on it further in the next few hours.

Cheers, Chzz ► 20:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XVIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.[reply]

Boo, I'm out. It sucks :( Matthewedwards : Chat 17:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]