Jump to content

User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.

RE: Amazing Race

[edit]

Absolutely. I'd be more willing to do the DYK thing (I have a few ideas already actually) so you can do the FL if you like (should be easier for you! :) ) Cheers,  PUBLIC GARDEN  12:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Righto - I'd go for DYK as it's easier. I was thinking Diamond Head discography and TV on the Radio discography but you're free to suggest whatever you like ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I can't read today :/ I'll be quite busy until the weekend really, so I'll have to start then... Got any ideas for an FL? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

I'm sure you're already aware, but [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thank you Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away AFD

[edit]

Thank you very, very, very much for putting that excellent AFD together. Nice job. Sarah 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I saw your delete argument too and agree with it. Should we be speedy deleting the recreated articles under WP:CSD#G4? It applies to material created under a different title. We could just wait for the AfD to play out, too, though.
There are a few articles I didn't nom. Pippa, Alf, Sally and a couple of others, as they are the most important Home & Away characters and their articles can probably be turned into something worthwhile in time.
I read in one of the AfDs from a year ago that some thought it was a witchhunt for Australian soap characters; I know you're Australian so I just wanted to say that while I do intend to make another AfD for Neighbours characters if this AfD results in the Home and Away character articles being deleted, there is no bias involved. I've been a big fan of both shows since I was about 9, I've never stopped watching and I'm creeping on being 30. Even after I moved from England to America I continue to watch them both by downloading episodes from a private torrent site. It's just not in Wikipedia's best interests to keep them. I would actually like to see a Lostpedia/Memory Alpha wikia for both shows.
I also want to create AfDs for the British soaps Category:Family Affairs characters and Category:Hollyoaks characters. I don't think I've seen a decent page from either. Category:EastEnders characters, Category:Coronation Street characters and Category:Emmerdale characters may have some pages that are rescuable (let's not forget Pauline Fowler is a Featured article, but even many of those use The Sun, The Daily Mirror and Inside Soap as their WP:RS. :/ Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe, I was just going to say that I think that Neighbours might be in need of a similar clean out, but I'm really too scared to look too deeply into that closet! :D The first three "deleters" (me, Orderinchaos, Mattinbg), are all Australians. So don't worry, I know there's no cultural bias involved. The articles are purely and simply not suitable for Wikipedia and it wouldn't matter where the show was made. Last night I deleted Aden Jefferies (Home and Away) as a recreation when I realised that they had put it there to avoid the previous AFD outcome and the protected redirect at Aden Jefferies and I considered for a moment deleting the rest that had been recreated, but I think it's probably better to let it play out at AFD now. And I haven't looked at the old articles that were deleted so I'm not sure if these new ones are substantially the same or if they're totally different articles. The last AFDs were a long time ago, 2006, 2007, 2008, so I think it's probably a good idea to just let them go through AFD now.
I was a big fan of Neighbours when I was still at school and that was back in the Scott and Charlene days but I haven't watched it in a long time now. My mum's cousin's son is in Neighbours at present and I just realised his character Steve Parker has an article. An AFD of that article would make for a very strange AFD experience! Oh dear, I knew I didn't want to start looking in that closet - Stuart Parker (Neighbours), yeah, we definitely need a Neighbours AFD! Sarah 07:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed also - and thanks (ME) for your effort here. It comes down to being smart about it - Pippa, Alf, Sally and a few others are obviously notable and have impact well beyond the show's audience, and decent articles are capable of being written about them, so they don't get nominated. But most of these guys are just there for a year or two and have no lasting impact. There's also some odd factors that are the result of different scriptwriters or creative forgetfulness (eg remember how Duncan's accident in the mine also saw him age about 9 years?) While not a fan now, I used to watch H&A a fair bit in the 90s. Orderinchaos 07:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I congratulate you on having made possibly the most disruptive nomination in WP history. DGG (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of trivial soap opera characters gone => Wikipedia disrupted? Not seeing the link... it's not like he nominated the entire periodic table for deletion or something. Orderinchaos 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be such a drama queen. This is hardly disruptive. Actually keeping them is disruptive. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's discuss the merits of the actual nominations instead of making loud noises of shock and disapproval. As the creator of the WikiProject on soaps, I trust Matthew's judgment on these nominations...he is a soap fan himself and if articles aren't up to snuff to stand on their own, I believe he would know. Mike H. Fierce! 07:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXIII

[edit]

Delivered by –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

Hi Matthew. I've pinged Scorpion about this, but I was wondering what you thought about the various "List of Nobel laureate" featured lists using just the Nobel Organisation as their reliable sources? Crzycheetah and Truco are noting that the NHL Draft FLC uses just the NHL website for sourcing, and a quick look back over the Nobel featured topic constituents reveals a similar issue. I suggested to Crzycheetah that he may well want to FLRC those lists so perhaps we can have a centralised discussion. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for the list itself, using primary sources makes sense, as they are obviously going to be the most reliable, and other sources (at least on the web) would probably use the primary source as their source. Now, the Nobel lists are primarily lists, and as such, there's not as much "info" that needs citing from other sources; the lead only discusses the nature of the award and process itself, information for which it makes sense to use the Nobel site. On the other hand, the NHL Draft FLC has more prose, and covers other aspects such as history and possibly reception, and I'm sure there are other areas that could be covered. For that, we need third-party sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's interesting. "Primary sources.... [are] most reliable" Is this coherent with WP:RS? Is a Nobel Prize list which just references the Nobel Organisation still compliant with WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you make a good point, and I think we need a centralized discussion at WT:RS to hash this out. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth the director's input on this before the folks at RS, after all it's them who ultimately decide if a list should be promoted. Let's see what they have to say first. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an odd issue, isn't it. My interpretation of WP:PSTS is that to establish notability, secondary sources trumps everything. For actual facts, though, you probably can't get any more closer to the truth than a primary source, as long as you still use secondary sources as "back-ups". I think it's a bit of a problem if the facts presented in the tables only uses primary sources. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you may be interested in

[edit]

There's an article I wanted to start for a while, but I never had the time. Now I do and I decided to make a go of it. Can you come to IRC and we can discuss ways to find more sources? The article is Obesity in Australia. Mike H. Fierce! 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mike. I'm on IRC now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin

[edit]

FYI I just closed this AFD... if you want to nominate articles individually or in smaller groups (of say 5 or fewer) you can do so. I closed the AFD based upon the fact that it was impossible to discuss any of the articles intelligently or to identify which (if any) of the articles deserves to be kept. I have to agree with DGG that this was perhaps one of the worst AFD's I've ever seen. I suspect that most of those articles deserve to be deleted, but under the format they were presented in, it is impossible to tell which ones fit which criteria.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. It's much appreciated. I've been unable to come on since Thursday so I haven't kept up with it, unfortunately. I did ask a couple of other admins whether it was a bad idea or not, and I wasn't told it was, which is why I did it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When there are that many items on a Mass AFD it is impossible to discuss any of them comprehensively. I would be willing to bet that there are a few articles that are meaningful---perhaps the major characters? But they are lost in the shuffle. I was not going to go through and figure out which ones might be salvageable and which ones were garbage. Again, I explicitly worded my close that if you wanted to renom them, you could.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'll probably just be WP:BOLD and redirect the articles like Rhys Sutherland into the main list of characters page. I am a fan of the show, and there are many pages that I didn't nominate, I just truly thought these had no place. I'll help you detag the articles and tag the talk pages, though. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xeno says that he can use a tool to do so... he went out for the evening, but will detag them when he gets back.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing this now... I don't even think we should bother placing the oldafd template... do you? I didn't read through the AFD but I doubt there's meaningful discussions on a per-article basis. –xenotalk 03:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could support that.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)I'll add a note to the AFD that this is what we are going to do.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been placed on a handful of them [2], the ones where other users removed the AFD templates. But I don't really see value in placing them on all (or removing the ones that have already been placed). If you change your mind, I can run the bot to tag them though (in the morning). The AFD templates are all removed. Off to bed now. cheers, –xenotalk 04:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks Xeno, and again, sorry, Balloonman. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, everybody is allowed one mistake... this was it... next time, oh I don't want to think about next time ;-) ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. Look on the bright side, not many people can say they initiated "one of the worst AFD nominations in history" ;> That's some feat! –xenotalk 04:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suddenly, I'm hearing Monty Python breaking out in "always look at the bright side of life..."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis FLCs

[edit]

Hey ! Actually I was already applying all the changes asked on the Wimbledon list to the other three, but no problem, I'll wait for the end of this candidature before starting the others - and I will avoid group nominations in the future should I work on the women's, doubles' and mixed doubles' lists of Grand Slam champions. Cheers ! --Don Lope (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi Movie

[edit]

I have given three or four different sources that states the Degrassi: TNG movie is called "Degrassi Goes Hollywood" not just "Paradise City", unlike the user Mortetviolachaud who keeps telling me I'm wrong.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090623/degrassi_movie_revealed_090623/20090623/?s_name=degrassi2006

I have given my sources to Mortetviolachaud on their user page, but they never answered me back. If he/she is right, where is their source? Also while it may have been orginally called "Paradise City" in the U.S., alongside Canada, both countries have dropped that title, in favour of "Degrassi Goes Hollywood".


Mortetviolachaud says "Paradise City" is the name of the individual episodes and the movie is called "Degrassi Goes Hollywood". The thing this user is not realizing is there are no "individual episodes" anymore, it's a two hour movie event in both countries going by "Degrassi Goes Hollywood".

One of the sources I gave was Stephen Stohn's Twitter blog, which is apparently okay to use for Season 9 episodes titles but not this movie. Here's some blogs from: http://twitter.com/stephenstohn

stephenstohn Seems like the movie event will be called Degrassi Goes Hollywood on BOTH sides of the border (originally in Canada it was Paradise City) 2:37 PM May 9th from web

There will be something quite new related to Degrassi Goes Hollywood on The N on June 12... 9:27 AM May 18th from web

After the read-thru is a cast and crew screening of Degrassi Goes Hollywood.. most of them haven't seen it yet! 9:00 AM May 13th from web

CTV just announced its falls schedule including "Two-hour movie DEGRASSI GOES TO HOLLYWOOD airs this September" 11:20 AM Jun 2nd from web


The CTV airdate for Degrassi Goes Hollywood MAY be Sunday, August 30th (nothing is certain in this life !!) 8:19 AM Jun 13th from web

What I'm asking is if you could change it to "Degrassi Goes Hollywood", now and if the title turns out to be "P.D.", then change it back. R7604 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for an answer, ignoring me won't make me forget. R7604 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head with "stephenstohn Seems like the movie event will be called Degrassi Goes Hollywood on BOTH sides of the border". "Degrassi Goes Hollywood" is the title for the MOVIE EVENT, but each episode individually is still called "Paradise City". I've spoke to Epitome about this. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of jazz standards

[edit]

Hi! Considering your proposal here, do you have a suggestion on what to call the last one of the lists, currently at List of jazz standards (1950s and later)? Something like List of post-1949 jazz standards? List of post-1940s jazz standards? List of 1950s and later jazz standards? I've moved all the other lists to correspond with the name you suggested. Thanks for your comments. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd go with List of post-1950 jazz standards, since the list starts at the year 1950. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've moved them all now. Jafeluv (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away

[edit]

I remain alarmed by your comments. It seems to me, from your most recent comment, that you still do not understand the difference between tagging an article with a {{csd}}, {{prod}} or {{afd}} tag, and following the recommendations of the deletion policies and explicitly leaving them a heads-up on their talk page.

Please, try to understand this. It is very important.

The heads-up, left on the talk page, is permanent. It does not expire. Putting a tag on the article, or adding the {{afd}} to a deletion sorting page is not permanent. Good faith contributors, who only contribute intermittently, aren't going to see any notice that requires them regularly checking their watchlist, if the deletion occurred earlier than their watchlist's event horizon. In addition, it is a big mistake to assume new contributors are even aware that they have a watchlist available to them, or that they know how to use it.

When good faith contributors innocently contribute material that does not comply with our policies this wastes both their time, and the time of the better informed contributor who cleans up after them. Those good faith contributors deserve to know when better informed contributors think they are lapsing from policy. They deserve to know, so they can learn from their mistakes, and stop wasting their time making contributions that lapse from policy, and will eventually be reverted or deleted. They deserve to know, so they can stop wasting the time of the other better informed contributors who would otherwise end up cleaning up after their future mistakes.

So, your act of taking 20 seconds to leave a note on the talk page of a contributor, telling them you thought they were lapsing from policy, does not only prevent the waste of the newbie's time. Informing newbies where you thought they were going wrong protects the time of other quality control volunteers.

WRT your comment: "The AfD has been closed as Keep Without Prejudice. Instead of continuing to complain about how the AfD was started/handled/progressed, why not spend your time improving the pages that were nominated?" If you check the time stamps you will see I made my final comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin four hours before the {{afd}} was closed.

User:Orderinchaos described my comments and questions as "attacks". They responded by questioning my honesty and good faith. I encourage you not to regard my comments as attacks. I am replying to your comment that you did inform contributors when you nominated articles for deletion because your comment strongly implies that you don't really understand how damaging your actions were, and, more importantly, that you plan to continue to nominate articles for deletion without complying with the deletion policies' very important and well thought out recommendations.

You are correct, as written, the deletion policies don't require the heads-up left on the talk page. Even so, given the principle that we are all accountable for our choices here, I continue to believe you should feel obliged to offer a justification for choosing to ignore the policies' recommendations.

The closest you came to a justification for not honoring the policies' recommendation was to suggest that the contributors of that material were all vandals. Since then both User:Sarah and User:Orderinchaos have acknowledged that at least two of the more prolific of the contributors to the Home and Away articles were not, in fact, vandals. And, as I tried to suggest, even the recreation of deleted material should not be considered a sign of vandalism, when the person who nominated the initial article for deletion chose not to inform the newbie that the article was being nominated for deletion, and that the nomination was based on a perceived lapse from the wikipedia's policies.

Tell me you plan to comply with the policies' recommendation in future and I will happily drop this issue.

Yours for a more collegial wikipedia Geo Swan (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difference between tagging and notifying. One is something that has to be done; one isn't. One I did; one I didn't. Placing a tag on an article is permanent. The article history is still there for anyone to go through and see that it was tagged. If these good faith, intermittent contributors, aren't going to see a notice on one of their watchlisted articles, then you could equally argue that by the time they see any notice on their talk page, the AfD will have expired.
These good faith contributors have seen articles go through AfD before, and have had the opportunity to read them. Once the article has been deleted, they go and recreate the page either under the same title or an alternative if the original was WP:SALTED, reposting the same material. And again it gets removed. I ain't going to babysit every single editor telling them step by step what they should and shouldn't be doing. There are pages of policies and guidelines for that that they can read.
I haven't regarded your comments as attacks, and I certainly have not to my knowledge suggested that any contributor to the articles is a vandal or that anybody who recreates deleted material is a vandal -- please provide me a diff where I do say that.
You've spent far too long worrying about how the AfD was carried out, instead of actually considering the article's inclusion on Wikipedia and what the AfD was trying to accomplish. I do not feel obliged to have to notify the page creators. I won't promise that I will do so in future. Some AfDs I nominate, I do. Some, I don't. I've read what you've had to say. Numerous times. My actions may not have been perfect, but they did not violate any rule, policy, guideline, or anything else. I'm going to go back to some productive article editing now. If you don't want to drop this, fine. You can take it elsewhere. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching the posts by Geo Swan on this issue for the past week, and I note and comment here, with respect so as to maintain the thread here, to Geo the following outside view.
You do appear to be harassing various editors on this matter. Whether you meant that your comments reflect in such a way or not, I also agree with previous concerns raised here and elsewhere, that your addition of posts such as this one, and later this were attacking (and in the latter case really quite inappropriately manipulative and demanding). You have followed up that demanding style with your edit as detailed here with the words tell me you plan to comply with the policies' recommendation in future and I will happily drop this issue which is again demanding and takes on an inappropriate policing tone as if editors are required to report to you personally. I know you understand that Wikipedia is a place for many views, many styles and many personality types - and it can accommodate editors such as yourself that wish to spend great amounts of time writing personal essays and essay like comments - however Matthew's point about your use of time - and if I can add your manipulation of the time of him and other editors, is very valid. Matthew wishes to spend his time continuing his excellent work on FA, GA & DYK articles. So if you please Geo - you must (I hope) have other horses in this race and it would assist the project if you now chose a different mount to ride. With thanks.--VS talk 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Matthew - I do not believe that we have met before - and so my apologies for coming unannounced and taking up space at your talk page. I trust I have not inconvenienced too much. Best wishes.--VS talk 02:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline Update - Exhausted - 07/10/2009

[edit]

I'm sorry that I haven't been available to assign tasks lately. For the past 3 days (not including today) I've been almost totally consumed in discussions concerning the location and very existence of outlines. Today I finally broke free and got back to work on outlines. Felt good.

A great deal has been happening with outlines and behind the scenes. I just don't have time to tell you all about it this time around. Here's the best I can do...

How to watch what's going on with outlines

If you'd like a bird's eye view of everything that's happening with respect to outlines, see this page:

  • WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.

Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):

  • WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
  • WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
  • WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.
Recently converted to outlines

These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format:

Recently merged into outlines

There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following one have been recently merged:

The Transhumanist    01:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flywheel

[edit]

It should be possible. It's not going to be perfect, but I can probably get it a lot better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

[edit]

American copyright on sound recordings is such a mess that I honestly cannot help you if it's American. The long and the short answer is that noone bloody well knows. Wikipedia policy seems to be that it's fine up to about 1950 or so, if the original is out of copyright. I do not trust this, and would use it cautiously. But, in any case, if the LoC are not treating it as in copyright, you're probably safe enough. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vacation pending

[edit]

I'm going to be out for the weekend on my first real vacation since joining Wikipedia, and will be unable to check FLCs tomorrow before promotions/archivals. Most of them should have a yea/nay from me, but for the ones that don't, please consider my comments resolved if they have been responded to. Thanks. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXIV

[edit]

FL archiving

[edit]

I think you meant "failed 2". :) Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Oops. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all right. Also, don't forget to update the closure log. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I've just posted it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests/archive1

[edit]

TRM supported. You still have time to promote it. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Bastille Day!

[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup participates in the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

[edit]

Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthew talk at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image mapping for another tallest building list

[edit]

When you get the chance, could you do me another big favor and create an image map for List of tallest buildings in Singapore? I am trying to help another user bring it to featured status, but I think that this picture (and its extremely lengthy caption) detract from the article, espcially when considering that the same "building guide" can be accomplished through an image map. File:SingaporeSkyline.jpg, the lists's lead image, has a view that is almost identical to that of the labeled image, so if you could map it using the labeled image as a guide, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! (I know you must be extremely busy as the FL director, so if you don't have time to do this, don't worry about it) Cheers, Rai•me 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't be able to get to it until Tuesday, but it shouldn't be a problem at all. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great - thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 12:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'll get to this as soon as I can. My phoneline shorted out earlier this week and Verizon only sent someone out this morning to fix it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Matthewedwards. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that it's been archived; here's the link: User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 11#Stuart Woods. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I managed to read what you'd written but never had the chance to reply. Since it's archived I'll just continue here. Maybe I just can't see the trees for the forest, but what is wrong with "Woods, King, and their third crewmember, Shirley Clifford,[17] left from Portsmouth, England to The Azores in August 1975." The bits you've added fact tags to are the sections I haven't gotten to yet. He's been married 3 times, he says he owns homes in 3 states, not sure of his plans. I've been thinking of how to integrate the two sections, but I'm not sure. I suppose since his first two books are about sailing and a tour guide for the UK and Ireland, they could be moved and then have a section about him being a novellist. Otherwise I'm stuck for ideas. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do about using his memoir as a source. Wikipedia:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source seems to say it's okay though. It may not be possible to find alternative sources for some of the information, but I have access to Newsbank so I'll check The Observer's archives for any OSTAR coverage at least. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Memoir is fine if you don't use it for controversial information (analysis, reception to his works, that sort of thing). I have access to a couple databases too, so I'll see if I can dig up anything. I fixed that "weird" sentence; it was the preposition use that was bothering me. Good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary!

[edit]
Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/07 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's been a year already? I really should be doing more with my admin buttons. I'm sooo not doing my job. :( Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXV

[edit]

Delivered by JCbot (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Re: List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests

[edit]

As glad as I am to see that List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests finally obtained featured status, I noticed you placed it under the 'Miscellaneous' category under the Media section of the list of featured lists. Does it not fit under the 'Cast members' category? Just wondering since I feel it is similar to those lists. Also, I recently posted a comment on the talk page about the list of unrecognized countries. No one commented on it, so I thought I would point it out to you just in case a correction needed to be made. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move it. I don't watch the show so I wasn't sure if they are considered contestants or cast members. It's not the end of the world and I almost guarantee nobody will complain if it is moved. I'll look at WT:FL now. You'll often find though that you'll get a quicker response, and from more people at WT:FLC. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Street 1950 to 1979 - Colonial Street 1981 to 1988 - Colonial Street 1988 to 2004 - Wisteria Lane 2004 to 2009

[edit]

Thankyou for posting the photos and map - http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalstonecutter/collections/72157618252409259/ Maps - house blueprints - researcher sent to thestudiotour website- Updates on the Crowell house, Ron's Barn, Allison House, Paramount House, Maxim House, Hubbart House, Deanna Durbin House, Morrison House, New England Street House, The Thrill of it All House etc. http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalstonecutter/2559266363/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalstonecutter/3203255060/in/set-72157605231412378/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalstonecutter/2785425343/in/set-72157612663352100/ Universalstonecutter (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Television source reliability question

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dexter episodes/archive3 (buddytv). I'm on the fence. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably a bit more lenient than you, and I think I'd say it's okay. BuddyTV has a Wikipedia article, which gives it some credibility (see Impact section). It's being used to cite that it began airing on CBS on a particular date so it's not like it's an iffy BLP source, but on the other hand the same information can almost certainly be found elsewhere in more reliable places. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline Update - Basking in the light of knowledge - 07/28/2009

[edit]

Phase two of outline integration (de-orphanizing outlines by adding links leading to them into article see also sections) is nearly complete. The better that outlines are integrated into the encyclopedia, the more use they will be to readers.

Due to greater exposure through outline integration, and with most of the OOK team on school summer vacation, development activity on outlines has increased a lot...

New members
Be sure to welcome our newest members to the team:
News: Outline of Palestine survives AfD
The outline was nominated for deletion for being too general in scope. The consensus was overwhelmingly for keeping it.
The most memorable comment was posted by Mandsford: I like the poetic name, anyway. [Outline of Palestine]. "Master Plan of Pakistan" and "Rough Sketch of Bangladesh" would be good too.
Special thanks to Tiamut for greatly improving the outline, and helping to save it from AfD.
To keep track of outline AfDs and other outline-related discussions, see WP:OOKDISC.
Who's active on Wikipedia this summer?
Courtesy of Rich Farmbrough, here's a list of editors by their edit counts over the previous month (8th June to 8th July).
It would be nice to get the most prolific Wikipedians involved with WP:WPOOK. If you can, find a good reason to contact one or more of them, and invite them to work on a relevant outline - or all 500!
Who's been up to what?
  • Buaidh, Highfields, and Gimme danger have been working on the government sections of the country outlines. Being that there are about 240 of these, with critical information being filled in on each, this is by far the hardest and most important chore of this WikiProject right now.
  • Penubag is working on a redesign of the top OOK page.
  • Tiamut has done an incredible job developing the Outline of Palestine.
  • And kudos also go to Eu.stefan for his work on Outline of Buddhism.

Thank you.

Here's what else has been going on...

New outlines
Recently created outlines include:
Recently converted to outlines
These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format and added to the OOK:
Recently merged into outlines
There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following articles have been recently merged into OOK pages:
Outlines that have been tagged
Tags are requests to fix a problem or improve an article in a particular way. Unless we want the tags to sit there for an extended period of time cluttering up the outlines (we don't), it is up to us to fulfill those requests or attend to underlying misassumptions (if any).
I can't stress enough the importance of watching
With so many outlines (now over 500), and a growing number of support pages (guidelines, wikiproject pages, etc.), I can no longer keep up. I need your help watching over it all.
If you'd like to omnisciently view everything "from above", see this page:
  • WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.
Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):
  • WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
  • WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
  • WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.
What's next?

There are a lot of contradictions in guidelines related to outlines. I'll be turning my attention to fixing those.

The number of "Outline of" articles is rapidly catching up to portals, and will probably pass them by the end of the summer!

Keep up the excellent work.

The Transhumanist    01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on something special...

[edit]

...to award Buaidh for all his hard work.

It's at User:Penubag/Sandbox3.

But it's not done yet. Feel free to help improve it.

I'm hoping that everyone involved with the WP:WPOOK will sign it (please sign without a timestamp).

Thank you. The Transhumanist    23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI

[edit]

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 15:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Note

[edit]

You may be interested in this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to spare you the drama, I suggest you look at this comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. I never had a problem with him. I wish he'd mentioned this to me or at the talk page. I'll try to address his complaints but if he feels so strongly he should take it to FAR. Whatever. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, were any of my other FACs named in his list? Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ottava just has a bone to pick with the FAC process right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed and organized his comments here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, were you aware of this edit to your user page? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No, I wasn't aware of it but I know what it's about. I guess it was supposed to go on my talk page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Peter

[edit]

Are you always so nasty and sarcastic? It does seem to be a trait on wikipedia. If you can't get your own way, resort to petty insults. Very unbecoming and completely unnecessary I would have thought. A referenced fact may be 'flowery' to you, but it's still a referenced fact and enhances an article for some, even if not for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.33.172 (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think what I said was nasty and sarcastic, I suggest you get a backbone. I may have been straight to the point, but seriously.. You're adding stuff that is not entirely necessary. The Lede is big enough as it is. Just because something can be referenced, it doesn't mean it must be added. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things

[edit]

Hey Matthew, hope things are okay. A couple of things:

  1. I have a list which is probably scheduled for promotion shortly (the BAFTA one) - I'll leave it for you or Scorpion, so if you get a moment next time you're in, it would be good if you could sort it out.
  2. List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions is causing no end of issues. User:Chidel (now blocked for editing from an open proxy) has returned using at least half a dozen anonymous IPs (each of which have been blocked as open proxies). Chidel is assuming I have an agenda with that list so I'm recusing myself from any activity with it as of now. I suggested he restarted the nomination because it had become more about arguments with the open proxies than list content issues, and definitely ran the risk of being WP:TLDR. A quick glance at the list history shows 212.187.154.100 (talk · contribs), 125.141.225.11 (talk · contribs), 98.222.42.233 (talk · contribs), 85.249.33.2 (talk · contribs) and Chidel (talk · contribs) are one and the same. I would appreciate it if you and/or Scorpion could finish that one out, paying particular attention to the factual elements of these open proxy's concerns. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I wasn't imagining it - Dabomb87 did ask about a restart per this diff. Phew. The old brainbox still functioning, just about.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of Degrassi retention periods...

[edit]

...I updated them in this change. Technically the topic has already failed its retention so err you need to get the PR done methinks! 20:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review limits

[edit]

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry about that. I can't even say I'm not aware of that rule, because I am. I just forgot. Very sorry. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not a problem, just wanted to leave a friendly reminder. Of course if guilt or remorse leads you to review a few PR requests, all the better ... ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Moving FLs

[edit]

Laugh out loud. No need to say sorry though, as most people don't know that poker is a spectate sport. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon list

[edit]

Hello ! I don't want to take too much of your time, but I've seen The Rambling Man has recused himself from this FLC and asked if you could pick it up, so I thought I'd come to you for a small question. I believe User:Chidel, now using open proxies, has been really incivil in the review process, and I was wondering if I was the only one thinking that. Despite the fact that I've answered to every suggestion in the first FLC, including his, and that I've tried to reach consensus with everyone, including him, he keeps accusing me of ownership, has threatened to bring me to WP:AN, and has remained rude, belittling, judgmental, etc., in his comments and edit summaries. I don't know if I'm imagining all that or if he really is incivil, but since I'm more and more uncomfortable with his behaviour (to say the least), I thought I'd ask for someone to just say to me "Yes he's incivil" or "No he's not". Can you tell me what you think ? --Don Lope (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter

[edit]

News articles are much better sources than twitter.. anyone can be anyone on twitter, accounts are never actually verified. Wikipedia guidelines do in fact state to avoid social networks as much as possible for this reason. (not to mention, tweets and blogs can also be deleted at anytime, and Ryan Tedder already has deleted many of his comments in the past 2 days) Alankc (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

check some of the twitter refeances from Kahn now.. he deleted at least one already making it invalid.. exactly my point with using twitter as a referance Alankc (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that's another problem with the article itself, the contraversy is being twited around in a few news sources, and the article will be additted alot because of that by IP's.. I also don't see what Perez Hilton has to do with anything at all, he doesn't work with Tededer, Kahn, RCA, or Kelly, and had nothing to do with the song, single, or video. Alot of bloggers have made comments about the issue, who are a lot smarter than Perez Hilton (haha), I personally don't think any of them need to be mentioned either Alankc (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that Perez is an accredited journo, with contacts in the music industry? I don't see which Tweet has been removed. Each of them being referenced is still there. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it's not Perez's remarks that are important, it's Kahn's response, "Tell that to RCA." Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
one of Kahn's was deleted... The real issue was over Tedder. The Kahn stuff jsut popped out of nowhere (typical industry publicity stunt in my personal opinion).. there should be more articles about it all that can be used as referances in the next day or so, and it's going to be crazy unless someone settles it all down, everyones jumping on the bandwagon, attacking Perez, fans going nuts with #teamclarkson tweets everywhere. I'm surprised the aticle hasn't been 5 miles long with biased edits towards it all by now. Alankc (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? Whether or not you think it is a publicity stunt really doesn't matter. We can't say whether it is or not, but we can say it happened. No one is attacking Perez, and there are enough people who watchlist these things to make sure it doesn't happen. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to Make a New Page with the Same Name as an Existing Page

[edit]

I have an article I'm working on, called Charles Dennis. In it, the subject writer/director wrote a play called Going On. I want to make a page for Going On, but there's already a Going On page for something else. Please, will you advise me how I can create a page with a different subject, but that would have the same name as another article? Thank You. cerberusrunning 02:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just call the new page Going On (whatever). "Whatever" can be "film", "TV series", "album", etc etc. If it is another single, "whatever" should be "name of artist single", so if it's by Girls Aloud, for example, it would be Going On (Girls Aloud single). In this instance, Going On (stage play) or Going On (play) or something would be fine. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After that, we can add hatnotes to each page, or create a "Dab" page to differentiate between the two subjects. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOK collaboration: Outline of knowledge (eom)

[edit]

Delivered by –Juliancolton | Talk at 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII

[edit]

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

It's not much, but

[edit]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9)/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/07&oldid=1259637464"