I've been staying far away from any post at AN/I labeled Obama, because I don't want to get anywhere near that can of worms. But I accidentally noticed your edit summary. Could I make a friendly suggestion that with a frustration level that high it might be time for a walk in the sunshine and the smelling of a few flowers?-- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

There's two things you should know about Yorkshire: its inhabitants are blunt, and it's countryside is overcast and muddy. Seriously. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, now I understand what caused my Yorkshire ancestors to think northern Utah was a good place to live. Thank goodness my grandmother figured out there were better and warmer places, and moved futher west. ;-) I'll shove some California sunshine into my USB port -- you should have it in a jiffy. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Fun fact: the UK is about the size of Utah. Wetter weather, though, I hope. Funnily enough, though, I can't remember the last time it rained. Mustapha bin at elast a week ago. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That's what I thought when I first saw the new section. However, I took a quick look at the editor contribs and thought it worth responding to, if dismissively. Looking again, 30,000 edits kinda gives the right to at least pose the question, even if it is IMO a pretty bad one. Maybe you'd like to think again and instead just restore and archive the thread? Franamax ( talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It was far from a serious proposal. It did not even give justification. It may not have been trolling(then again perhaps it was), but removing it saves lots of time to get the same result. I would consider a long history here a reason to thing the user was aware it is an active policy, but again that is just an assumption. Chillum 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, it did seem rather mischievous and I responded as such, including noting the lack of substance. My personal outlook (since this is the one main page that convinced me I could start contributing here, as long as I actually had a clue) is that that pillar is important enough to patiently respond to every question and challenge, no matter how tiresome. Persistent inability to get it is telling, but constant questioning is just fine. I'd rather see the thread restored and convincingly refuted. Franamax ( talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

And remember that the only time you can choose to save is your own - this is a volunteer site, it's not for you to save me any time, I already know how to do that. :) Franamax ( talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

(ec)While you do make a good point, I can still see the benefit of removing it. If our fellow Wikipedian wants to try again with a reason that would be better than putting back his reasonless proposal. While one certainly cannot save another's time, one just as certainly can waste another's time. Chillum 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It was very definitely trolling. Stevertigo's been trolling Wikipedia for at least the past few days, specifically on the Obama pages. It's starting to spill over, though. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I found the recent dispute and commented at his talk page. I note though that you seem to be involved in those discussions. All the more reason then that you shouldn't be unilaterally making decisions about what is and is not trolling. Sceptre, you already know where to go to ask others for an opinion and action. I'm off for a few hours. Please consider whether you wish to make a formal report. Don't consider yourself as the sole defender of the wiki. Many others are as equally able to judge as you. The WT:IAR thread could have died its own death without your actions, and you could just as easily have archived it. I'll consider doing just that when I return. It would be better if you did it yourself, rather than unilaterally deleting other good-faith editors' comments. Franamax ( talk) 01:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "troll"?

My question's prompted by something that popped up in my watchlist:

(Move log); 23:23 . . Sceptre (talk | contribs | block) moved Talk:Obama-Ayers association controversy to Talk:Bill Ayers presidential election controversy over redirect (revert troll)

The earlier page move might have been wrong (presumably you thought so) or wrong-headed or both, but it doesn't emit the odor of troll. (That would be "Barack Obama terrorist sympathies" or "Barack Obama as latter-day Weatherman" or whatever.) Why personalize it? How about "revert move made without agreement"? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Even if an action does have the odor of troll to it, omitting the word is still the best strategy. Wikipedia has never been improved by calling anyone a troll. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Years ago, User:Fred Bauder said to me, "Don't call people trolls," meaning, "never ever." I've never been sorry about having taken his word for that. About the furthest I'll ever go is calling a kind of vandalism "trollish behaviour" and even that's... almost never. Upon being called one, a troll will gleefully cry abuse at the claim and a good faith editor will only be harmed. Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Dude. Please stop moving articles around. I agree that "Obama-Ayers association controversy" sounds slightly POV, but you cannot have "Bill Ayers presidential election controversy" because it implies that Bill Ayers ran for the highest office in the land! -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

[1] Was that the document? The convo at the bottom. rootology ( C)( T) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Big step: [2]. Congrats on being the brave one to go that route. Now we all get to see how it plays out. Mahalo. -- Ali'i 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it is backed by the consensus on the Public image talk page. The Public image article now has some POV problems, but we've overcome the worst. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey there. I notice you were interested in attending [[ Manchester 4; we're in the process of organising another one for some time in April. Hope you'll pop along to the page to organise a time and date appropriate for you :). Ironholds ( talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

[3] Your caption-quote has been changed again :P ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi! A couple of things:

• A Wikiquette alert has been filed against you here.
• While I understand and agree that you needed to post a warning for the edits made by the filing party, I don't quite agree with the logic of issuing not just a one-and-only warning without making a greater effort to explain the problem - the contribution history indicates a near negligible quantity of edits being made, while his user space and user talk space appears to have never had any edits prior to yours. Usually, relative newbies would be given a welcome to direct them to the important links, particularly our policies and guidelines. Your warning on the other hand only provided a link to blocking policy, which appears bitey.
• I'm assuming good faith in assuming that you didn't intend on being bitey. I'm ready to mark this as resolved (with regards to you) on 2 conditions: (1) you acknowledge that adding an explanation to template warnings, particularly those that are of a one-and-only nature, is sometimes necessary, particularly for relative newbies (even if it's an ssp); and, (2) from now on, rather than merely issuing a one-and-only warning like you did in this case, you agree to add something to help explain the problem to relative newbies.
• If I've missed something, or you feel that I'm mistaken, please feel free to let me know below. At the moment, I don't see anything unreasonable in what I've said. Cheers, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 12:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hope you don't mind that I concur here ... if the editor has never received a "copy of the rules" via a Welcome template or something similar, don't go all out on the single-block warning. "Assume Total Ignorance of the Rules" is a good way to go. Warnings are incremental, unless major issues have been noted. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Please remember to assume good faith in these discussions, and not engage in gratuitous accusations of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Also, please remember that guidelines must enjoy consensus support, and do not make changes to the text of guidelines in the absence of such consensus. Ray ^Talk 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Guidelines are assumed to have a community consensus until there is a consensus to deprecate them. Half a dozen people on a talk page being split on whether something should be removed doesn't constitute a consensus to remove in anyone's dictionary. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh yes, and Don't revert due to "no consensus". It discourages people from adding common sense ideas to guidelines. Yes, it's a guideline. It doesn't mean it's perfect. Such a reversion is more of an indication that you're being disruptive. (Oh yes, and AGF isn't a suicide pact). Sceptre ^{( talk)} 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. Ray ^Talk 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a suggestion regarding this edit. [4] I agree 100% with your sentiment that it's not right to add a fact tag to someone's talk page comment, and you weren't being unduly rude. But you could probably create some goodwill by being extra courteous in the edit summary. I'm thinking something like "request for substantiation acknowledged, but please do not add fact tags to my talk page comment". The editor, 3X3, seems very sincere and sits squarely in the middle of a number of the debates swirling among some disputed articles, so they're a valuable reality check for both sides as to whether they are being reasonable. With the arbitration afoot over talk page management, and some concern over the perceived lack of slack you and I have exhibited towards contentious editors, I think we should all try extra hard to be polite. Wikidemon ( talk) 19:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey Sceptre,

Just wanted to clarify – did you mean to support or oppose my RfB? You said you "opposed" when you commented in the support section; maybe you were kidding around, or maybe you actually did mean to oppose, I'm not sure. Misclicks happen, so I thought it best to clear up any ambiguity. Best, — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 12:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I may have to change to oppose now, because you can't read HTML comments :P Sceptre ^{( talk)} 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm going to assume good faith, and say this edit was a mistake? CTJF83 Talk 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it was. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round I, Issue 10 - March 31, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants with the most: Featured articles Gary King and Juliancolton have both had 3 successful featured article nominations. Featured lists Matthewedwards has had 7 successful featured list nominations. Featured topics Scorpion0422 and Mitchazenia have both had 1 successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 54 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday has had 7 successful featured sound nominations. Featured portals Sunderland06 has had 1 successful featured portal nomination. Good topics Scorpion0422, Theleftorium, Gary King and Climie.ca have all had 1 successful good topic nomination. Good articles Mitchazenia has had 34 successful good article nominations. Did you know? items Candlewicke has had 53 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Candlewicke has had 28 successful "In the News" nominations. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last fortnight, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Durova 1713 1932 219 2 Mitchazenia 951 1167 216 3 Scorpion0422 683 788 105 4 ThinkBlue 291 386 95 5 Shoemaker's Holiday 791 873 82 6 Theleftorium 990 1060 70 7 Sasata 513 581 68 8 Rlevse 224 290 66 9 Matthewedwards 630 695 65 10 97198 314 360 46 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges What a brilliant finale to Round 1. With so little in it it was always going to be a tight contest, particularly in the all-important wildcard places. Congratulations to all those who have made it to Round 2, and commiserations to all who have been eliminated. I hope you continue to contribute as fully as you have been in the tournament, if not better! As has been stated before, Round 2 begins Wednesday, April 1 2009. I hope you are all ready!  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a total of: 20 Featured articles 32 Featured lists 2 Featured topics 135 Featured pictures 21 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 2 Good topics 143 Good articles 304 Did you know? items 49 In the news items Pool winners In this round of the WikiCup, the top two contestants from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Gary King (1154) Spencer (377) Pool B Shoemaker's Holiday (1055) La Pianista (74) Pool C Scorpion0422 (944) Candlewicke (806) Pool D ThinkBlue (444) 97198 (374) Pool E Sasata (604) X! (216) Pool F Rlevse (405) Bedford (331) Pool G Sunderland06 (236) Ceranthor (190) Pool H Juliancolton (686) Dendodge (220) Pool I Theleftorium (1107) Durova (961) Pool J Mitchazenia (1180) Matthewedwards (702) Wildcard winners Useight (659) Paxse (507) Rambo's Revenge (333) the_ed17 (330) J Milburn (302) Climie.ca (265) Catalan (256) Ottava Rima (190) Wrestlinglover (169) Tinucherian (162) All scores are accurate as of the end of Round 1.

21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delivered for the WikiCup by  GARDEN  at 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Queries to my talk. reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 1 - April 5, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ceranthor has had 1 successful featured article nomination. Featured lists Wrestlinglover has had 1 successful featured list nomination. Featured topics No contestant has yet had a successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures No contestant has yet had a successful featured picture nomination. Featured sounds No contestant has yet had a successful featured sound nomination. Featured portals No contestant has yet had a successful featured portal nomination. Good topics No contestant has yet had a successful good topic nomination. Good articles Ceranthor, Climie.ca, Ottava Rima and Scorpion0422 have all had 1 successful good article nomination. Did you know? items Paxse has had 2 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items No contestant has yet had a successful "In the news" nomination. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Ceranthor 0 80 80 2= Scorpion0422 0 36 36 2= Wrestlinglover 0 36 36 4= Climie.ca 0 30 30 4= Ottava Rima 0 30 30 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges The start of Round 2 has been in some respects an explosive one, with one user in particular almost in the triple figures after just a week. There are obviously contestants with no points or very few, but as it is so early in the round this can probably be excused. Keep it up everyone! Note that due to unforeseen circumstances, Mitchazenia has been eliminated from the contest. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 1 Featured article 1 Featured list 0 Featured topics 0 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 0 Featured portal 0 Good topics 4 Good articles 5 Did you know? items 0 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 21 Featured articles 33 Featured lists 2 Featured topics 135 Featured pictures 21 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 2 Good topics 147 Good articles 309 Did you know? items 49 In the news items Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Wrestlinglover (36) Pool B ThinkBlue (8) Pool C Ceranthor (80) Pool D Candlewicke (28) Pool E Ottava Rima (30) Pool F Scorpion0422 (36) Current Wildcards Climie.ca (30) Matthewedwards (22) J Milburn (16) Rlevse (15) Paxse (14) Useight (12) Theleftorium (10) All scores are accurate as of the end of Round 1. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page. reply

Seeing that the AFD looks like a solid keep at the moment, would you mind withdrawing the nomination so the article can be moved to the title 2009 Second special (Doctor Who)? Edgepedia suggested this but he is (correctly) hesitant to do it while the AFD is open to avoid problems. Regards So Why 11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 18:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I am indeed still around, just less active than I'd like to be. -- Merovingian ( T, C) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

-- Tyw7‍ ‍‍ ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I would normally respond on your talk page rather than mine, but since somebody else chimed in on your question on my talk page, I just responded at my own talk page, so check it out! :) — Hunter Kahn _{( contribs)} 14:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 2 - April 12, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ceranthor, Ottava Rima, and Sasata have all had 1 successful featured article nomination. Featured lists Wrestlinglover and Rlevse have both had 1 successful featured list nomination. Featured topics No contestant has yet had a successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 6 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday has had 1 successful featured sound nomination. Featured portals No contestant has yet had a successful featured portal nomination. Good topics No contestant has yet had a successful good topic nomination. Good articles Theleftorium and ThinkBlue have both had 2 successful good article nomination. Did you know? items Sasata has had 12 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Spencer has had 1 successful "In the news" nomination. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Shoemaker's Holiday 3 156 153 2 Durova 1 137 136 3 Sasata 8 138 130 4 Theleftorium 10 120 110 5 ThinkBlue 8 81 73 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges Mitchazenia has requested and been granted his spot back in the Cup. So welcome back, and get to work Mitch! :)  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 3 Featured article 2 Featured list 0 Featured topics 8 Featured pictures 3 Featured sounds 0 Featured portal 0 Good topics 11 Good articles 21 Did you know? items 1 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 23 Featured articles 34 Featured lists 2 Featured topics 143 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 2 Good topics 154 Good articles 325 Did you know? items 50 In the news items Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Shoemaker's Holiday (156) Pool B ThinkBlue (79) Pool C Theleftorium (88) Pool D J Milburn (46) Pool E Durova (136) Pool F Sasata (131) Current Wildcards Ceranthor (82) Ottava Rima (82) Wrestlinglover (77) Rlevse (63) the_ed17 (49) 97198 (43) Useight (41) Scorpion0422 (41) Candlewicke (38) Matthewedwards (33) All scores are accurate as of 15:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page. reply

Hi, Sceptre. In this edit to Planet of the Dead you removed two full references and replaced them with "placeholders". Why? I'm confused. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

For one, the references pointed to The Stolen Earth's secondary material, not Planet of the Dead :) Sceptre ^{( talk)} 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, so they were. I had recently added a reference from one of the Fact Files, and I thought it was this one. Dunno where that came from — my bad. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

As much as I would like to go forward with that proposal at ANI, let's save our energies for a separate post or a RfC/U fully detailing his behavior. Having a proposal that looks like it was born out of the heat of the moment isn't going to enjoy that much support. — sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Putting energy into an RfC/U is like waterboarding an African orphan: on the face of it, it looks good, but in reality, it does a lot more harm than good. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You may not want to RfC/U, but it's a separate issue, not a subsection of the Jack Merridew "incident". pablo _hablo. 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I disagree. The issue of Jack's old socking and possible relapse into old ways and A Nobody's policy abuse are inexorably interlinked. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

(ec) I can see why you feel that way. They certainly both have interesting histories - an unbanned indefbanned sockpuppet and a non-vanishing RTV (also with plenty of block history and several account names) - but surely issues like this would stand more chance of being treated as standalone items? pablo _hablo. 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi - I can't tell what's going on, but edit warring of any kind on the AN/I talk page is a very bad sign. I suggest that if you don't want to get blocked you should strongly consider telling the folks at the EW notice board that you didn't think that unarchiving a conversation was a reversion but that given the concern you will allow others to decide, and not do it again unless you're told it's okay. People can and have been blocked for repeatedly unarchiving closed discussions, and the fact that multiple editors have opposed you is a strong sign it is at the minimum not a clear case, i.e. that what you are doing is edit warring rather than reverting vandalism (and even there, even if you're right it's disruption rather than vandalism, and some have a dim view of calling things vandalism when they are not). AN/I is not the best place to get into this kind of a dispute. If you can take a step back, and you think the issue is unresolved, there are other avenues. Wikidemon ( talk) 23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Repeated unarchiving to unarchive is 3RRable. Repeated unarchiving while reverting vandalism is not. A Nobody removed my comments when he reverted me, and I know he knows he knows better. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 23:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

After seeing your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the deletion discussion for Chronology of Star Wars, an article which has been nominated for the same reasons. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 07:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC). reply

Don't want to clutter the AN thread, but in response to [5] - this is not some "think of the children" nonsense. It's about maturity and professionalism. Let's say you went to a public library, seeking some information. The person at the desk says, "Oh, yes, go see Johnson, down the hall on your left". When you get to Johnson's office, his door is closed and that picture is hanging on it. You open the door, walk past it, and go in.

Would this strike you as a professional environment? Would you expect to see this at the public library? Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with it, but do you understand how this looks to the average person on the street? It's important to think of these things. Wikipedia has an uphill battle trying to be seen as a legitimate resource rather than a laughingstock, and childish nonsense like this userpage does not help. Friday (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It's laughable that that would bring the project into disrepute more than the libel and the bias so rampant on Wikipedia. Go fix that instead of going on about a picture on someone's userpage. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That is a problem also. Wikipedia has more than one problem. I see this userpage issue as a useful problem to consider, because it has an obvious and easy solution. Bias and libel deserve attention, but they're trickier. Sometimes it's useful to solve an easy problem first, even when it's not the biggest one. Friday (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I see trying to make Wikipedia professional hopeless, though. It's a noble cause, but the only way to get it to be more mature and/or professional is to move towards Citizendium's model. Which would get you a lot of flak. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia would go dim as a website if it took up Citizendium ways. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Exactly. Wikipedia may be a controversial pile of shit, but it's a popular pile of shit too. Everyone loves a controversy :) Sceptre ^{( talk)} 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

But. Sceptre. It's. for. the. children. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This is for the children. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

What is the first thing that school-age children do when they get hold of a dictionary? A biology textbook? An encyclopaedia? Anyone old enough to use a computer can cope with this picture. pablo _hablo. 16:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yep. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This is true. Pretty much the only French words I can remember are swear words. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

First off Wikipedia is not a profession, this is an important detail. I would not for example use a username that was a drug reference at work, it would not be professional. But on Wikipedia I don't mind because I am a volunteer. Secondly, there is nothing immature about a shaved vagina. While certain cultural mores may that a dim view of such things, I don't think we need to obey every cultural rule out there. The picture doesn't even show anything explicit. The only disruption I am seeing from this image is this debate. A debate I am starting to see brought up in more and more venues. Chillum 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, also, we are a privately funded and operated library, not a public library. (I used to go to the public library to look up nudie pics in the National Geographic magazines when I was a kid) Chillum 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, where I see the immaturity is not in the picture itself, but rather in his unhelpful response to the whole situation. It's a clear case of "because I can" syndrome. But, I've said my piece, and I see see it's not going to be persuasive to anyone, so I give up for now. Happy editing. Friday (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I can't help but notice you're marking quite big changes to Doctor Who articles as minor edits. That can't be right, surely? Maccy69 ( talk) 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Like what? Sceptre ^{( talk)} 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This and this - they both seem like quite major changes to me. Maccy69 ( talk) 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I must've accidentally nudged the minor checkbox. Happens. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, no worries. It just seemed a bit odd. Cheers. Maccy69 ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Special Barnstar
		For showing common sense at a time when there is very little of it left on Wikipedia, you deserve this! Jenuk1985 |  Talk 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I accidentally posted to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster after you closed it due to an edit conflict. I did not see any pressing need to revert myself, let me know if you feel otherwise. Chillum 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't beat yourself up. It's okay if you accidentally edit conflict. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

for your WebHamster-related good sense

DuncanHill ( talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Woo, two people said I have common sense! I can die happy! But seriously, it is annoying seeing Friday forum shopping to Jimbo, then Jimbo's comment sparking another disucssion... thank God there was such a keep consensus. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll just add that although we have disagreed strongly in the past, I hope I can be less confrontational towards you should we disagree again, best wishes, DuncanHill ( talk) 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Heh. I think people tend to judge people on the drama than what they really are; most people who talk to me are surprised I'm a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything. Mind you, I judged Kurt so negatively because he was harassing a female (wiki-)friend of mine, so I had a very good reason for that! :P Sceptre ^{( talk)} 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Fair enough - and again, thanks :) DuncanHill ( talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Surely you know better than to close a debate you've taken a side on? Re-opened. – xeno ^talk 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Is someone who has taken a side re-opening the debate any better? Scepters close was in line with consensus, regardless of any involvement. Chillum 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Inappropriate closures should be re-opened no matter what. (cross-posted from my talk page) I think a precedent-setting decision like this should run the whole length, or at least longer than half, and be closed by someone who hasn't participated in the run-up. – xeno ^talk 19:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure it was an inappropriate closure, regardless I think that a speedy keep should be reversed if anyone really feels strongly enough about it, however unlikely it is to change the outcome. I don't think Sceptre did anything wrong, and I suppose re-opening the debate was not wrong either, just not likely to have much effect. Chillum 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sceptre put himself clearly on the "its ok" side in the AN discussion. He should not have been the one to close the MFD. – xeno ^talk 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Original Barnstar
		For attempting to cut needless drama off before it escalates further. This is always a productive and noble thing to try, even if it does not succeed. Chillum 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Really? Do you think re-closing this as a speedy keep again after it was re-opened last time is going to produce another result? Once is a bold attempt to avoid drama, twice is going to have the opposite effect. Speedy keeps should not be used when people are not wanting the debate closed early. The only way this matter will be put to bed is if the MfD can be closed in a manner that can hold up to scrutiny. Let it run its course and be closed by someone else, otherwise this whole quagmire will spill over into DRV. Chillum 21:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I could be wrong, and this speedy close may be accepted the second time. If so great. Chillum 21:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

With respect, I don't think those who don't like the userpage will be satisified by an DRV, if Friday's behaviour is anythign to go by; they'll probably end up doing something unilaterally or trying to edit war it out. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Which is exactly why the MfD should run its full course and closed by someone uninvolved instead of giving those whose opinions were not accepted grounds to complain about perceived unfairness. The page is present during the debate, and there is about 0 chance that the outcome will change, so there is no reason to close it early except to prevent drama. I don't think this will prevent drama, only fuel it. I think this little wildfire has gone beyond the point of being quenchable and now just needs to burn itself out, we just need to limit the fuel. Chillum 21:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I prefer to think that my closure would eventually turn out to be the five tons of sand poured onto bonfire. Hopefully it will. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, lets watch and find out. Chillum 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• eh, you've got some stones, old boy. =] – xeno ^talk 21:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

By jove I believe it has worked! Chillum 07:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yay. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Sceptre. I only noticed this debate just now, and wanted to express my opinion. Where do you think is the best place to do so: the AN thread (now closed), Jimbo's talk page, or the (now closed) MfD? I can understand wanting to reduce drama, but there is a line between shutting down drama early and closing off venues (after less than 8 hours) where people can express their opinions. I feel the MfD should have been allowed to run the full course, as not everyone would have immediately been aware of it, and now the only way they can express their opinion about the specific page is at a DRV. It's ironic in a way, because when people try and raise such issues, it is difficult to have calm, rational discussion because people use WP:NOT#CENSORED, and the discussion gets diverted very quickly. In some ways, over-readiness to use "not censored" and "snowball keep" could in some ways be seen as suppressing debate (itself a form of censorship). Where is the line crossed between putting out a forest fire (reducing drama) or a legitimate snowball keep (what happens if someone says "I wanted to take part in that MfD but it was closed early"?), and shutting off discussion early? FWIW, the AN thread ha a note telling people to discuss at the MfD, which doesn't seem possible now. I think this has shut off short-term drama, but long-term the drama will keep reoccurring. Probably best is having a well-advertised discussion on the general points on some policy talk page. Would you be able to help do that? Carcharoth ( talk) 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

possibly the best thing to do first is to add a rule that a sig must have a link to the users page, and the users talk page, and let it go at that, & only proceed further if it non-conforms. I hope that's what Carcharoth means by the "general point" --if we need a general rule about what sort of pictures go on the user page, I think that might do much better to hold off on that. Sceptre, I think you are well positioned at the moment to propose that, but if you want me to, let me know. Personally, I would have preferred to wait a few weeks till the drama died down even for that, but, seeing Carcharoth's posting, I suppose we might do better to go ahead now. DGG ( talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Waiting a few weeks is fine (hopefully someone will remember). The point about what should be in signatures was one of the more rational points raised in the debates. I would say a link to the talk page should be required, and a link to the user page and other things (such as contribs) is optional, but I've never read any of the debates over what should be in sigs. If the point is to avoid people arriving at user pages that are being used to make political points with pictures intended to make the point in certain ways (parody, humour, call it what you will), then yes, people should have the option to bypass that and go direct to the talk page instead. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I think waiting a few weeks is best because otherwise people will just be polarized again around this user whereas having a link to the talk page is really just a matter of courtesy having nothing to do with this user in particular. – xeno ^talk 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I am responding here, rather than WP:AN, as it is lower traffic; certain vandals have found that move page vandalism is particularly effective, as it requires sysop flags to undo (move over redirect, delete, etc.). When targets are identified related pages are move protected as a caution. While a pain, having to request move protection and getting a sysop to perform the move is perceived as less arduous than cleaning up the vandalism... I note, by raising my eyes an inch or so, that exactly the same protection has been accorded this page - for much the same reason. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Move over redirect can be done by autoconfirmeds too, last I checked :) Sceptre ^{( talk)} 10:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Can they? The young whippersnappers! Back in my day... (etc) ;~) LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, Sceptre. Congrats on getting Doctor Who campfire trailer to GA. Nice work!

I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile submitting 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who) for GA review now, even though the episodes won't be aired for 8 months. On the one hand, the article is about as solid as it can be, given that the story in question is still filming, and if there can be a Wikipedia article on it, I'm not entirely sure why there can't be a GA on it. On the other hand, the article will certainly be transformed over the next few months, as more information becomes available, and it will be quite a challenge maintaining GA quality.

I suppose what I'm wondering is whether an article on a developing subject like a TV programme that hasn't aired can be considered as a "good article", or whether you have to wait until the subject matter is "complete". Do you know whether this issue has been raised before in relation to GAs? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmm... I think it's best to wait until it does air before submitting it to GAC, the reason being that it can change at any time before filming finishes. Then you've got the hyping up... Sceptre ^{( talk)} 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I guess I'm just a bit proud of the current state of the article — but I don't really need it trumpeted. :) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Planet of the Dead.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 3 - April 19, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ceranthor, Ottava Rima, Sasata and the_ed17 have all had 1 successful featured article nomination. Featured lists Rlevse has had 3 successful featured list nominations. Featured topics Rlevse has had 1 successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 8 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday has had 2 successful featured sound nominations. Featured portals No contestant has yet had a successful featured portal nomination. Good topics No contestant has yet had a successful good topic nomination. Good articles Theleftorium has had 3 successful good article nomination. Did you know? items Sasata has had 20 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Candlewicke has had 3 successful "In the news" nominations. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 2 Rlevse 72 200 128 1 Shoemaker's Holiday 156 268 112 5 the_ed17 51 142 91 4 Theleftorium 120 193 73 3 Sasata 138 201 63 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges A great turnaround from last week with one group even in a tie for first place and the automatic promotion slot. Good luck to all involved there!  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 4 Featured articles 7 Featured lists 1 Featured topic 13 Featured pictures 3 Featured sounds 0 Featured portal 0 Good topics 17 Good articles 46 Did you know? items 4 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 24 Featured articles 39 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 148 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 2 Good topics 160 Good articles 350 Did you know? items 53 In the news items Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Shoemaker's Holiday (268) Pool B ThinkBlue (94) Pool C Rlevse (200) Pool D Candlewicke and (86) Pool E Durova (182) Pool F Sasata (201) Current Wildcards Theleftorium (193) the_ed17 (142) Wrestlinglover (128) Ottava Rima (123) Ceranthor (90) Useight (72) Gary King (61) J_Milburn (59) 97198 (53) All scores are accurate as of 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC) If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page. reply

Hi Sceptre, I've had to decline a couple of your edit requests recently. Could you please ensure that a consensus is established before adding the {{ editprotected}}? Normally the talk page of the page in question is the place to raise this. I've seen a few novel locations for these requests from you recently ;) — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi - I just commented at Talk:Doctor Who campfire trailer, that I have doubts over whether the subject is notable enough for an article. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Robofish ( talk) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Planet of the Dead, 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.

Chamal ^talk 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Congratulations — but I'm going to sulk that the DYK folks put Planet of the Dead up and ignored 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who). :p

Ah, well — we'll have another shot at that one if we can increase it by 5x after broadcast. :) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't count your chickens; I reckon it will do, probably on Sunday. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 22:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

On April 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who), 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.

Shubinator ( talk) 06:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 4 - April 26, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ceranthor, Ottava Rima, Sasata and the_ed17 have all had 1 successful featured article nomination. Featured lists Rlevse and Wrestlinglover have both had 3 successful featured list nominations. Featured topics Rlevse has had 1 successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 10 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday has had 2 successful featured sound nominations. Featured portals No contestant has yet had a successful featured portal nomination. Good topics No contestant has yet had a successful good topic nomination. Good articles Mitchazenia and Theleftorium have both had 6 successful good article nominations. Did you know? items Sasata has had 23 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Candlewicke has had 8 successful "In the news" nominations. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Sasata 202 464 262 2 Durova 182 434 252 3 Mitchazenia 79 202 123 4 Useight 73 178 105 5 Paxse 87 174 87 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores A full list is located at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Jumps From the Judges Another big week sees new leaders in many of the pools. Many of the wildcards are in triple figures so others might want to pick up the pace to make it through!  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 4 Featured articles 9 Featured lists 1 Featured topic 17 Featured pictures 3 Featured sounds 0 Featured portals 0 Good topics 25 Good articles 64 Did you know? items 11 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 24 Featured articles 41 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 152 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 2 Good topics 168 Good articles 368 Did you know? items 60 In the news items Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Shoemaker's Holiday (346) Pool B Mitchazenia (202) Pool C Theleftorium (232) Pool D Paxse (174) Pool E Durova (234) Pool F Sasata (464) Current Wildcards Rlevse (227) Wrestlinglover (186) Useight (178) the_ed17 (154) Candlewicke (142) Scorpion0422 (130) Ottava Rima (123) ThinkBlue (104) Ceranthor (92) Gary King and Juliancolton (71) All scores are accurate as of 12:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC) If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page. reply

On April 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doctor Who campfire trailer, 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.

Shubinator ( talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You recently asked, in a deletion discussion, why hoaxes are not speedable. Actually they are - under criterion G3 - provided that they are blatant and that there is not a snowball's chance in hell they might be true. I think we should seek consensus to edit the {{ hoax}} template to reflect that, pretty much the same way the {{ advert}} template tells people to use {{ db-spam}} instead in blatant cases. -- Blanchardb - ^{Me• MyEars• MyMouth}- timed 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've just copyedited it so it's eligible for WP:DYK. Go nominate it! :) Sceptre ^{( talk)} 11:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply

---

Hello Sceptre, I saw your message on my talk page regarding the song article. I've since made a few additional edits to the page (had to copyedit it because a few of the sentences didn't flow as well after your edit) and I added a few more references. I found a source for the Aretha Franklin version and added that back as well. I've never nominated anything for DYK, so I've spent the past half hour reading about it and I'm still a bit confused. Besides, I'm not sure what the "hook" should be, maybe that LuPone's 1985 version just now charted in 2009? You're certainly a lot more experienced around here than I am, so if you wanted to nominate it maybe I'd learn something about the process. If not, that's cool too. At least I feel more secure about the existence of the article in its own right. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky ( talk) 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Nominated. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I'll follow the events as they unfold, this is a lot more exciting than most of the edits I've made on here. And yeah, I guess after almost 3500 edits I'm technically not a "newbie" anymore. :) Cheers. Zephyrnthesky ( talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:IDIOT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:IDIOT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Webster6 ^{Yo, So} 14:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

" Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 5 - May 3, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ceranthor, Ottava Rima, Sasata and the_ed17 have all had 1 successful featured article nomination. Featured lists Wrestlinglover has had 4 successful featured list nominations. Featured topics Rlevse has had 1 successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 13 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday has had 2 successful featured sound nominations. Featured portals J Milburn has had 1 successful featured portal nomination. Good topics ThinkBlue has had 1 successful good topic nomination. Good articles Theleftorium has had 7 successful good article nominations. Did you know? items Sasata has had 24 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Candlewicke has had 14 successful "In the news" nominations. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Sasata 464 800 336 2 Candlewicke 144 236 92 3 Paxse 175 259 84 4 Shoemaker's Holiday 381 455 74 5 Ottava Rima 123 184 61 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges A great week for Sasata with the biggest jump in score for a long while - 336 - so well done! It's nearing the end of this round, remember, which will end on May 29. It would it your best interest to nominate GANs now to avoid missing out.  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 4 Featured articles 11 Featured lists 1 Featured topic 24 Featured pictures 3 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 1 Good topic 25 Good articles 87 Did you know? items 17 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 24 Featured articles 43 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 159 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 2 Featured portal 3 Good topics 168 Good articles 391 Did you know? items 66 In the news items Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A Shoemaker's Holiday (455) Pool B Mitchazenia (208) Pool C Theleftorium (279) Pool D Paxse (259) Pool E Durova (291) Pool F Sasata (800) Current Wildcards Rlevse (244) Candlewicke (236) Wrestlinglover (226) Useight (224) Ottava Rima (184) the_ed17 (161) Scorpion0422 (143) ThinkBlue (134) Ceranthor (104) J Milburn and Juliancolton (99) All scores are accurate as of 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC) If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 08:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page. reply

Have you seen the discussion there? Dougweller ( talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Which one? Sceptre ^{( talk)} 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the Barnstar! I try to leave no stone unturned when I'm working on these South Park episodes FACs, so I very much appreciate our compliments and your help at the FAC nom pages! — Hunter Kahn _{( contribs)} 03:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 25 - April 2009

"The other day I had these Jehovah's Witnesses come round to my house, and they tried to convince me that the Pope was the Devil's representative on Earth. So I told them that Jesus was the world's first communist. So they left. They were genuinely enraged.'" - Ian Brown Project news We collaborated on The Stone Roses (album), " Don't Speak", Indie rock, and Eddie Vedder during the past month. During the month of April, Slow Life, " Lost!", and Phantom Phorce were promoted to good article status. This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Stereolab - Chemical Chords (2008).

Editors User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot ( talk) 10:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Every so often someone squawks about Ikip and then bloodies the nose of the entire ARS collective simply because of perceived actions of one independent individual. I personally think that this is thowing the baby out with the bathwater. I came home from a long day at work and found such a discussion opened and closed... but spent some time reading the comments. When I got to yours, I was a bit saddened. "To be honest, I've never seen a "rescue" tagged-page actually be improved. If you want to save an article from deletion, sofixit, don't place a big stonking notice on every AfD'd article." With respects, I wish to make a few comments: First, not every ARS member is as strongly inclusionist as Ikip... he is not our "leader"... only a member with strong personal views. His actions, not matter how they are perceived by some are HIS... not the ARS's. Second, not all articles at AfD wear a "big stonking notice"... as it is placed on only those few that an AGF editor either determines or hopes is salvagable. And third, I kindly invite you to look at my rescue and improvement page as I offer some 90 articles where I had involvement in rescue, improvement, AND keeping... most of which I discovered because of the ARS tag. I see a tag placed by another requesting help. I look and determine if there are hopes of salvage. I pitch in and "sofixit" myself. Others help, or they do not. I personally find that occasional "big stonking notice" to be of value to me and my efforts to improve the project. And if I do not find a tagged article worth salvaging or am unable to do so because of lack of knowledge about the article subject, I will not even attempt it... and will often offer a delete opinion for such at AfD. Please don't paint us all with the wide brush being used toward that one person, as we are all individuals with the improvement of the project at heart. And PS: I am not on that rescue hall of fame page, though some appreciate my efforts toward the project. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The ARS is good in theory but horrifically flawed in practice. The {{ rescue}} tag tends these days to be applied to any article up for AfD, regardless of whether it can be rescued or not. Then again, I'm kind of disdainful for drive-by tagging of any kind. I only tag pages with templates such as {{ npov}} or {{ cleanup}} if either a) it's obvious it needs doing but I don't have the time myself or b) I have some specific objections I need to talk through before making the change. Otherwise, I silently fix it. Shimples. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 11:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Merridew’s Law: cite As a discussion about an inclusionist or a deletionist grows longer, the probability of a claim of harassment by adherents of the opposite philosophy approaches 1.

— Sceptre ( talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I've replied on my talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

There are not enough third party sources to verify the historical significance of this match. This is also extremely likely to end up being loaded with POV.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Giant Snowman 13:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – Pee Jay 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

What was the point of this edit summary? You've been editing here for years, are you really so surprised that people would find this article to be very low on the significance scale? David D. (Talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a WPFOOTY-motivated deletion. Not a lack-of-notability-motivated deletion. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I've declined your speedy on this, as someone else spoke for keeping. DGG ( talk) 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I do agree with DGG that a speedy is not appropriate since this example needs to be discussed and could be a precedent either way. By the way, I have nothing to do with WPFOOTY and I agree with the suggestion for delete. Do leave the temper at home as it is not productive, thanks. David D. (Talk) 15:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Congratulations. You argued well, you made your point, and after many many tries, NPOV triumphed. You've helped restore my faith in wikipedia. - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 02:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, I noticed the bother you're in with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg. I couldn't help it really as User:PeeJay2K3 pointed it out at another deletion discussion which he began! :) Oddly enough, it too concerns a semi-final, that of 2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster which I created for various reasons that I believed to be notable and hich, like you, was sent to AfD before I could get it sorted properly. But I just thought I'd assure you that I find some of PeeJay's points baffling at your discussion when compared to mine, in particular the idea that the Battle of Bramall Lane is notable "because it cites an example of a match being abandoned because a team did not have enough players left on the pitch" when he would have mine deleted despite having a record-breaking crowd attendance and being the only match of its kind ever played in that particular stadium amongst numerous other things! Anyway good luck with the discussion, happy editing and don't let it get you down. ;) -- can dle • wicke 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply