User talk:Fox/December 2009
 | This page 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: "White Lies at Barfly" image (from Commons)
Thanks for the quick reply! Was about to ask you why, and how, you managed to overturn your talkpage so quickly until I realised that I wasn't on Commons anymore. But yeah, the image, the interesting thing is that the image states here that it was taken on 21 February 2008, which is approximately one week before their widely publicised debut gig on the 28 February. I had noticed it when the image was first added to the page, but didn't really think about it all that much, as I thought that the 28 February must have been their debut as a headline act, as opposed to supporting someone like they were on the 21st.
The reason I'm now looking into it is that I recently found out that their debut was also as a support act, one week later. So I'm puzzled as to what is going on. The reason I came back to you is, is there a way of contacting Elz? Is she on Wiki? I don't have a Flikr account so I can't go through that way. I'm quite close to getting this article just right, so I'm really hoping to sort this. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 16:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah okay, no worries. I have also just read that you used to be WBOSITG, I've spoken to you before! --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
- Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Great News!!!
Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
- From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost
- Editorial: A digital restoration
- Election report: ArbCom election in full swing
- Interview: Interview with David G. Post
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Hi Garden. I'm just leaving this message to let you know that you can begin at any time. Although the kick-off was going to be January 1, 2010, several editors, including the organiser and the Bacon WikiCup scorekeeper have already begun. Cheers.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 08:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Christmas #1 1985
Truly bizarre article (List of Christmas number one singles (UK)) which starts with a falsehood...". Christmas number one singles are those that are at the top of the UK Singles Chart on the Sunday before Christmas Day".. Err no they're not. What user came up with this completely wacky invention???
Shakin' Stevens was OFFICIALLY Christmas #1 in 1985 with Merry Christmas Everyone, the wiki article is erroneous. A further example is http://www.everyhit.com/christmasnumber1.html Quote - "A technical note; the Christmas Number One does not always synchronise with the dates elsewhere as they refer to 'week ending' chart dates. These are the real Christmas Number Ones". To echo what another user said - "When calculating what was the Christmas number one, bear in mind that the week ending date (used by many reference books) is not the same as the date the chart was released (Tuesdays until October 1987, Sundays after that)".
The links in the article add to the farce as they contradict this stupefying lead... Christmas Number One.. Everyhit - 1985 Shakin' Stevens Merry Christmas Everyone, BBC - 1985: Shakin' Stevens - Merry Christmas Everyone, even the damn Guardian - 1985: Merry Christmas Everyone, Shakin' Stevens, not to mention TOTP, VH1... etc etc etc. Shakin Stevens was OFFICIALLY #1 BEFORE and ON Christmas Day 1985.
You locked the article and added some revisionist material. Please correct it (i do not have enough posts but was prompted to register having seen the error).AaronTownsend (talk • contribs) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"Argument"?..."debate"? I dont follow. I stated fact, not an argument. If i stated..."England won the World Cup in 1966"... that is not me putting forth a debate or argument, its factual. The lead is incorrect, while the links contradict the list. The criteria is made up by the wiki user...the invention is laughable hence this page is erroneous. If i go on Millionaire next week, and Chris Tarrant asks me the £100 question..."What was Christmas #1 in 1985"... and i dont give the answer "Merry Christmas Everyone" (to gasps in the crowd), and leave with nothing, i can always say..."but Wikipedia had it different". You edit material on here so obviously want to inform people, and take pride in doing so... at LEAST make it credible, accurate.AaronTownsend (talk • contribs) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Think Chris is still hangin around. Wasn't intending to be patronising, merely giving an example of how wiki in this case cannot be trusted with its false listing, contradicting sources, and erroneous criteria that flies in the face of official Christmas number one standings. Cheers.AaronTownsend (talk • contribs) 12:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 21 support, 39 oppose, and 11 neutral. This is highly belated, but I wanted to thank you for the support in the RfA discussion. I do apologize for taking so long to reply to you, after the failure I laid back for a while. I just dove into another article and am working more diligently on WP. |
Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Policy Report
A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
- Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Merry Commercial Pagan Festival
How's it going? Long time, no Bloc Party. How's that art portfolio? RB88 (T) 18:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good to hear it's going well. Pray tell about these new albums. One of them surely has to be Primary Colours: NME Album of the Year and got an 82 on Metacritic and 5 stars by URB. Now where have I seen that before?? ;) New Los Campesinos! in the new year. Excited. Oh, and check out These New Puritans. RB88 (T) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, get xx. The RnB is only in the voice really. The music is dream pop and sparse. You know these journalists how they try to tag releases with random stuff. I probably have to put Two Dancers at the top of my list this year. Weird and wonderful. RB88 (T) 20:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nudge
Thanks, but nudge ignored. He's made 19 edits since you left him a message. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 11:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For your work at List of Christmas number one singles (UK). 81.170.99.74 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC) |
Happy holidays!
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
- Election report: ArbCom election result announced
- News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more
- In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
Enjoy the season!
May this season bring you joy and cheer Garden! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Photo Formating or Coding
I have absolutely no idea how to add a photos to a article, could you please tell me the coding or steps to upload a photo or however its done. Hope you can get back to me Rey fresco (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC) and thank you in advance
Merry Hogmanay
Hope you had a good Xmas (and updated the Number 1 list accordingly). If you've got some time during this in-betweeny bit, I'd love some comments on Is This It over at FAC. Started fast enough, but now it's just stalling a bit. Cheers. RB88 (T) 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
- News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
please explain
Promoting an article that is already within a featured or good topic does not get additional points for the topic. Adding articles to a topic does gain points, but only points for the article added. You do not get points for articles already in a topic when a new article is added.
Taken from the Wikicup page. I do not understand this. I am stupid. Please explain. "articles already in a topic"????? "already within a featured or good topic"????? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
One problem with Wikicup is that it does not give points for significant edits to existing articles that are already GA or FA. It doesn't give points to significant edits that rescue a stub and make it into a long article. This will influence editing behavior so that only effort that creates a GA or FA counts. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)