Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello SH. Another editor provided info about the methods requested. If you're still interested that is. And again, thank you for attempting to help. :)Synergy 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Shoe. I've put in info from Stedman, Jacobs, Ainger and Allen. Those are all the books I have. Can you add anything or is there anything else that you want to do to the article before we go to peer review? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey SH, I'm wondering if you can give me some very quick input on an image concern. File:KarenMok HKfestival2009.jpg was recently uploaded by an editor who claims s/he took the photo. In the past, this editor has uploaded other people's photos and claimed them as his own, so I just want to be cautious. In this case, the file page does have extensive camera metadata, so I am more willing to assume that the uploaded really did take it...is the camera metadata enough, or is there also a good way to search the internet and stuff to verify that the image isn't sitting around somewhere else? Thanks, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see; I jumped to conclusions because of how active you are at FP :). Anyway, I'll keep asking around; thanks for your reply. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 14:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm afraid I can't consider this at the moment, with too much going on. I have virtually no stuff on Massenet beyond what's in the basic reference books, and I don't have any time for in-depth research in this area. Best of luck with it, if you go ahead. On the bright side, I'm glad your almighty strop did the trick with Raul and that Agrippina will be on main page on 14th. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Surely Knot Garden can't be as bad as that - though granted I've never heard a note of it. Still, I've got a soft spot for Midsummer Marriage (which I would have loved to have seen when Chicago put it on a couple of seasons back). And I find myself liking what little I know of his other music more than I think I should. Ah, well...I doubt, at least, that it could top that absolute horror I saw in Baltimore some years back. The Alien Corn, that was called. Now there is an evening worth forgetting - totally useless piece of junk. --User:AlbertHerringIo son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 08:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
...oh. In that case, consign it to the dustheap. I confess that I don't know much of his vocal music at all; most of what I've heard is purely instrumental. It's Britten with wrong notes, and pulled apart a bit. As I say, I like it more than I ought.
By the way, congratulations on making today's Featured Article! One of these days I mean to take my copy of John Tyrell's book on Janáček's operas and give Jenůfa the FA treatment; is that something you'd be interested in helping with? Or are your tastes more Baroque? --User:AlbertHerringIo son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
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
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Shoemaker. My best guess is that you created the RFC on the inclusion of plot summaries in WP:What Wikipedia is not (please let me know if I am wrong). Accordingly, I wanted to let you know that I have reworked the RFC intro. Please understand that this is not any sort of criticism of what you have written. I think it was a great start. Also I have moved your original statement into the discussion section so your argument is preserved, and I would request that you sign it. Please let me explain the rationale for my action. The intro to an RFC should state the nature of the disagreement and briefly summarize the main points in made in support of each position. Your previous intro was more of a pure position statement in opposition to inclusion of plot summaries in this policy. In addition to summarizing the points in favor of inclusion, I have tried to honestly and briefly summarize the points you have made in opposition. Hopefully this will present the most neutral introduction to the RFC to editors who may be entering this discussion for the first time, and allow for a balanced and well thought out discussion. Similarly, I have removed a few of the lines leading into the straw poll that I felt could polarize discussion or imply that the straw poll was a substitute for discussion. My hope is that we can all work together to find a consensus through discussion instead of just 'duking it out' in a poll, so to speak.
In order to hopefully allay any concerns you may have along these lines, let me also mention that I am undecided on this issue. There are many pages that are pure summary that I very much like and feel are valuable and would be unhappy to lose from Wikipedia. I very much understand and empathize with many of the arguments in favor of allowing pure plot summary in Wikipedia, and am concerned about the potential ramifications of a policy statement against it. On the other hand, I understand the arguments against plot summary and feel that there are strong points there too in terms of the overall quality of Wikipedia as a source of real world knowledge. My point is that I am on the fence about this, and I hope that solid, well reasoned, amicable discussion from both sides will help me decide, and will work towards a consensus policy that is best for Wikipedia.
Given the above, I feel like I am in a good position to be able to facilitate an RFC intro that everyone feels is fair and that maximized the quantity and quality of the debate from the community. Please do not take this as any sort of negative statement toward people of either persuasion; sometimes it is simply helpful both for execution and appearances if someone less invested in either standpoint helps with the wording. If you feel that there are any main points that I have missed in the RFC intro, or that I have mischaracterized any of your points, please let me know. I'll volunteer my help in clarifying or adding points that each side feels is necessary, in order to keep things orderly so there is not a giant edit war over the RFC intro, and so that there is an appearance of fairness to people of both perspectives. To be clear; I am not in any way trying to impose this approach; if you wish to make more edits to the intro you are clearly free to do so. I am merely suggesting that having a more neutral person do so might help things go smoothly.
In any case, my apology for the long comment, and I look forward to what will hopefully be a productive discussion in the RFC. Thanks-Locke9k (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
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 09:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please remember, in the blurb text, to bold the article that is the focus of the text. Also, please remember not to wikify or otherwise code (bold, italics, etc) the text in the caption field - as the caption field is simply what appears in the rollover text on the image itself - it will not recognize the wiki coding. So, with that in mind, I made these fixes: [1]. Please keep that in mind when adding new entries to portals. :) Cirt (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, Shoemaker. Hamitonstone suggested that I contact you. He passed this article through GA review but suggested it could use a good copyedit to make it more user-friendly for people who are not musicians. Could you please help me out? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'd appreciate whatever help you can lend. The goal is FA. Jonyungk (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
BTW, hope you're sleeping better and am looking forward to seeing what you might do with this piece. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
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!
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 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Tortilleras Nebel.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 27, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-27. Yes, I realize that's today, but I'd forgotten to notify you last night when I wrote the blurb -- sorry about that! howcheng {chat} 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, regarding the current discussion on the FPC talk page, i would like to clarify some personal points, without cluttering the talk page.
First i would like to say my intervention was in no way a rebuttal of your work. I have great respect for all the time you dedicate to Wikipedia and I must say i was even more surprised to know you had to buy something to do it. Moreover i took the Tristam Shandy submission only as an example of a broader problem. I could have used others, such as your Grant submission (where I don't even understand either point on the debate).
Now, on to the main point, i would like to try to explain to you why I can't assess your work as well as I would like. I'm also a big fan of literature. If you check my contributions, you will see that the main article I contributed to is literature-related : Les Rougon-Macquart.
This article is a good example to try to explain my point. The Rougon-Macquart are one of the main novel series in French literature. However, since there are almost no English translation of the book, nobody (even on the Wikiproject:Novels) is able to cross check what i wrote about it, or suggest improvements on it (except cosmetic ones). Were this to happens on the French wikipedia, almost anybody with a passing interest on literature would have something to say about the article.
For Tristam Shandy, I'm on the opposite side. You mention that it started a lot of English tropes, whereas I never heard about the book nor the author (but i do know about the four most important influences you cite). The article is well-written, but doesn't ring anything for me because it's written for people with prior knowledge about it. I sense that this book may indeed have a profound impact on English-speaking countries, but I can't tell how much. As for as i know, it could even be a biased viewpoint from some fans (note that I'm not accusing you of any bias, I'm just saying others articles on non-notable subjects may have this kind of bias). Therefore, I feel I'm not qualified to assess the picture.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. I'm planning to overhaul King Arthur and The Indian Queen over the next week or two. Just thought I'd let you know so we avoid treading on each others' toes at this early stage. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. There's no hurry with the Purcell project (remember, the anniversary is in December). I'll get back to you about King Arthur when I've done my bit. --Folantin (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I knew it was September so I have no idea why I wrote December. Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
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.
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 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I noticed this suggestion you made at WP:FCDW:
How to find, scan, and prepare engravings from old books well enough to make a credible FPC run. - This would pretty much be me (Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)) explaining how I work, in collaboration with one or two others who I'd lead through such a process. Might work best as a series.
I think this is a great idea. I'd be happy to help with the 'making it a dispatch' part of the work if you are still interested in writing it. Maralia (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
The RFC did not wind up with a clear consensus to removed WP:NOT#PLOT from policy. If you think it did, please explain to me how.—Kww(talk) 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Policies are only changed with clear consensus to change. There's an inertia to policies that must be maintained for stability. I agree that something has to shift, and the RFC clearly indicates that something has to shift, but removing it from policy is premature and excessively bold.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your use of edit-warring tactics in an effort to shift policy has been brought up at ANI.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi -- can I suggest that you expand your statement by explaining why you feel this falls within the jurisdiction of Arbcom? It seems at best unclear. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
SH - I don't usually get involved in RFAR issues that don't concern me. However, your experience regarding the MH case is close to something I've had happen to me in real life (not wikipedia). I made some errors in judgement in executing some responsibilities, which happened to fall on the radar of a certain group that was seeking to effect some changes. I was publically excoriated for what I had done in a way where the reaction was far in excess of the stimulus and more a reflection of a certain clique's agenda than my actual performance. It wasn't a pleasant experience, none the least since I had to agree that to a certain extent they had a point.
Ultimately others spoke up for me, and clearly many more people felt I was being unfairly singled out. With time the whole thing blew over. But someone searching hard enough for me by name can still come across traces. This type of blowup happens all the time - politics is the best example, but anytime you do anything with any public face, it is a risk. What is more, anyone who does anything worthwhile knows others face that risk, and will not judge you harshly for having had the experience.
My advice, as an impartial observer to this situation but also having been in a similar position, is just move on with your life. Ignore it. The cat is out of the bag and periodically someone may write something unpleasant about you and it somewhere. That will not change regardless of what Arbcom would do now. If someone stumbles across it, most likely they will ignore it. If they decide to investigate further, there is enough in the record from more than a year ago that they will discount it. However, to be rather blunt, your repeated attempts (a year ago and now) to reopen the discussion look more suspect and less mature than ignoring the issue altogether.
The bystander comments at your clarification request are by and large supportive of you and critical of Arbcom. That probably feels good but don't let it gear you up for a fight where winning doesn't mean anything. As usual, NYB has it right. In fact, I would go even further than what I wrote above: to "ignore it". I would withdraw your clarification request, requesting a clerk close it (not blank it, hide it, ... - just close it and archive it in the usual way), thanking both the current arbitrators and peanut gallery for their comments and in particular for their reaffirmation that findings reflecting adversely on you have been withdrawn. Then I would go on doing worthwhile things to the best of my ability with my head held high, without ever letting myself be provoked to discussing it again in a public or semi-public setting. There is nothing to gain. Martinp (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely my opinion. With time, all this will pass, move down the google rankings a bit etc, and stop being talked about; if it doesn't keep being brought up. StickyParkin 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi SH, I deleted File:Handel - Fitzwilliam Sonata 3.ogg here (on Wikipedia) as it was a duplicate file (also on Commons). I am unable to find an English Wikipedia Featured Sounds template on Commons to add, though. I assume you know where this is an can add it. If for some reason you want it restored here, please let me know and I will do so. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks - I had it on my watchlist from DYK and generally clear our duplicates when I notice them, but understand having this here too. Take care, Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your work is appreciated, it's great to have such high-quality versions. And I'm certainly still keen on the other book! Haukur (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and this was what finally convinced me. Haukur (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I know reaction to this is really pissing you off, but ranting probably won't help you any. I agree with you, but the sarcasm won't help you any, I expect. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Red Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to the revolutionary Shoemaker's Holiday, for his/her continued work on policy pages. Thank you for making a difference in so many wikipedians lives by helping chart the course of what wikipedia is an where it is going. Ikip (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Have you considered deleting or archiving your comments? I am having problems loading your page because it is so big. Ikip (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Just wanted to say that it's helpful to see the discussion shift away from "ideal" or "principled" proposals, and instead towards incremental changes that most people can live with. It's not pretty, but that's how consensus building works. I think your latest proposal is more or less bang on, and better than what we had before. But above all, patience goes a long, long way here. Give people time to simmer on it, and maybe massage the language, if only so they can feel important. Process matters. People don't like to feel like they're being force-fed something, and often like to feel included. For an issue that's as contentious as this, we have to expect some amount of bickering. Randomran (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
When people can't agree on how to sculpt something, find ways to build coalitions that will help you chip away at it a bit at a time. When the coalition to leave it be is bigger than the coalition to chip away, you'll know you've taken it as far as it can go. We're making progress. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yeah, but we don't slap disputed tags over everything we don't agree with, especially on policy pages. If there's a discussion going on, that's fine. If the discussion doesn't reach a consensus, then that's fine as well. Otherwise practically every single policy on the Wiki would have "dubious" tags plastered all over it. FWIW, I think PLOT needs overhauling. What it doesn't need is removing - that's a fancruft nightmare waiting to happen. We already have enough useless, redundant, plot-only non-articles which waste endless amounts of time. Black Kite 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Archiving of Amendment Request in MH ArbCom Caseedit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Shoemaker's Holiday, FYI the request was archived by AGK on a private direction from some member(s) of ArbCom. I have posted to AGK's talk page about this, and also notified Carcharoth. Best, EdChem (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FASTILY(TALK) 04:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, take another look: The Bab ballads are most important to the Background section - the fact that Gilbert used them in writing the show is an important part of the show's genesis. We should also say that the Bab Ballads had been very popular, no? Then, in the Analysis/satire section, we can just expand upon the ones that Stedman said were important to the satire of the show. The fact that a character was introduced previously is not an explanation of the satire, it is just part of the background. If you want to discuss what is satiric about it, that can go in the satire section, but I am certain that they fact that these Ballads were used must be mentioned in the Background section. As for the Lead, I think it's enough to say that he used some of the Bab Ballads, and list them out in the Background section. Now I'm going to read your newest message to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, linking them from Wikisource is a good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Did you look at the peer review comments? There are a number of issues, especially re: some references, that I did not have a really good response for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
BTW, Awadewit promised to give us a review, but has not gotten to it yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us.
BTW, isn't it time to archive this very, very long talk page? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is, but I really need to copy over all the FP promotions into my gallery first, and I've been lazy. I'll have a look at the project in the morning. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi you marked File:Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000629.jpg for speedy deletion. However it is a Featured picture for the en:wikipedia, and the commons entry does not mention this. When you nominate this type of thing for speedy delete, can you please transfer the marking to the commons file entry so that nothing is lost when we delete it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, now deleted, I should have compared the name of the image rather than the look of the image, and thanks for removing the full sized display yourself! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Only eleven days in this round to go and it's looking very interesting in the Wildcard race. In particular there is an epic struggle for the automation progression spot at the top of Pool C with only two points in it as I type. In other news, congratulations to Durova for her 200th successful featured picture nomination on the English Wikipedia - well done!
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 (572)
Pool B
Mitchazenia (223)
Pool C
Theleftorium (324)
Pool D
Candlewicke (493)
Pool E
Durova (458)
Pool F
Sasata (960)
Current Wildcards
Rlevse (321)
Useight (312)
Wrestlinglover (300)
Paxse (286)
Scorpion0422 (273)
Ottava Rima (248)
ThinkBlue (206)
the_ed17 (169)
Juliancolton (144)
97198 (132)
All scores are accurate as of 08:58, 18 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 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't even own a copy of Photoshop and have never restored an image of any kind. I'm not sure what kind of contribution I could make. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Unfortunately, with Highers currently ongoing I'm trying my hardest to avoid doing pretty much anything on Wikipedia :/ I'm a bit annoyed at my own lack of self discipline in that issue as you can probably tell I am still editing at my usual rate (not good). I'll get to your image as soon as I can or as soon as I would like to, that is, after exams are over. This year my final two Highers, Spanish and Art & Design, are both on June 5 so I will likely be able to get round to those on the weekend following that. Sincere apologies Shoe, but I really do want to at least attempt to study :) Hope you understand, GARDEN 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello! By any chance, might you reconsider on the Anastasia discussion? As you can see, I have been working pretty hard to improve this one. Given the historical basis for the character, the titular appearance in a film, video game, and novel as well as having been marketed in about a half dozen different dolls, I am coming across a number of sources from which to construct an out of universe article. I next hope to see if I can find any interviews for a production section, but anyway, I truly believe we have the basis for something here. One other note, the ones for Anastasia and Drizella Tremaine essentially concern the wicked stepsisters from Cinderella. These could easily be merged into a Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella type of article. If you check Google Books doing a search of that nature, they are discussed in academic books in an analytical and out of universe manner, because these characters' have origins that go back to at least the early 1800s with the Brother's Grimm. Their transformation from the original literary characters to the Disney film appear in such books as this. Whether their role in the individual film is notable, their place in a centuries old literary and then film culture is something that has indeed been covered in academic resources and in this case, a merge to a new article on the wicked stepsisters together seems appropriate, because these are characters that certainly at least English teachers/students as well as those studying folklore and its reception in modern culture have written on and have an interest in. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Regarding this, thank you for keeping an open mind. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A statement covering the points you requested is being drafted. However, progress has been slower than we'd like because of the simultaneous efforts to clear our case backlog. Kirill[talk][pf] 12:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hey everyone, it's iMatthew! I'm so glad to finally back, and I need to thank Garden for taking care of things while I was ill. There are about 6 days left in the round, and I'm sending the newsletter out now to remind some of you to pick it up in these last few days if you want to get in the next round.
I've listed a few of you that have the chance to catch up before the end of the round in italics over to the right. Keep working!
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 (611)
Pool B
ThinkBlue (242)
Pool C
Theleftorium (450)
Pool D
Candlewicke (504)
Pool E
Durova (460)
Pool F
Sasata (961)
Current Wildcards
Scorpion0422 (338)
Useight (338)
Rlevse (323)
Wrestlinglover (303)
Paxse (286)
Ottava Rima (248)
Mitchazenia (226)
the_ed17 (172)
Juliancolton (155)
97198 (141)
Ceranthor (108)
J Milburn (107)
Matthewedwards (97)
Those in italics are not currently in place for the next round, but are very close.
All scores are accurate as of 16:15, 23 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 TheHelpfulBot at 20:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In answer to your question from a few days ago, it's the "Discussion report", about ongoing discussions of policy and other issues of community-wide interest: "Discussion Report And Miscellaneous Articulations" (like TROLL and BRION, the punnish acronyms for the arbitration and technology reports).--ragesoss (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009.
I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks for your message on my talk page, but what's the question? Which article are you talking about? I need you to focus on the Pinafore images and satisfying the many outstanding comments from Awadewit. Can you help there please and take a break from other things for a few days? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Re photos: I'd be sad to loose the photograph in favor of a drawing of the photograph (assuming that's what it is). Can't we keep them both in, perhaps, two different articles? Maybe the drawing could go in the article on the The Tempest (Sullivan) music? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From user talk:Drboisclair:
I hate to be a pain about this, but I really do feel that fair-use images, where free-use ones clearly do exist, only serve to prevent free-use images from being sought out. (As for myself: I've probably provided far more free-use images than the number of fair-use images I've ever suggested for removal: I'm currently working my way through a complete works of Sir Walter Scott from 1886-7.) I'm happy to try and search out replacements for the ones I've asked to be deleted - just shove a list on my talk page of those, and any others that need illustrated and I'll search them out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right, but I think that you will find with this novel, i.e., The Prairie that you will only find dark, plain covers that could be the cover of any book. Perhaps one could use the title page of the first edition, which one might get from Google books or something. I would imagine that images that are digitalized from Google Books or Internet Archive are public domain if they are from books that were printed before 1923, right?--Drboisclair (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)--Drboisclair (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Maybe it needs another round of publicity? And a variety of choices ... well, as much variety as possible. I should have probably spoken up a bit more last year ... I just couldn't stand the drama of the place, the way some editors seemed to oppose some noms for IMO ridiculous reasons. TBH I don't think many editors value sounds on Wikipedia, which is sad. Graham87 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I ask that you make an exception of this imageedit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As per your tag on File:Black Arrow 2007 ed from Penguin Books.jpg I have downloaded a smaller image: File:Black Arrow 2007 ed from Penguin Books r.jpg. I ask that in this instance that a public domain image not be required for two reasons:
This image illustrates a section on this novel, which deals specifically with this edition, and
This edition specifically endorses the Wikipedia articles on Stevenson and The Black Arrow. If a smaller image is required, I will be ready to oblige, but I request that the "prejudice" against this image being a non-public image be waived in this case.--Drboisclair (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your image from Act II has a home now. ;-) Should I nominate it for FP? Or are you still working on it? Voceditenore (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
On December 18, 2007 Penguin Books issued the latest annotated edition of The Black Arrow with the introduction and notes by Professor John A. Sutherland, Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College London and visiting professor of literature at the California Institute of Technology.[35] Professor Sutherland makes mention of this article in this edition.[36]
There is no need for an illustration of the novel per se. We already have images that are public domain. This section speaks specifically about this edition, of which the image is the cover. This is a reasonable rationale for the fair use policy.--Drboisclair (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi all. Round 2 is officially over, and we're very pleased with the results. The lowest passing score was over 200! We are very impressed with the last minute pushes to get a spot, which many of you did through mainspace editing your butts off for the last week or so. We really hope that those of you who did a lot of mainspace editing this time around will take some of that and turn it into good and featured content next round.
The pools for Round 3 will be up soon; the round starts tomorrow, June 1, 2009. As always, nominations that were nominated last round but not passed yet, may count for this round. Hope to see you all working very hard, as you are down to the Top 16, and it's going to take a lot to make the Top 8!
Those of you who were eliminated and no longer wish to receive this newsletter may remove your name from this list. If you were eliminated, but are still looking for some fun editing competition, check out User:Shappy/Amazing Race Wikipedia which starts in July.
In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool winners are:
Pool A
Shoemaker's Holiday (683)
Pool B
ThinkBlue (251)
Pool C
Theleftorium (462)
Pool D
Candlewicke (552)
Pool E
Durova (497)
Pool F
Sasata (961)
Wildcard winners
Useight (420)
Scorpion0422 (409)
Wrestlinglover (356)
Rlevse (334)
Paxse (285)
Ottava Rima (249)
Mitchazenia (228)
Gary King (213)
the_ed17 (211)
Juliancolton (211)
Those in italics are not currently in place for the next round, but are very close.
All scores are accurate as of the end of the round.
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 TheHelpfulBot at 14:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There's a draft statement currently under discussion. How that will move forward will depend primarily on how quickly the Committee can come to an agreement, which is unfortunately not something I can control or make promises about. Kirill[talk][pf] 13:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Converted another presidential speech to .ogg format. For unexplained reasons it's acquired various clicks and thumps that were not present in the original .mp3. It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Any explanations why it occurs, or suggestions what to do about it? DurovaCharge! 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hola,
You mentioned here that there are studies critical of the WHO's analysis and endorsement of acupuncture. Do you have any you could e-mail me? I wouldn't mind including them on the page, or at least reading about them. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the DOI is great, with that I can probably find the article no problem. If you think of any others with a similar concern, feel free to drop me a line and I'll dig for it. Interesting issue! Thanks for the reply. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just read the thread at WikiCup talk. Happy birthday, but so sad these things go with it! Would you like to talk? DurovaCharge! 19:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Happy birthday, mate. I would try and persuade you to stick around but with nonsense like this I'm not sure it's worth it any more. Wikipedia seems to be haemorrhaging good editors lately [2][3]. Good luck, whatever you do in the future. --Folantin (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Following up: you make several serious accusations regarding Wadester16 here,[4] and assert that I agree with you. Yet the post is unclear about what you state I agree with, and doesn't include diffs regarding Wadester's actions. Since you have named me, please give the specifics of the complaint and provide diffs. People may come to me with questions. DurovaCharge! 19:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Happy birthday, old fellow! 30 doesn't seem so bad when one is looking at the rapidly approaching half-century mark! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thirty is a good age. It's better to be out of your twenties. Happy birthday. It's been a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Update regarding the Matthew Hoffman case statementedit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The statement was been rewritten and is in voting again. Currently it has enough support votes to pass, but we usually allow enough time for all arbs to vote. For you to leave now because of a lack of a statement would be very sad timing since it is likely to be posted within the next few days. I hope you will reconsider. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
If I'm never going to see you on Wikipedia again, I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for all your hard work and dedication to the project. It is appreciated. Useight (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
My fondest of fond wishes for you in the future - your work here was undervalued and I for one saw the true worth of your edits and restorations and I know they will continue to enlighten readers and contributors alike. It's been brilliant. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also wish to offer my thanks, and to remind you that you're always welcome here if you ever want to come back. Thanks for all the time you have dedicated to this project (and for teaching me sound and image restoration, despite my being terrible at it). DendodgeT\C 22:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
I have come very near today to doing what I said I never would conceivably have done, which is leave the project as a protest, to show my support for your actions at ANI, and my sympathy and understanding why you should have left. But just before I hit the send key, I decided to do the opposite, to stay and fight all the more those who would use the personal prejudices about what is important in the world to destroy the idea of a comprehensive Wikipedia. I'm going to let other delete the junk, while i defend what should not need to be defended , if it were not for the people who think the analysis of creative activity an unencyclopedic subject. Please come back and help me. You did extremely well today, and I hope even your temporary leaving will energize the rest of us. DGG (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Seconded. Do not let others bully you away. I made that mistake myself in the past and as Eleonor Roosevelt said, "Learn from the mistakes of others; life is too short to make them yourself" (or something along those lines...). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree with A Nobody and DGG. It wasn't Voltaire who said this, but while I may disagree with what you say, I defend to the death your right to say it and have that opinion. I'm truly sorry that my actions have led you to make this choice and hope that your absence will be temporary. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hey Shoe. I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Things can get awfully frustrating here at times, but I was happy to see that your efforts and good works are appreciated by many of our best editors who have been outspoken in your defense. And I notice Stifle made something of an attempt to mend fences after I kicked him in the Gnads, so hopefully that makes you feel better. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your work here is not done, and your contributions are not for the benefit of the admins or other editors with whom you have disagreements, but for the readers of an important encyclopedia—arguably the most important compendium of information currently available. Your impact as an editor has value beyond your own contributions, but also as leadership by example. May I urge you to put aside what are real, significant grievances for the benefit of the project and those who you can inspire to do the necessary work here?
DGG suggests staying to fight the good fight, which is one reasonable approach. And it's hard not to rise to the bait when topics you deem important or critical to the project are threatened. But if you don't want to be embroiled in these disputes, there are probably tens of thousands of articles / files that you could create or improve without any conflicts whatsoever. Bongomatic 05:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Say it ain't so. Could we lure you back with a weekly ration of grog? Cookies? Funny hats? I remember what fun it was to read Creatures of Impulse. Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm listening to one of music files that you nominated for featured sound....and you're indeed one of accomplished and valuable editors here. Please don't give up Wikipedia... --16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what a big start to Round 3! We already have people past the 50 point mark, in one week. We can tell that this round is going to be tight, and we'll likely see every Top 8 contestant with over 500 (maybe 400) points by the end of this round. Keep working hard! – weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew : Chat , and TheHelpfulOne
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.
Turns out last week's newsletter was never sent out. Sorry about that! Since we already had it done, we are sending you both. This newsletter is the one for this week though. Anyway, we're seeing you guys working really hard. There are a few of you over 100 points in the first two weeks. Also, we have switched Ottava Rima from Pool D to Pool B, and Shoemaker's Holiday (who has withdrawn) from Pool B to Pool D. Scorpion0422 is more than likely to withdraw before this round ends, because he will be inactive next round. That would leave 2 contestants in Pool B. So, to make things fairly even, we have switched the two contestants. Sorry for all of the confusion!
Finally, we know it's very early, but you can already sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here! We want to get everything ready way in advance for next year. So we opened the list up, and we'll start working things out in September/October, most likely. Information is all on the page, and you may leave any questions on the talk page. So go sign up before your favorite flag is taken! 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew : Chat , and TheHelpfulOne
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 by TheHelpfulBot at 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.Reply
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 by TheHelpfulBot at 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Shoemaker, just in case you're still reading your talk page, I've included you in this mailing. We miss you over at OP!
Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:
The use of italics in article titles
Possible changes to the article guidelines concerning "Selected Recordings"
Suggestions for the July Composer of the Month and Opera of the Month
Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
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 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have conducted a reassessment of the artcile as part of the GA sweeps process. The article needs some work to meet WP:GAC so has been delisted. You can find details of issues that need addressing at Talk:Treasure Island/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We can expect to have other valuable images and sound files uploaded/edited by you for FP and FS. :) Again, welcome back.--Caspian blue 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Some did well this week, but a lot of you didn't move much. Some are still hanging under the 200 mark. Our current top 8 are all over 200, so if you are below that line, get moving! There is a poll up at the talk page about the rest of this year's competition. If all of you could give your opinion there, it would be very much appreciated.
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.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I do it occasionally... fun but cumbersome without a special A/D rig. First off, you need a dedicated player with the proper pickup: pickups for LPs will self-destroy the needle and the record in a few spins. Second, a dedicated photo corrector - equalizing pre-WWII, non-standardized, records, may be a bitch because the original equalization curve must be restored by trial and error. I have three settings in my dedicated 78 RPM phono stage and ... honestly ... usually none of them fits good. Try as good a match as possible: do all EQ in analogue, reduce destructive digital processing. That's where all-in-one USB thingies fail miserably. Here's my workflow (fun flow):
Familiarize myself with the record, identify where the recording shines and fails technically (rumble, low bass cutoff, voice spectrum resonances etc.), get the feeling of what a proper recording level should be. This may need an intermediate tt-to-tape analogue recording to reduce turntable hussle and wear.
Select proper phono stage EQ curve by trial and error
Feed analogue to an MD player programmed to high-speed mono mode (a poor man's A/D)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your efforts in establishing that the overture soundfile is indeed PD. The extended The Bartered Bride article is now nearing completion. Please feel free to add any comments/suggestions on the talkpage. I hope to send the article for Peer Review by the end of the week. Bedrich Smetana has been at FAC for the last eight days and is doing OK. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Shoemaker's Holiday. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
: 13 April 2009
edit
Shoemaker's Holiday (647)
ThinkBlue (247)
Theleftorium (455)
Candlewicke (539)
Durova (479)
Sasata (961)
Useight (393)
Scorpion0422 (372)
Rlevse (329)
Wrestlinglover (307)
Paxse (285)
Ottava Rima (248)
Mitchazenia (226)
Juliancolton (181)
the_ed17 (179)
J Milburn (168)
Bedford (156)
Gary King (147)
97198 (142)
Ceranthor (111)
Tinucherian (106)
Matthewedwards (98)
