User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/04

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Oda Mari in topic Need your help
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiCup Newsletter

edit
20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Delivered for the WikiCup by  GARDEN  at 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Queries to my talk.Reply

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

edit

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
WCWM
Urecco
List of guitarists
Sylvester Medal
HBO channels
Doon Mackichan
Roz Weston
Idukki district
Yo (Excuse Me Miss)
Brooke Valentine
Steve Shill
Muhammad Sarwar
Rumford Medal
George of Duklja
Giovanni Battista Grassi
Slim Thug
Bhati
Let Me
List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors
Cleanup
Jake Weber
Varanasi
Closed list
Merge
Mailing list
Lakshmi Mittal
WIL WHEATON dot NET
Add Sources
Mirza
A1 (band)
Police rank
Wikify
Baha Men
Emma Nelson
Nafta, Tunisia
Expand
List of British entomological publishers
Higher-order control
Baby food

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

April Fool's DYK for Hedgehog Pie

edit
  On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hedgehog Pie, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.  

Thank you for your contribution to April Fool's Day 2009! Royalbroil 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

A-ha! I completely forgot about that! Thanks!

Thank you for the Oddball Barnstar

edit

No, two doesn't hurt at all. I feel doubly honored and doubly oddballish! Of course, when the deletionists come to take the Hotel toilet-paper folding article away, I'm gonna get you back by WP:CANVASSing you to participate in the AfD -- payback is payback! -- Noroton (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

My talk page

edit

Um, why did you delete my talk page? As far as I know, I'm not blocked. I even retain the tools to undelete it myself! --Jiang (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Terribly sorry! I was deleting User talk:Jiang. and I somehow got your page too. I've restored it now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Talkback

edit
 
Hello, Matthewedwards. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup Newsletter XI

edit

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply

Warning Template and Unneeded Information on "List of Criminal Intent episodes"

edit

April 2009

edit

  Please do not add content or templates to pages on Wikipedia that exceed the bandwidth limit (the limit is at least 55), as you did to List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes, without giving a valid reason for the additon of the template in the edit summary. Your content added does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Mgfan222 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's funny. Oh, and if you could fix whatever you did to my talk page, that'd be truly wonderful, because right now you've fucked up my entire talk page by encasing everything in a blue box. Cheers. And next time, you might want to try not copy/pasting a blanking/content-removal warning template from your own talk page and sticking it on someone else's when your usage is nothing to do with blanking.Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I fixed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Much appreciated. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

List of Wall-E awards and nominations

edit

Mind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy and no process is generally considered a voting process. Not even FL nominations are votes, a nomination is approved or disapproved based on the arguments presented and the consensus achieved. It is of no need for me to write "Support" or "Oppose", because I expressed a discomfort with the article. The discomfort was not answered, was not discussed and thereby the issue was unresolved. Therefore, I haven't even payed attention to the nomination.

PS. The FLC page is horribly organized, you can't get around it.Raaggio 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reorganized it myself. I will post additional comments regarding the article shortly. Raaggio 13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, you don't have to support or oppose. When I close the nomination, I will go through the nomination and the page and see for myself if it meets the criteria. I'll check to see whether reviewers' comments have been addressed or if there are valid arguments as to why not; the supports and opposes merely help me see what the general feelings are. Only the reviewers themselves can confirm whether they believe their concerns have been addressed; if you don't say so, I have to make the decision myself. Even if nothing was said at the FLC about your concerns, the page may have been changed to meet them anyway.

BTW, after frequenting it for over two years, successfully nominating 18 lists, being the FL director for a year, closing countless nominations, and spending hours a day on other related procedures, explaining how the FL process works isn't really necessary ;) Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

(to Raaggio) Speaking of the FL process, please do not edit other people's comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Input please

edit

There is a current discussion at WT:PW#List of Raw Episodes to create a list for episodes of wrestling shows, which I don't think would be a good idea. You were involved in one of the original discussions, and as the FL director, can you place your input there? Thanks.--Truco 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if I can offer much more than what I said at the previous discussion. As a non-fan, it's just televised sports entertainment. It's not even "scripted" in the traditional sense, is it? Just the results are predetermined? What is there to list? Airdate, episode number (which WWE doesn't agree on), production codes, directors, writers (if any). What for the summary? A list of matches? Who but the diehard fan wants to know this? It's hardly encyclopedic.
What's next? A list of BBC televised snooker matches? Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

???

edit

I'm not the nominator. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, wrong one! Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heads up

edit
 
More effective than any discussion.

I'm going away this weekend, leaving some time early Friday, back Sunday. You'll have to do closures this week. Just in case the very insane reviewers try to stage a coup, here's something to fight them off with. Have fun. -- Scorpion0422 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)   Done 15 promotions, due to those put on hold during the criteria change discussions. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Done Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. It's been promoted. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Outline of knowledge project summary, and future direction

edit

In response to a friend on Wikipedia who was wondering about how I've been and what I've been up to, I got to spewing about our little endeavor, and well, I got so carried away I pretty much told him everything.  :) The message turned out to be a pretty good summary of what we've accomplished so far and the overall plan.

See User talk:The Rambling Man#What's up?

The Transhumanist    23:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

FL Dispatch

edit

Wikipedia:FCDW/FLCChanges, see Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#FLC suggestion. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if Scorpion is still going to do it? Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
He is, I was just letting you know. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, thank you Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion

edit

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of philosophical theories, the editor who created the nominated page mentioned that the material he used to create that list was previously AfD'd.

Therefore, the page is subject to speedy deletion (WP:G4).

Had I known this, I would have tagged it for speedy instead of nominating it for AfD. What should I do now? Withdraw the nom, and tag the article for speedy?

The Transhumanist    23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't find the page where it originally came from to look, but unless the content is completely identical, it cannot be speedied. If in doubt, it's always better to AfD in an open forum where people can discuss it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

RfA

edit

Can you transclude my RfA onto the main page? It's currently semi-protected. FredSmit (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks like someone did it already before I came online. FWIW, I agree that it was too early, without knowing which IPs you have edited from. Maybe we'll see you there again in the future. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup Newsletter XII

edit

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 17:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply

Section moves

edit

There's a larger discussion taking place at WT:TV. We started it after I posted on the individual pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see your name a lot at the Degrassi pages, can I ask a question? Why is all of the information on the LOE transposed from the season pages? I get that it conserves space, but it also means that unless your are familiar with the coding then you cannot make any corrections to the page because you won't know where the information is actually coming from. For instance, there is currently an error with the season 8 page--a pair of brackets "}}" is appearing just above the episode listing--which now shows up on two pages because of the way the pages are set up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. About two years ago I completely rewrote the DTNG episodes, creating a Lede and adding summaries, and got it Featured. About six months later I began creating the season pages using List of Lost episodes as my inspiration. The Lost episode list is transcluded, and with that already being Featured I assumed that's the way it goes, so I transcluded the Degrassi ones too when I moved the summaries to the season pages. A couple of other episode pages have done the same thing since. I understand what you're saying, and Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Proposal for new layout of episode tables makes reference to where you've mentioned the disadvantages of transcluding. I've since begun work on changing the table format at User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/Episodes. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't remember if it was Degrassi or one of the other pages that was going up for FLC that I was reviewing and noticed that. I remember voicing my concern that it basically alienates IP editors that might spot an error because they probably won't know how to get to the actual text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Borrego Beast

edit

Trying to see if writing about the Borrego Beast as a part of Cryptozoology is ok. This is a well talked about campfire topic in San Diego California. The Anza Borrego Desert, Arroyo Tapiado Mud Caves are a well known fixture for local Boy Scouts. The story about this creature has been portraid similar to the 1989 film Tremors, which is about Graboids.

Some say this story is fictional some say they have seen or felt the creature. Some say the creature feed off of trash left behind campers (to make sure they pick up their trash). Others insist on its existance!

There is no verifiable evidence or documentation. Would this still be appropreate to post if it writen as Cryptozoology. This would fall along the lines of Bigfoot or El Chupacabra.

Thank you for your attention.

--Fxanimals (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If there is no verifiable evidence or documentation, my first instinct would be to say no, per our policies on verifiability in reliable sources; however, we have various WP:WikiProjects that may be able to answer your question better than I can: WP:CRYPTIDS, WP:PARA, WP:SKEPTIC, and WP:WikiProject Alternative Views. Sorry, Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

My reply

edit

Hi, I suppose I would like List of Case Closed episodes (season 1) to be removed, seeing as it doesn't have a reliable general reference to meet the requirements. If you could find one, that'd be nice. Thank you DragonZero (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Jamelia discography

edit
  On April 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jamelia discography, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: "ruby script"

edit

I think User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js does what you need. Gary King (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are three 'Sprk: cite date' functions for converting between mdy, dmy, and yyyy-mm-dd. Let me now if you need a script to do anything else. Plastikspork (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do not read this one - The Hunt - Outline of knowledge WikiProject - 04/17/2009

edit

Here's a trivia question for you...

While surveying libraries, their outline-related resources, and our coverage of them, I came across something funny...

What subclass is the Bible in the Library of Congress Classification?

Do you think they'd like this one at WP:DYK?

(Nope. They didn't.)     :)

Libraries

edit

For months, I've been sitting at a terminal in one of the largest libraries in the country, and I haven't even looked around at the available resources.

Until a few days ago.

I'm overwhelmed.

When compared to libraries, Wikipedia is small. (See Digest of Education Statistics 2008, Chapter 7:Libraries and Educational Technology Libraries, and turn to page 617).

But is that a fair comparison?

Yes.

Why?

Because we have growth potential.  :)

And we cover everything, including libraries!

Guess what else I found?

Hunting for outlines

edit

I began to study libraries and librarians, since they are experts in organizing knowledge. And of course I turned to Wikipedia to see what we had on the things I came across...

And while doing so I kept running into outlines on Wikipedia that are not (yet) part of the Outline of knowledge.

When I come across non-OOK outlines, generally I rename them, and reformat them to our standard outline format. But there is the occasional exception.

Here are some outlines I just added:

  1. List of energy topics --> Outline of energy (it converted great)
  2. List of Dewey Decimal classes --> Outline of Dewey Decimal classes (no conversion)
  3. Library of Congress Classification --> ??? (no rename, no conversion)

The last 2 are outlines by their very nature, and so our standard outline subheadings didn't seem to fit. So I left them as is.

I renamed the first 2, but the last one is the name of the outline, that is, the topic itself is an outline, and that outline is presented as the article's content, so I left the name as is. For now. This needs more thought.

Of course, that's not all. Concerning those last 2 outlines above...

Alternate outlines of knowledge

edit

...not only are they outlines, but they are outlines of knowledge! Well, the top few levels, at least.

Uh, so?

What happens if we linkify them?  :)

That is, what happens if we linkify their classifications to Wikipedia's outlines?  :)   :)   :)

They become alternate top ends to the OOK

edit

Yep.

What can you find?

edit

I challenge you to find some "hidden" outlines.

I dare you to take a look around Wikipedia for hidden outlines (that is, outlines not yet hooked into the OOK), and add your kills to WP:WPOOK#The hunt for hidden outlines.

My trophies are already there.

May the hunt begin!

edit

The Transhumanist    20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup Newsletter XIII

edit

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply

User talk deletion

edit

I request the restoration of any user talk pages that you have deleted under the pretense of WP:CSD, such as those found here. The criteria for speedy deletion does not grant an allowance for such deletions. WP:CSD G6 is exclusively for "technical deletions" (uncontroversial cleanup), which this is certainly not. WP:CSD G5 would be closer, allowing for the deletion of "[p]ages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others." However, this criteria also fails to support your deletions. Neither criteria outlines the deletion of "[u]ser talk page[s] of [i]ndefinitely blocked user[s]", in letter or spirit. If you believe these pages should be deleted, please submit them to WP:MFD and/or work on building a consensus at WT:CSD to add an appropriate point to our criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you for your time and understanding. --Vassyana (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just to note (as it some exceptions occured to me), that if any of those pages were attack pages or existed purely for harassment purposes, I am not requesting undeletion of such pages. If there are some diffs which are similar problematic, a partial restoration and a request for oversight of the offending unrestored diffs would be most appropriate. --Vassyana (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK. I'm going through them all at the moment. There's quite a few.. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Here's a list of User talk pages that I have G6'ed.

Talk pages of indefinitely blocked users are put into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages after a suitable time to allow them to appeal the block. Users blocked between 2005 and 2007 have had sufficient time to appeal their block. If they haven't done it yet, they're not going to. There are only three exceptions to this; users who are not indef-blocked, IP addresses, and user talk pages tagged with {{Sockpuppet}} or {{Sockpuppet}}. User:Jiang was not blocked, but got caught up in the delete I did on User talk:Jiang.; I restored that as soon as I realised. Same with User:Sweet Blue Water. His is now restored. There are 3 IPs. I've restored 2, the third is from an open proxy. It will never be unblocked, and there is no need to have a talk page for it. The rest I feel were OK deletes. Talk pages of indef blocked users have been getting deleted for many years. The Category page doesn't say they have to be taken to MfD; it says they are temp pages and implied (to me) that they can be deleted without process, ie speedied. CSD-G6, Non-controversial maintenance, seems to be the best fit. As well as that, we have an admin bot approved to do the same: User:CAT:TEMP deletion bot.

It's really late now (1.30 am), so I'm going to bed. I will discuss this further tomorrow though. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  08:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I must embarassingly admit that this has flown under my radar for quite some and I'm just now becoming fully aware of it. My principal concern is that in many cases that this neutral at best, and unhelpful in some cases where it obscures history. Thank you very much for such a complete and polite response. I truly and sincerely appreciate it. This seems to be an issue to raise for general discussion at the appropriate venues (one which has had only a few small discussions that tapered off or heavily focused on IP talk pages), rather than one to hash out with you directly. Thank you again and be well! --Vassyana (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
FYI, I have raised the issue for discussion: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages. Also, I neglected to thank you for undertaking tedious maintenance tasks, so thank you for undertaking them. :) --Vassyana (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hey, it's no problem. Rules around here change as often as the tide. I'll let the discussion play out; if consensus is that they shouldn't be deleted, then I won't. If people think the ones that have been deleted should be restored, I don't mind doing that either. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to request that User talk:Rydel also be undeleted, as this was the talk page of a deceased wikipedian, and should be preserved for posterity. Thanks, Matt (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  Done, cheers! Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

ping

edit

More mail. Tvoz/talk 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions FLC??

edit

I saw that you removed the List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions from the Featured List Candidate list and said "9 promoted, 2 failed" - since the article wasn't promoted and is still a "B" class I assume it failed? Nowhere does it say it's failed or why, it was just removed. Since there were plenty of support votes and all issues have been resolved I'm more than a little puzzled by this. Am I just impatient and it'll be promoted soon? did it fail? or was it removed by mistake?? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was promoted, for some reason the Bot hasn't completed the archiving process yet. If it doesn't do it by tomorrow, I may do it myself. The bot's operator may be unable to run it right now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll add {{FLCClosed}} for clarification. BTW, I'll be out till Monday. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Good idea. I'll add it to the rest too. Don't know why the bot didn't do it; it did the FLRCs and FACs. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ah, never mind, GimmeBot just started the botifying process. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Today's FLC closures

edit

Just in case you were going to do FLC closures, would you mind holding off for a few more hours? I haven't looked at them for a while and I wanted to have a chance to do so. I'm going away for a few hours, but I'll be back around 4 or 5 (EST). Thanks, Scorpion0422 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I sent you an email. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup Newsletter XIV

edit

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 14:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply

FLC or FA

edit

Well, the way they are now I could see them as GA. But, I'd have a hard time seeing them as FA because there really isn't that much production discussed about the episodes. And what's in the production section isn't entirely production information. It starts by introducing the reader to what the show is, which isn't production information. Just about the entire first paragraph on the season 1 page is just identifying what the show does. The second paragraph just provides details about the show's season, like number of episodes and who was the executive producer. Not saying that isn't good info, just that it's really not production info (at least not in the sense of what went into making the show). So, I think you're fine for GA, because it's about broad coverage, but I think any hiccup will occur with an FAN because of the issue of comprehensibility.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, there's no deadline, so maybe FA somewhere down the line! Thanks for responding, Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
edit

Separate to that, do you know why the current month's log isn't being transcluded at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log, like it is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log? Right now it's just a link to the page. (They look the same in edit mode. I can't figure it out.) Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, very strange. I can't figure it out either. Hopefully it sorts itself out by the time I return. See you in a couple days. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks for looking. It's been like that since at least 2007. I guess it's no big deal. Have a good time away. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is happening because there are too many template transclusions in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2009, most likely because of the overuse of hidden templates. Gary King (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's good to know. Should we be asking people to not cap their comments, like FAC, then? Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
If transcluding the log is important to have, then people will indeed have to use fewer templates. Gary King (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure. I suppose it depends on how many people visit it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you like people to remove some caps then? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure. If people don't use the logs, then there may not be much point. I certainly wouldn't want people to de-cap comments for noms that have already been botified, but perhaps asking people to not do it from now on might be worth thinking about. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we should remove WP:Featured list tools from completed nominations. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yup. Scorpion has asked Gimmetrow if FLC can do nominations the same way FAC is, so maybe it's something he can do at the same time. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Need your help

edit

Hi! Could you please move back the article Kendō to Kendo? It was my mistake and I am asked to move back. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply