User talk:Philcha/Archive 5

brakes

• Things are already starting to look chaotic to me. Step 1 is for Mattisse to publicly reconfirm that she agrees to the mentorship, and to publicly name her selected mentors. A nice set of brakes needs to be applied to all and sundry else. Cheers Ling.Nut (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Brake everything. Names of mentors first. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse & forums

...too many forums! Everything is spread all over Wikipedia. Can we all agree to talk in one and only one place? Ling.Nut (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In Mattise's plan page. We should stay off her Talk... Ling.Nut (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OTOH

IMHO, it is better to ignore (and thus marginalize) disparaging comments than highlight them. Accentuate the positive, right? :-) Geometry guy 12:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In disputes I agree about marginalisation of disparaging comments (unless I consider it appropriate to nuke, sterilise, vaporise, and annihilate). In the case of the category "FAC fails that fall short of GA", my concern is a practical one - FA reviewers who do not know WP:WIAGA and disparage GAs are quite likely to waste our time with articles which fail FAC but are decent GAs. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but articles can just as easily be removed from the category as they can be added: see the text here. Geometry guy 13:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm always uncomfortable with this distinction between GA and FA reviewers. I not infrequently stick my oar in at both places, for instance. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

Could you take a look at the article again? Most of your concerns have probably been addressed. TheLeftorium 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at your recent comments, so could you please re-evaluate? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at WP:FICT

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom and User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom

Hi Philcha, Many thanks for your help in our attempts to come up with a proposal for ArbCon. What you have written so far seems directed at the mentors rather than to me. Could you come up with a list of behaviors that I should or should not engage in? The list on User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom seems mostly directed a preventing specific accusations of bad behavior, some of which I have only been accused of once in my over three years at Wikipedia. I need help in recognizing the more frequently occuring situations that cause trouble before they become a bonfire.

1. It seems to me I need to know clearly what a personal attack is and to stop making them.
2. I need to concentrate on the article content rather than the behavior of editors.
3. I need to make only a few comments and then drop out of a thread. Can you think of more?

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Rossen

Hey. Based on your GA review and the nom's response, it doesn't seem like the work is going to be done. This plus Silktork's comments on the page make e think that it's probably best that you fail this article, though I know you're not a fan of doing that. I don't see the fixes happening soon, since the editor's clearly active. Wizardman 16:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species has been nominated for FA

The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/On the Origin of Species/archive1. Given all the effort you put into improving the article with your GA review your participation in the FAC process would be much appreciated. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1

Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the great in-depth review. Have you had time to go through the replies I have left to part of your comments? Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA1

Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares is now on hold. Check the review page to see whats wrong.--Next-Genn-Gamer 23:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the following response to User_talk:Stifle:

I have added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed | The only possible replacements which would not constitute [[WP:OR]] would be: (a)screen shots from similar games; (b) copies of images from manuals of similar games. The only question left is which game you use. This one is suitable because the colours and contrast are readable at a size that fits the page layout.}}

If you disagree, I expect you to explain why and allow reasonable time for a response. I have posted this on your Talk page because, if the file is deleted, there will be no record of the objection. Since this message appears on your Talk page, from which you are free to delete messages, I will also copy it to my Talk page, from which you are not free to delete messages. --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

--Philcha (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted. This is replaceable by a generic tech tree that someone could create for a theoretical game. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My resp:

Re "This is replaceable by a generic tech tree that someone could create for a theoretical game", that would be WP:OR, so its use in an article would be subject to removal, then the image would be an orphan, ... --Philcha (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW you've repeated that comment on the file descr page - should it not be on the file's Talk page? --Philcha (talk)

--Philcha (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "This is replaceable by a generic tech tree that someone could create for a theoretical game", that would be WP:OR, so its use in an article would be subject to removal, then the image would be an orphan, ... --Philcha (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW you've repeated that comment on the file descr page - should it not be on the file's Talk page? --Philcha (talk)

I'm not sure about that. We'll leave it to the closing admin to decide. Since your comment is on the file description page, I have added mine to the same place. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

response Bart Sells His Soul

Please allow me some more time to do some (additional) copyediting myself, on top of what has already been done. Perhaps also other copyeditors will come in from the notices I put up recently. I will post a notice to your talk page to reevaluate, soon. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you for the advice, I saw you mentioned that already, at Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

Not to sound rude or anything, but I don't think your most recent comments have been of much help. "Thanks for the update, I'll keep watching. However I think you need to make some effort yourself:", we've been trying to address all of your points, and all you said was that there are still problems (without citing any examples) or telling us if our recent edits are on the right track. I know we shouldn't expect you to do everything, but you can't just put it on hold and keep telling us to copyedit it without any new comments. The point of the review is so that you can help us attain GA status, and if there are so many errors that you can't list them all, it should just be failed. It's frustrating when we respond quickly only to have to wait a week to hear back from you and when you do respond, you don't even tell us if our recent efforts did any good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken care of most of the issues, but I didn't bother responding point by point because there were so many. The article has practically been rewritten since your initial review, so it would probably be more helpful for you to re-review it. Also, I know GACs can take a very quick amount of time, but how can it possibly go quickly when we address your comments the same day they are posted, leave a prompt on your talk page, then have to wait a week for your response? When you signed up to review the article and didn't fail it, it meant that you felt it was passable and had some specific concerns that needed addressing. However, to be frank, just suggesting we find a copyeditor is taking the lazy way. You are the reviewer, and when it needs that much help, it should just be failed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²²

No, I'm not suggesting you fail the article. I'm suggesting you actually take another look at it. What I meant was that if there are so many concerns that it needs this much help (even after 2 re-writes, you maintain that it has a long way to go, although you haven't actually suggested anything), it should have just been failed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried copyediting the page again [1]. Could you please re-review it this time, instead of assuming it's not good enough and just suggesting we find a copyeditor? Thank you, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you have ignored my request for re-review again. I want to apologize for my above comments. I started off on the wrong foot, and I have taken an unnecessarily mean-spirited tone, and I can easily see why you haven't been responding. You see, I was already frustrated by how long the nomination was dragging on - after all, we have a GTC that just needs this article - and your comment "We can't let this drag on forever - I posted comments on 19 May, 19 days ago" made it sound like you felt we were not working hard enough to address your concerns. In actuality, we always responded within 24 hours (and in every case, we left a prompt on your talk page) and hoped that you would return. And when you finally did, your comments were of now help and my frustration boiled over. Again, I apologize for my comments. I feel that the article has improved quite a bit since your first review, and I would really appreciate it if you could take another look at it so we can finally move on. Thank you, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that I had basically re-written the article (without referring to your points very much, although I just looked through and the majority of them have directly/indirectly been addressed) and I didn't want to go through and check every one because I'm sure that many of them no longer apply. That's why I wanted a fresh review done, so that I would know what is left to do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, because I want to get this done, I will go through and respond to every single point (by the way, that's what I normally would do). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Could you please re-review it now? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks

... for picking up that wrong link on my page. Tony (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! Leaking tent (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul - update

Philcha - I regret to tell you this but it appears that before I have had a chance to go through again for some additional copyediting, the article Bart Sells His Soul has been subject to disruptive edit-warring from other users. At this point in time the article is no longer stable and does not meet point 5 of WP:WIAGA, and so I think the best thing to do would be for everyone to take a breather, unfortunately close the GA Review, and reevaluate at a later point in time. Thank you for your help and advice and input. Yours, Cirt (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather just close the GA Review as I've been a bit put off by the edit-warring and instability in the article by other editors. If it's alright with you I can close the GA Review myself as unsuccessful at this point in time. It will also give myself and other interested folks from WP:DOH/TOPIC more time and less stress and decreased pressure to improve the article without being under the gun about it. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) Cirt (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. We'll see where we are and reassess at that point in time, but yeah I always think it's best for those sorts of things to get a fresh set of eyes. :) Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Whilst I appreciate you have every right to revert my amendments to Wikipedia:NOT#PLOT, I would be grateful if you would care to discuss your own views at Wikipedia talk:NOT#Protected_Edit.3F when you do, so all the editors contributing to the discussions can get some constructive feedback.

The only way editors can reach consensus on this issue by putting forward a proposal that can be agreed up. Simply labelling the policy as "disputed" without saying what you want is not constructive.

If you are unhappy with the current version, why not propose an amendment to the text to reflect what you yourself would like to see? By doing so, your own views are made explicit, as I am sure you have an important contribution to make, you may find that your proposal will get support.

Whist I would agree with you that the consensus is yet to emerge, my revisions are supported by existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so if you are proposing similar or alternative wording, then we would all benefit from you making them known. If you have any reservations or doubts, lets discusss them at Wikipedia talk:NOT#Protected_Edit.3F before reverting.

Many thanks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfA objections

Thanks for the notice, but I'm not changing my requirements and will vote as I see fit. The reason people should be here is to improve the encyclopedia, and the most evident indicator of quality vs. mountains of DYKs is GA/FA. I expect admins to know what they are getting into; we shouldn't have to make them promise to stay out of areas they have no experience in. If they don't have the experience, they aren't admin quality in my book. The monkey cage of WT:RFA can try and topic ban me like Doug if they want for all I care; I don't participate over there anymore because I'm tired of reading circular discussions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ctenophores

Hi Phil,

Yes, for all you know ... it turns out that I AM an expert in Ctenophora (but not an expert in Wikipedia, which is why a whole bunch of changes weren't "signed" because I didn't know enough to tell Wiki to remember my login after a few months of being in the real world instead of the Wiki world). Many of the changes that you just edited out may be unsourced, but are modifying statements written by a very well-meaning non-expert who wrote a good part of the article and whose statements you don't seem to challenge at all. I am trying to modify things that aren't quite right and make them right, and for that you seem to need a reference, but what I am changing was often not referenced in the first place.

Here is a problem with Wiki, but I'm sure that you know it. I've spent decades working on ctenophores. I would never write the Ctenophore article that you got here by an amateur, because I couldn't verify much of which is happily written here as true. NO ONE knows enough to verify this article, I can assure you. So I've occasionally gone in and tried to clean up easy stuff. And then you take it all out!!! Waaah!

I am the person who knows the deep sea species and who has not gotten around to naming them. That sentence, modified earlier tonight, reflected reality, whereas the sentence that you put back is what another person paraphrased somewhat incorrectly from one of my webpages.

Agmayeria tortugensis was a provisional name used by the scientists planning to name that species, which was picked up by submersible pilots, who then told other scientists the name, who then used it as a nomen nudum in print, more than once I think (when it was never described, thus I believe putting the name offbounds for future use). I was trying to keep that name out of Wikipedia, as it didn't need to be there, perpetuating the problem.

Can I not challenge some pretty "different" ctenophore fossils by calling them putative (which they are - can't be proved) without publishing that first?

Those changes that I made were carefully thought out. It is very discouraging to try to fix articles written by non-experts and then have my changes wiped out even before I go to bed.

None of my scientist friends will even touch Wikipedia, believing it to be a futile black-hole effort.

Yet I sometimes read Wiki articles hoping to find the truth and think that it's the least that I can do to offer expertise where I have it. Leuckartiara (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied at talk. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I need to go to sleep, but I will read your article more carefully tomorrow. Is it non-neutral to add to the ctenophore article that Beroe was "seemingly" accidently introduced. We have no idea how it got to the Black Sea, so we also don't know that it was "accidently introduced", as the article said before I changed it. There was plenty of talk at official meetings about introducting Beroe, so it was an idea that was out there. Similarly, you removed my statement that we believe that Mnemiopsis was introduced in ballast water. I was modifying a statement that was more positive, but since nobody saw the introduction, my addition was more cautious, and certainly no less correct. I don't get WHY you edited those more cautious, yet in my mind still neutral, statements out.

I can add my comments to the cteno discussion, but I don't think that they are about the animals, so much as what I said, which is why I am writing this to you. I'm trying to understand how this works, since a huge amount of stuff (maybe by known authors?) goes unquestioned, and then what I think is neutral and factual, gets edited out. I thought in most cases that I was correcting flat-out errors or mythology. Leuckartiara (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that I am being particularly sensitive, nor do I think that the stuff that you changed deserves to be discussed on the ctenophore page. I'm just trying to figure out what you objected to. I don't think that anyone who knows ctenophores would have any problem with the changes that I made. I don't think that the changes that I made are the slightest bit controversial. Look, I am only trying to make stuff accurate, and if you don't like it, I won't do it. That's the way most of my scientific colleagues have dealt with Wiki pages on subjects that they know well - they don't read them and they certainly don't try to fix them. Pages that are written by people who don't know the subject, no matter how good their intentions, don't usually quite get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leuckartiara (talk • contribs) 09:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruff

thanks, I was hoping you would do this one. I've started on the edits, but it will take a couple of days jimfbleak (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your time, that was definitely thorough. I've tried to address the issues raised, let me know if there are any missed, not resolved or excessively intransigent responses! jimfbleak (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, it will in the morning though jimfbleak (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've checked Snowman's edits, and they seem OK - one tricky one was self-reverted, and a cn tag was for a point also queried by you for the million birds in Senegal, so I've reffed that. The timing was not good, but no harm done. The lead says The head and neck ornaments are erected as part of an elaborate display at a lek in which three differently plumaged types of male utilise a variety of strategies, including female mimicry, to gain access to the reeves. I need to strike a balance between summary and detail in the lead, do I need to say more than that? Other than that, I think all is done. If there are any further points on the sections done, can they be moved to after the existing text? Although the ticks/crosses are very helpful, its becoming tricky to navigate through dense text in edit mode where they are not visible? Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

further responses done now jimfbleak (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks again, it's of great help to get a really good GAR; my heart sinks when, as sometimes happens, articles go through on the nod. I'm not foolish enough to think that it will now stroll through FAC without any grief, but at they will have to find different infelicities. I'll read through again over the weekend, then throw it to the wolves. I'll also work on an FAC intro with a bit of a hook ...cross-dressing...promiscous females...named after a collar... must be something catchy there! jimfbleak (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

inflation, currency conversion, precision

Philcha, thanks for your valuable input to that discussion. We must keep a permalink to it somewhere. I'm keen for you to stay in the loop when next the issue comes up. Tony (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

YP ref issues

Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent an email to Robert Groenewegen about the stands capacity and he replied,

Hi Aaron,

It would be accurate if it read as follows:

"The Gunns Stand surrounds approximately half the ground, and has a capacity of 5,700. The Northern, Southern and Eastern Terraces have a capacity of 6,000. The current seating capacity of the venue is 11,825 with the new Northern Stand proposed to be finished in August 2010, an additional 2175 seats will be added.

Total ground capacity is 20,000 and seating capacity will be 14000.

Cheers

Robert Groenewegen Manager Inveresk and Aurora Stadium Phone: 6323 3383 Fax: 63318769 Mobile: 0407 971043 Email: Robert.Groenewegen@launceston.tas.gov.au www.aurorastadiumlaunceston.com.au

---

Original Message-----

From: Aaron de Wit [2] Sent: Saturday, 13 June 2009 12:07 AM To: Robert Groenewegen Subject: Stand capacity

Hi Robert, Great to see plans for the Northern Stand coming along!

Do you know of an internet article/book that notes the combined capacity of the Northern Terrace, Southern Terrace and Eastern Terrace? Otherwise this sentence on wikpedia's York Park page will have to get deleted. "The stands surround approximately half the ground, and collectively have a capacity of between 5,500 and 6,000, bringing the grounds seated capacity to 11,700," because the sentence doesn't have a reference, even though the claim is probably correct. Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers, Aaron

Burgess

Hi Philcha, afraid I've been very busy recently, and have also somewhat lost interest in WP for the moment. My own fault for getting sucked in to pointless debates about reference formatting, I think. I'm next likely to have a patch of free time in October or so... so my August target isn't looking too hopeful )-:

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

Regarding this edit: the reason I had replaced {{disputed}} with {{underdiscussion}} is that, as far as I know, the "disputed" tag is only for articles. And it looks awkward to say that a guideline's "factual accuracy" is disputed—especially for newbies who come along to read that guideline for the first time and wonder what the tag is supposed to be telling them. It's the guideline's value to Wikipedia, not its "factual accuracy", that is disputed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with creating a new tag (like {{disputed-guideline}} or something), and actually was thinking of suggesting that. Do you think it would be used at all, or would it just be creep? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with doing it, but it sounds like you already have a pretty clear idea how you'd like it to look. (Plus I'm half-busy watching Chariots of Fire.) So it's probably just as well if you make it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I re-watch it about once every year or so, out of tradition :). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice—I guess WP just has all kinds of great stuff if you just know where to look! Thanks for finding that.

As for Chariots...I guess I meant more just a personal tradition/habit. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

York Park GA

Thanks, don't worry I doubt there will be any conflicts. All the best, Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you been to Tassie? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit, but I was wondering If you had come across any of those "Tassie Jokes" Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha yeah, spot on! We even have two heads!! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a real problem with referencing in the History section because a detailed article on Aurora Stadium had to be removed as an unreliable source, therefore that's the reason why some sentences aren't referenced properly and I'm struggling to find any others, so it's looking like some sentences have to be removed. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 04:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Here is the article

Thanks for your patience. I again went to the library yesterday and found virtually nothing on York Park's history in Launceston/Tasmanian books. I was surprised by the amount of Tasmanian books out at the moment and also after waiting nearly 30 mins the council said they were busy. Shame really, maybe in a few years a book on Aurora Stadium may come out or it's history could become more prominent in Launceston books. Thanks again for your suggestions. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good morning, well reading it again it sounds that way but that's not exactly what I was meaning, sorry for the confusion. Later tonight I'll go through all the refs and see what I can find. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Were you going to fail it? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I'm currently trying to find a ref for "becoming the Launceston Showgrounds in 1873" It's currently the site of the show but can't find reference for that year. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be done by then. Think I've made a breakthrough! Cheers Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should become mayor and get someone to write a book on the place, then source the article and expand it! ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly rules, who wrote them! Could just remain anonymous, or even just throw that idea out the window ;) I think the referencing issues are now fixed. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we move on with review? Thanks Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shit! Just when we're nearly done, I'll have to re-write the section about the Northern Stand because of this latest development I didn't read properly a few weeks back! 1 2 What happened to stage one and stage two? The joys of Tasmania! What's next? The whole thing gets canned because of the financial crisis... Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and just changed a couple of images.. Dull 11 degree weather can't you see! Man it was cold, it better not get any worse! The Queenslanders would have been moaning! haha Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Shit, didn't see your message. We'll try and finish it over the next 2 days. It seems to be close. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 03:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I haven't fixed is finding a naming rights ref. The only working one is from Aus Stadiums. The info is too important to delete though. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So can you anything else stopping us from moving on, as things seem to have stalled? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Think all issues except naming rights have been resolved. Shame you won't be able to continue as you've done a fantastic job so far. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Thanks for intervening in Bobby Fischer. As I said, I was about at the end of my rope and in danger of offending WP:CIVIL. I felt as though I'd been marooned in The Twilight Zone. Krakatoa (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, he's now reverted the same edit (made by you, then Brittle heaven, then me) thrice in less than 9.5 hours, in flagrant violation of WP:3RR. Ironically, in his latest revert, he warns us that edit warring is disruptive and will be reported if we persist. Now what? Krakatoa (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm wrong - the rule is violated only by more than three edits in 24 hours. No doubt you, unlike I, knew that. He has now filed a complaint against me, claiming I'm guilty of "edit warring" (pot, kettle and all that). In the course of it, he refers to you, Brittle heaven and I as "stooges". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Krakatoa_edit_warring_on_Bobby_Fischer_and_mislabeling_edits. Krakatoa (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the three of us are all stooges of someone else. Or simply collectively "The Three Stooges"? Or perhaps you and Brittle heaven are my stooges? If the last of these, I am afraid I will have to lodge a complaint against you for conduct unbecoming a stooge. You have consistently exhibited far too much independence of thought for my stooge. I will have to insist that in the future you accede to my point of view in stooge-befitting fashion. Krakatoa (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On the Origin

Thanks for your support and kind words,[3] presumably you'd like to sign it rather than having an unsinged template added ;) Having slogged through that, may I timidly request your thoughts on whether it's worth putting The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs and Fertilisation of Orchids up for the same treatment? Perhaps better late than never.. dave souza, talk 10:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if you can give one or both a good article review that would be great – presumably I should put them up at WP:GAN? Anyway, your house move has priority, hope all goes well. Thanks, dave souza, talk 12:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, I've put Orchids up under the biology heading, and Coral Reefs under geology as that's its main focus. Lets hope they get under way before you can look in again in about a month or so. Thanks for all your help on this, dave souza, talk 10:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, many thanks for doing so much to get On the Origin of Species through FAC. Great news! . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow up on the appreciation Dave expressed; there is no way it gets through FAC on the first try withiough that extraordinary GA review you did. So, for what it is worth, I am going to award you:

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For the pointed, lengthy, interactive and incredibly helpful GA review of On the Origin of Species Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to hold the hemlock though. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Phew! That's a relief! --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Second that, dave souza, talk 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Origins Award
		Thanks for all the fish, Philcha, and for doing so much to improve On the Origin of Species. . . dave souza, talk 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1

It isn't completely clear to me whether your concerns have been addressed sufficiently for the article to meet the GA criteria. Can you comment? Thanks, Geometry guy 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ACS Review

Can you review my article. I put it up for a review but, it is taking forever to get review and I dont want to improve another article till I get this one perfect. And I looked at one of the articles you reveiwed and I thought you were pretty good at checking aticles for a review so can you please help me and review my article. The article I am working on so far is Another Cinderella Story its in the film theater category in the Wikipedia Article Nomination.Sprite7868 04:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You are requested to confirm!

Hi Philcha,

As you know, I have been developing a mentor/adviser plan (User:Mattisse/Plan) for which you and others have provided input at User talk:Mattisse/Plan, Arbitration Workshop and Proposed decision talk page. Previously, you said you were willing to be one of my mentors/advisers.

I think this plan will work. I have learned a great deal from this arbitration and feel comfortable with my panel of mentors/advisers and trust their judgment.

Currently the ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. If you are still willing to serve as one of my mentors/advisers, and I fervently hope you are, I ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page.

Thank you so much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Philcha. You have new messages at Next-Genn-Gamer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Next-Genn-Gamer 14:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:NOTPLOT

Good morning. You recently made a cogent and articulate comment at WT:NOT on the topic of plot summaries. Would you consider joining the effort at Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works?

The goal is to more fully explain all the nuance and detail about dealing with plot summaries without bloating WP:NOT any more than it already is. In that regard, this page is intended to parallel WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which very successfully elaborates on and clarifies WP:NOTDICDEF.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern Group

Hi there. I'm the nominator of Great Southern Group. Because I was watching the GAN page for a review flag, i hadn't realised a review had started. I only just realised today after you flagged it. I will respond to any review comments (whether from Willy turner or yourself) now that i know a review is underway. I already have a query about the use of company logos with which you may be able to help. The reviewer suggested including a logo in the infobox. I would have thought a logo would be protected from use on WP by trademark restrictions etc. I can generate an image (from a Great Southern pdf document), if its upload would be permitted, but the logo includes graphic elements (ie. it is not just lettering), so i would first welcome some advice. BTW thanks for offering to assume the role of reviewer. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Great Southern Group

Thanks for starting the review. I was aware the article was light on financial / company structure info, and your initial comments have underlined that. If you are agreeable, and as per your remark "review paused", can i ask that you leave the review on hold until Monday without doing anything further, and in that time i will try and provide an expanded profile of the company. Please bear in mind that, until the s**t hit the fan with the collapse of these MISs, the company/ies (it has a complex group structure, and itself seems to use different names somewhat interchangeably, as do the media) had a relatively low profile. Thanks for getting me to pay attention to a side of this thing i probably knew needed work. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Amstrad_PCW_16_01.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Amstrad_PCW_16_01.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The company that made Amstrad owns the copyright to the GUI, so it is impossible for you to release their copyright over the image of the GUI. It would need to comply with WP:NFC and WP:FURG to be used. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The template says the same thing in more words, which is supposed to be more user-friendly in providing details about what each term means, etc, I could go and plot my short followup to each section of the template and there is an arbcom ruling around somewhere saying that people who question images must be thorough in their notices or something. MBisanz ^talk 21:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali#Principles. The general gist I get from those principles is that if I am disputing an image, I need to fulfill ever letter of the process and not be vague in any way, using a template that is community-approved seems like the best way to do that. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Annotated image/Extinction‎

Thanks, I reverted that change of mine. Eubulides (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)