User talk:Peregrine Fisher/Archive 16

Beer brands

You might want to do a quick count; you do not have consensus for inclusion. I am not sure why you are seeking a pissing match over this, but I am rather firmly convinced that going into the minutiae of naming the brands that each drank does not serve the article as it is undue weight and trivial, and I think you are going to find that most of the others feel precisely the same way. We hd been willing to compromise in preserving this crufty little matter int he footnotes. At best, that is the only place it should be. Please do not edit-war over the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to come back here to make sure, as I was sure I asked you not to editwar over the material. I did. And you disregarded it. Consider this your 3RR warning. This is a stupid way to make a point, Peregrine, and you are better than this. Please knock it off. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like your tone, and you need to work on your counting. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About the tone, sorry about that. I guess I tend to get a little frustrated when I ask people to use the discussion page and they completely ignore me, Go figure. Now, allow me to advise you that if you continue to edit-war a version, citing a non-existent consensus (as discussion is going on, and at the very mest, you are still in a numerical minority), matters will escalate. I truly hope you take a step back. Just as you are put of by my tone, understand that it was inspired by your bad behavior in constantly reverting. Please do not make this matter escalate. PF. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Expedition

Hey, I don't want to make assumptions, but looking good! :) We've got a few supports and no opposes... good work! BOZ (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Volcano (South Park)

Hey Peregrine. Would you mind striking the concerns at the FAC for Volcano (South Park) that you feel are addressed? Right now it's hard to tell which ones are fixed and which ones aren't because they aren't yet struck. Whenever you get a chance... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 2009 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge police

On August 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge police, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

North by Northwest

Hi, thanks for notifying me about the North by Northwest images, however, I don't think I'll use them because there's not much room for them. Anyhow, thank you very much.--Music26/11 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope I wasn't acting presumptuously ...

... when I added the word Support to your post on Pete's modest proposal. If so, just quietly revert it and accept my humble appologies. In retrospect, I should have just put a comment here inviting you to edit your own post. YBG (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I meant support, but I forgot to add it in bold. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is really great to see you again my friend

RE: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules

It is really great to see you again my friend. Ikip (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks FA

Congrats! A really good article. Hekerui (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, my friend!  :) BOZ (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Dungeons & Dragons Barnstar
		For your excellent work in bringing Expedition to the Barrier Peaks up to Featured Article status, I hereby award you this barnstar! Great job! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I might just have to read a D&D article...something I never thought I'd say! Congrats Peregrine :) -Pete (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Be careful, they're addictive if you ever used to play. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

More module GAs?

I was looking around at what we've got to see what would be good for a go, if you'd be interested. I'd say as my benchmark for getting a decent GA, an article would need to have a reception section with at least three RS's. The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, Scourge of the Slave Lords, and Desert of Desolation all pop out as meeting that requirement. Some of these need more work than others (particularly the last one). Scant or nonexistant plot summary sections can easily be taken care of as I believe I have copies of these at home. Thoughts? BOZ (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how this little FA run I'm trying to start goes. I'd like to get Descent into the Depths of the Earth up to GA, and the rest of that series, although it's Publication history section is kinda crappy. The Reception part would be easy to fix. Even with what I've done to Ravenloft, Against the Giants is almost closer to FA. They both just need a bunch of copy-editing to avoid some early pile on opposes for prose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm up for whatever. :) I tossed on all the Wired.com links for the "Top 10 modules in storage" series that I could actually find, and we can expand those articles later. He actually said somewhere he was "going to 11 like Spinal Tap", so I count six working links, with two modules on one of those links, and AtG piled on as three modules onto another link, so that makes 10. I know we used one for Tomb of Horrors, so that makes 11 unless I'm mistaken somewhere. BOZ (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And regarding Descent, the Reception section can be beefed up by moving some items out of the lead (in fact, I'll do that now). A look at the review from Different Worlds would be ideal. BOZ (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite buttons gone

Hi Peregrine, I currently seem to have the same problem that you had then. Were you able to solve it? I miss my old button bar, and the cite buttons.

My editing environment changed after I switched the WikEd gadget on and then off again (I didn't like it that much). Things have not been the same since. Would be grateful if you could drop me a hint. Cheers, --JN466 19:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem was caused by using the new beta environment. I had to go back to the old one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Switching WikEd on somehow seems to have subscribed me to Beta as well. To get my buttons back I had to formally join Beta (even though I already had their toolbar) and leave it again. All is well now; thanks for the pointer. Regards, --JN466 11:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion and List of guest appearances in Doctor Who

I too voted on the deletion discussion for the article above. Our opinions on the deletion differed, but I agreed with you that a part of the article should be removed. I removed it, but was caught up with an editor who beleived I had done so simply on my own volition and so required a third opinion.

I feel a bit steamrollered by the whole thing (not being quite so well read on WP policies I guess) and perhaps I've not explained well enough here, would you mind looking over the article and talk page if you have a chance? Alastairward (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Man vs. Wild title screen.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You participated in the recent Avatar (Ultima) AFD. You may be interested in the merge discussion.

I'm contacting all those who participated in the AFD for Avatar (Ultima) about a merge discussion affecting that article Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters Dream Focus 03:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

New student assignment in the pipeline

It will be a few months before the GA submissions are ready, but since you were interested in this before, I wanted to give you a heads up that on that. Any comments regarding the assignment (and the page itself) appreciated! Major difference is that this time, part of the grade will depend on them editing it regularly, so hopefully we will see more activity from the group, not just the highly motivated group leaders. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

thank you for the correction, would you like to help with the next issue? Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/draft I am sure you have some great ideas. Ikip (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Around October I guess, around one month from now. This is all brand new, so we can make the rules as we go along. :) Ikip (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

Peregrine: posted this reply on my page, but I figured I'd post it here, too, so you'd get notified . . . BillTunell (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

PF: Glad to see you're back wikipediing again. At this point I'm not planning on re-nominating the article. But if you want to, you have my full support. I don't know how much you've reviewed the prior noms. Theyr'e pretty lengthy, but for all the banter there are only a couple basic issues holding up FA status, as I see it:

(1) Non-free pictures. There are only two: the Satchel Paige pic and the Pasadena statue/memorial pic. I thought the latter would be non-controversial by now (there's an established guideline for pics of public statues), but I guess it isn't. The former I expected to be controversial, and I suspect that whatever the rationale, someone will always object to any non-free pic in an FA-nominated article. I'd ditch the Satchel Paige pic if I could get some kind of ruling that it violated policy (in this case, the "significance" of the picture under criterion #8 of the policy on non-free-content). But by the nature of things, the administrators will not make a ruling, they just wait until there is a consensus. I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I feel like kind of a heel for insisting on the picture's inclusion at this point. But on the other hand, I'd hate to cave on the rule interpretation issue just to get the article elevated. One way or the other, I'd like closure on the rule.

(2) Reliablility of sources. Basically this relates to my conversation with user:Giants2008 in the last nomination phase. Actually I'm not sure whether he would still oppose the article in its current condition, because the nomination got closed before he was able to comment on my latest (and fairly extensive) revisions. But at least potentially this might also involve another interpretation of wikipedia rules -- particularly WP:reliable. The issue here is whether a claim that is otherwise referenced using a reliabe source can be supplemented with backup references from sources that may not be quite as reliable -- but nonetheless have at least some rationale for inclusion. The way I read the rule, every claim within the article's text has to have at least one reliable citation. But user:Giants2008 seems to be indicating that each citation itself has to be reliable. The scope of the issue seems to be down to about 5-6 footnotes, because I've eliminated any footnotes that seemed truly baseless. But when there are backup footnotes that have some questionable quality (but are in accord with another reliable footnote and are otherwise helpful to the reader), I've retained them for the time being. Again, my fear is that we'll never get a ruling on what the WP:reliable rule means fom the adminsitrators.

In short -- although I don't want to seem too critical of the adminsitrators, because I know they're busy -- I fear that since we'll never get resoution of rule interpretations, the article will never get elevated, no matter how much work is put into it. That is, unless the nominator is willing to cave to potential opposers on rule interpretations in order to gain their support for the article. I personally think that would be shortsighted; but then again, I don't own the article, so I've thought it best to leave it alone for now.

If you want to re-nominate it let me know. I'll definitely support the nomination, whichever way you want to go with it. I might co-nominate if you're interested -- let me think about it.

Anyway, that's a long answer to a short question. I do want you to know that I respect all the work you put into this article before I happened upon it. BillTunell (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the run down. I'll see what' up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm more up to speed than I was before. I didn't realize you had put in 1200 edits! Wow, impressive! After all the improvements over the last year or so, JR needs to go on the main page and be recognized!

Ideally, what I'd like to do is just make the changes recommended at the last FAC, even if every one of them isn't exactly improving the article, and do a co-nom with you. It's kinda the cowards way out, but you can't fight city hall. ;-) I've already removed the non-free images, and I'm thinking about making all the other changes from the last FAC. If this doesn't sound good to you, we'll need to put those images back before they get deleted. Tell me what you think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to co-nominate if we can re-insert the Satchel Paige picture and ask for a determination one way or another. Hopefully if the nomination is clean enough on the other issues the adminsirators won't seem so overwhelmed. Again, if we get an adverse ruling, then I don't mind removing it.

The statue picture I realy don't care about, but I would like its contributor user:Amble to be able to chime in.

As for footnote-reliability changes, I don't mind doing further edits, although I'd like to see if user:Giants2008 thinks they're neessary before doing them. I do think I probably agree with getting rid of the SportMag.us biography reference at this point, regardless of any other issues.

Let me know if you're okay with re-inserting the Satchel Paige pic for the time being and I'll look into co-nomnination procedure. Never actually done one of those before. BillTunell (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I just saw this passed at WP:POST. Congrats.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you. JR deserved it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT TV schedules

Hey PG, your last post to WT:NOT moved or removed a bunch of other comments, so I undid it. If you intended to do all that, just revert me. I didn't replace your comment that you left, but I figure you can do that if you like. Protonk (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You did good. Not sure why my edit did all that, but it wasn't intentional. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Review

Hi, you're welcome for the review. Alternatively, would you mind giving me some feedback here? ceranthor 17:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out sometime today. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! I think I've resolved your concerns. ceranthor 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Great find!

I decided to give it a try, and it worked! I figured I'd take a shot in the dark and look at White Dwarf's review of the Monster Manual, and lo and behold I got a quick blurb for the poor persucted mimic and several other creatures! :) I'm going to have a look at their review of the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II to see what other creatures I can add a quick independent reference to. :) BOZ (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Starcrossed

I'll almost certainly proceed with the article, but I wanted to let the comments at Talk:List of Justice League episodes percolate a bit. I'm highly resistant of the notion that I have to submit the article to Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard before putting it up, because the fact it was nominated for a major award, and that third-party sources establish its narrative importance to the JL franchise, gives it instant notability, I feel. I'm hoping that maybe others will chip in their two cents' worth. Still, knowing me, if no one else comments, I probably will go to the noticeboard, just to be certain. Moreover, the research is a bit time-consuming, as you have to be really creative with search terms to try to filter out the useless Google hits. I'm also looking for my copy of the season 2 box set DVDs, as the movie version doesn't have a commentary, but episode 3 of the story on the Season 2 DVD does. Not, of course, that I think the commentary is necessary to establish notability, but, as you say, it might make the article better. If I can't find the season DVDs, though, I'll probably create the page as is and let others fill in whatever of worth might come from the snippet of commentary. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help! I'll certainly let you know when I get going on it. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Co-topical point discussion

I see you have an opinion. You may want to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Co-topical_point_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

White Dwarf 15 review

Hey there. I'm getting a look at the review for the D-modules there. I see you tossed quite a bit of info from the review there. I feel into the same trap when using the Dragon review for Pool of Radiance; there was so much stuff to put in that I didn't want to feel like I was missing anything. :) It was explained to me that this overinflates the reception and overbalances it to the point where NPOV becomes tough. If I have some time later, I'll see if I can succinctify that without losing anything essential. BOZ (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not sure it goes against NPOV but I'm sure you can improve it. We're supposed to give them WP:DUE weight, and that article was a full page. It equals almost all other RSs combined on the subject in terms of the amount of text. I guess it depends on how you look at it. If it wasn't an opinion piece, it would be fine. I'm not sure. I'm a little too close to the writing (as happens with me when I do a bunch in a short period of time).

I just threw up what I did very quickly, and not very well. I'm sure whatever you want to do with it will just make it better. One of Japplang's comments on Ravenloft gave me pause, where, although I was direct quoting, he felt it was too promotional. There might be some of that in there.

Also, just wanted to say I've seen some of your edits pass across my watchlist, and I think you're doing a great job of spreading out the info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was trying to standardize some of the more common elements of modules on their articles, to make them a bit "cleaner". Will probably do some more but you never know how busy I might be from one day to the next. :) BOZ (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ravenloft FAC

I am not sure if you missed it, but I suggested something for Tracy Hickman's leaving of TSR and his credit in Ravenloft II.[1] Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I did miss it. I'll take a look, and thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seen this yet? BOZ (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I'll look into it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And another: Bill Slavicsek says "Ravenloft is also a personal favorite, and an example of adventure design at its finest. I’ve run the original module many times and in many game systems over the years." Ravenloft is included in the Dungeon Survival Guide. BOZ (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

One last thing and I'll quit bugging you. ;) Do you happen to have a copy of 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons? I know Drilnoth does, and I think it contains notes on some of the most notable aspects of D&D, including the major modules. I believe it was he that added it to the Ravenloft (module) article for example. If you don't have a copy, we can ask him if it's got anything for the other articles we're working on. BOZ (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Check your email. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good news. :) I know the other two items I found above for Ravenloft don't help with the issue of being independent from Wizards, but maybe they will lend some useful background info all the same. BOZ (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you decided what to do about this yet? BOZ (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to what he recommended, and added another option on the FAC page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, on this page you linked to, the What Is Expedition to the Demonweb Pits? section is an excerpt in whole from the actual book. BOZ (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking; if this one makes FAC, we can try to get TFA for Nov 26 (Tracy Hickman's b-day). BOZ (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That would awesome. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Things are looking good for this one! This is about as much support as we got for Expedition, and no Opposes yet. :) BOZ (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's going to pass. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur - it's got four supports now. :) BOZ (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! BOZ (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not bad! Hekerui (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

help Jimmy Valentine

Don't let him get deleted! 76.16.44.155 (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Red Hulk

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. ~~

Ruby

Hey, just letting you know that I nominated the Ruby article for Featured status. Ophois (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, good job with the archived article. Anyways, because the Sam and Dean articles are such a mess (and would take forever to clean up, IMO), I'm currently focusing on revamping the main Supernatural article page. Right now I'm working on development and writing, and have found some interesting stuff. However, it's gonna be tricky working together all the facts and tidbits that I've found. Ophois (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've got those sections figured out now (at least in my head, lol). However, sections like Ratings and Other Media lack references, so do you mind covering those sections when you can? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarify?

Care to clarify your views on this? Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Merging_during_live_AfD? Thanks. Ikip (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Titles/Dates/Issue numbers in article text

Hi. I know you've previously expressed your feelings on this, but since you and Asgardian requested another discussion, could you express them again here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Just stumbled upon this. Was your CHUU request not approved?  7  09:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It was rejected because someone else uses it on some other language wiki. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thsi barnstar is awarded to Peregrine Fisher. For his continued work on referencing and saving articles. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Ikip (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

If you're going to restore the article then you need to move the history from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur. You can't just cut-and-paste. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. :) Theleftorium 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That can be complicated. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you could just put {{db-author}} at the top, and then, after there's a consensus to have an article on Bulbasaur, restore it properly. Why did you recreate this thing?—Kww(talk) 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's notable. Not sure why it was merged, with most of the info left out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's debatable, but you know my feelings on this particular article. Even so, the quickest way out is to delete it with db-author, and then move it after that's done. The history will follow that way.—Kww(talk) 22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot the correct way to cut and paste. I thought you just said "Text taken from whatever" and people could follow the link in the history (like I think still works with merges). But then, I forgot to do that, and apparently we've got a big procedure I didn't know about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but it can be bypassed and still come out right in a case like this. Don't worry, I'm not trying to trick you just because I don't like the article. Request a speedy as the author. Wouldn't hurt to note in the edit summary that you will move it again after the delete is over. That will delete it in the main space. Then the "move" command from project space will work, and carry the history along. Should take about 20 seconds after the speedy is done. History merge is one of the most backlogged processes there is, and it will probably take a week. This will only work because there have been no edits since the move: once someone does a meaningful edit, history merge is the only way out.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to see. I thought I had requested a speedy with the template I added. What's the correct template? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The one you added requested a history merge. {{db-author}} is "Speedy deletion request by the author, and the author is the only editor making a significant contribution". As it stands now, that's true, but like I said, you should probably note on the edit summary that you intend to move the project page as soon as the delete is done to create a correct history. Otherwise, the admin reviewing the tag might balk. Or, if you are friends with an admin that's online right now, you could try just explaining the situation and have him delete it directly. I'm going to be busy for a few hours, so I can't reply again for a while.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand. I'll take care of it. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

{{db-house}} works as well as {{db-author}} but two things make db-author preferable. House deletions not pursuant to moves and in article space may be held up as the deleting admin tries to figure out why house applies. Second, author places the article in a sub-category which tends to be cleared faster than the house subcategory. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson more

227 attempts would not be correct, unless he somehow had 0 caught stealing in the two years for which the data is missing in retrosheet. It would be better to just state he had 197 career stolen bases, and leave it at that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the total career attempts are not known, the percentage cannot be known either. The best anyone could do would be to state the percentage "for the years where total attempts are known". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't take a raw percentage like that at face value. We don't know how he came up with it; it doesn't have the two numbers he used. Regarding fielding champions, I can't say what the rules were in the early 1950s, but currently (Rule 10.22c) a catcher has to have played at least half the scheduled games (i.e. 81 now, and 77 if it were retroactive to the 1950s); an infielder or outfielder 2/3 (i.e. 108 games now, 103 if retroactive); a pitcher as many innings as there are scheduled games (162 now, 154 if retroactive) unless a pitcher with fewer innings has more chances and a higher percentage. I'm not sure they even awarded fielding championships as such, since fielding percentage is a weak stat. In any case, looking at the 1951 and 1952 Baseball Guides, they list the fielders with 10 or more games by percentage even if the total games were ridiculously small. For 1950, the leaders for 100 games or more are 1B Hodges .994, 2B Robinson .986, 3B Cox .957. Robinson participated in 133 DP's for 1950. For 1951, Robinson indeed had a .992 and 137 DP's, no one above him playing in more than 22 games. AL 2B leader in 1950 was Doerr of Boston with a .988 in 149 games; and in 1951 it looks like Suder of the A's with a .987 in 103 games, so Bobby wins 1950 2B overall, and Jackie wins 1951 2B overall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at retrosheet for Jackie [2] we see 197 steals and 54 caught stealing, which is 78 percent. However, the caught for 1948 and 1950 are not known, so we have to subtract the steals for those years (22 + 12) leaving 163 steals and 54 caught for the years known. That's 75 percent, which is not too bad but it's incomplete so we can't really make much of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears from the guides that caught stealing began being kept routinely in 1952. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike that dubious stolen base percentage, the cited claim that he led the league in fielding is backed up by stats that indicate it, so I think you could state it unequivocally. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Cool. Thanks for the mini-baseball lesson. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The broader lesson: Retrosheet is your friend. It's the figger filbert's nirvana. I'm waiting for the day when its dedicated researchers have at least the box scores and hopefully the play-by-plays of every MLB game ever played. That's probably a few years away, but they're working on it. They just finished the 1920s recently, which enabled me to find the answer to the question, "Which positions did Babe Ruth play in each ballpark?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds awesome. Keep it handy, although I haven't seen any other odd use of sources since those last two. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I keep retrosheet in my list of "favorites". So, you're wondering about Ruth, eh? Or even if not, I'll tell ya. :) When the Yankees played at the Polo Grounds, he tended to play left field. When they moved to Yankee Stadium, with its cavernous left and center fields, he played right field. Where left field was significantly larger, he tended to play in right: Cleveland, Washington. Where the fields were equal, or not significantly different, or if right was much larger, he tended to play in left: Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis. However, he could hit to all fields, especially center, where he hit the longest home runs in recorded history. Luckily he didn't also have to field them. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And is it considered a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is, you could do articles on single play off games and such (unless that's frowned on). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of coverage on many sites, for playoff games and other post-season events, as they had high visibility. The real value of retrosheet is coverage of regular seasons, obviously in varying degrees of detail so far. I don't know exactly what the sources are for retrosheet. I would say it's "reasonably" reliable, but there's still some editorial judgment involved. I take issue with some of their information on team nicknames and such, but it's minor. I consider it to be a good "resource", i.e. as backup to other sourced records. As an example, let's say it's known that so-and-so did such-and-such on a particular day. Assuming retrosheet has the game well-covered, you can find out more details about a particular event. An important use of retrosheet is the day-by-day game logs, which are much more convenient than going to the library and digging up microfilm. I've also used it a few times to validate (or refute) questions about various things, such as when particular photos were taken, for example. And I've also heard that baseball-almanac.com takes their game logs directly from retrosheet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I just removed all the baseball-almanac refs from the JR article, and am nominating it as we speak. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Almanac tends to derive their stuff from other sources. So citing them is kind of like citing someone else's citation. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Just that they have to be watched. I don't take "reliable sources" with blind faith. The first rule about a fact is, get it right. And cited, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson Civil Rights March

I added a note that a license is required. I'm not exactly sure from the source which one is appropriate. Hekerui (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bulbasaur

I took a closer look at your sources, should've done this last night but it was late and I'm only human...anyway as it stands The Sentinel is the equivalent of The Onion: almost all their work is satire. If you find their staff page, you'll see they're literally a bunch of really hammered guys at a party for it. Yeah...

As for The Observer, it's been overcited where it was but could work save for the exception we don't know who the author is. I'm going to bring it up at the videogame project's talk page and see what some of those guys think. I kinda wish we had more to build the Pokemon article on that just those scraps (hell I could argue Mr. Mime's got a more solid footing and I haven't even finished adding two more sources to that, 1UP *really* hates him).

Oh and the horse...there's a policy floating around here regarding pop culture references for an item. Basically you need to assert that the horse is named after Bulbasaur and why to be mentioned in the article. Otherwise a skilled editor will tear it apart at a GAN.

Sorry if I came across as "don't bring this back ever", but given the crapfest Bulbasaur's endured over the years I think we can all agree we'd rather have it back with at least a mass reduction in people frothing at the mouth for its re-merging...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess your talking about this. That doesn't make them unreliable. All they need are editors and a history for fact checking, and they are a real alternative college newspaper, for one of the biggest universities in the world. If the reliability of that article is the difference with you, I can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. If that isn't the difference, and you'll come up with a new objection, I won't. What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone with a reputation for reliability and fact checking have published http://media.www.osusentinel.com/media/storage/paper1151/news/2008/02/22/Humor/Hillary.Clinton.Ends.Campaign.For.Democratic.Presidential.Nomination-3229695.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriestab or http://media.www.osusentinel.com/media/storage/paper1151/news/2009/05/04/Commentary/Obama.Fires.Local.Pizza.Store.Owner-3736411.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriestab ?—Kww(talk) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they have. That's from their humor category. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Only the first is. The second is only noted as a satire at the end of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They do seem to have some problems with their categorization. Should we just let some uninvolved editors look at it over at RSN? Are you hoping its reliable or unreliable? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For me, it's not a matter of hoping one way or another on this source: it's obvious junk, and it isn't going to be deemed reliable in any form of community discussion. I just wish people would find some decent sources or give up trying to have this article. The constant struggle to keep this one amazes me. It's been years, and Bulbasaur has never met WP:N. The chances that it suddenly will are slim, and trying to demonstrate notability by publication in what is effectively a campus humor magazine is really stretching things.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you really feel? ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Against the Giants!

Hey there; peer reivew came in, so I made some fixes. Just lettin ya know! BOZ (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw something in my watchlist. It's probably close to FA now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Resonance (Warehouse 13)

Oh, I see, I'm sorry, I didn't think it would be a problem? Anyways even if you did make an article for the third episode, we have an article for the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, etc. felinoel (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Than put a link to the main page at the bottom of Warehouse 13. That should cover it all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

Saw your nomination and I've inserted myself as a co-nominator. I'll avoid re-inserting any pictures until after the nomination. If it gets a star without any formal ruling on the picture issue, then I'll consider re-inserting later.

Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. There's a couple issues brought up on the talk page you may want to check out. A couple of other editors have really started putting in some good work lately, so I think we can get this to pass pretty easily. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Interviews

Hello, Peregrine Fisher. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ya see that? :) BOZ (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. It's awesome. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Castiel

Hey, although Ruby has failed to become a FA, should we nominate the Castiel article for it? Ophois (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It would have a better chance than Ruby, except that now that the next season has started, and he's in it, I don't think it's comprehensive. Which is one of the FA requirements. FAs for TV stuff is kinda hard. You can nom it if you want, though. Right now the main Supernatural page seems to be heading towards FA (maybe). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you mind doing the reception section on the SN page when you get the chance? Ophois (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Because once that section is done, I think it will be ready for submission. Ophois (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to format the refs? That's going to be a real chore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll the refs. BTW, with the exception of some minor touches to the episode list, I've brought the article on the first season up to FA-level. Ophois (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted the season 1 page for FA, if you wanna look over it and give your opinion on the nomination page. Ophois (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It needs a production section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not for lists. Ophois (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. Those FLs are pretty week in my opinion, but that's for good our push to get stars. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, with the exception of including the Merchandise and Impact sections in the lead, and fixing all the refs, I think the main article is ready for FA submission. Ophois (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to do GA first? I think FA will kinda tear that article a new one (that's just what they do). If you really want FA though, we might as well take it there. It may not pass the first time, but GA won't mention most of the stuff that FA is going to have a problem with, so doing an FA, and then probably a second FA, is the fastest way to FA, I think. I'm doing an article now that's on its 4th FA! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hook, Line and Sinker (Transformers) AFD

Saying keep or merge isn't an actual reason. Why not give details why you want it kept? RobJ1981 (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I voted keep because I'm an inclusionist, who believes a paperless encyclopedia should include the sum of all human knowledge, as long as it is verifiable, regardless of the amount of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources available, and organize it the best way possible for a web audience. Or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works though. Notability and sourcing policies exist for a reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the reason? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias have limits, so there is no reason an online one should be any different. Do you honestly want nonsense and trivia just to fill up the site? Fan Wikis are a great place to visit/edit if you need to know every little bit of information on every Transformer or any other subject for that matter. Don't sidetrack the discussion. AFDs are for discussing articles, not just saying "keep" and not leaving a reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I added WP:NOT#PAPER? There's a few other acronyms I could add, too, if you like. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Supernatural episodes

Hiya Peregrine. I started cleaning up List of Supernatural episodes for whatever reason, tonight (really, it's because I had just finished watching the last episode...). Since you've been a major contributor there I figured that you might want to take a look. The main unfinished task is moving the refs to be "list-defined", and I usually like to do some reference grouping as well (a group=Ratings ref group seems obvious). I'll probably finish it off tomorrow night if I'm able to, but if you want to jump in and work on it feel free.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The "work" I did on that article was mostly adding non-free images for every single table entry (back in the day when that was semi-OK). ;-) I have been watching what you're doing though, and I'd like to say good work. User:Ophois and I have gotten three Supernatural articles up to GA status, but we could always use some help (for such an awesome show). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cats for deletion

The only one that applies is Category:Actors to portray superheroes, but I can't figure out how to limit that as the only one that shows up on the sorting template. If you know how to restrict it, your assist would be greatly appreciated.Cbl62 (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask someone who's pretty good at this stuff: User:Drilnoth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		this barnstar is awareded to Peregrine Fisher for his valiant defense of core wikipedia principles that makes this project strong and thriving. Ikip (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your incredible work in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/A Nobody‎. 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a weird one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

I would be spreading myself a little thin. I have left a lot of comments that I hope are useful. I think someone should try to get the article up to WP:GA standards at least. It is not currently high enough on my list of priorities that I anticipate contributing any time in the near future to editorial efforts for this article. Thanks for the invite.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A more peaceful AfD?

Liked your comments on the Anobody RfC. Re the S Marshal idea, it might be challenging to achieve concensus for a substational change to AfD, but perhap we could promote an essay emphasising the importance of good manners and of cooperating in harmony with those holding opposing views. Please edit the draft essay as much as you like if you think the idea has legs. AfD is not a war zone - FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I don't think AfD is really fixable, though it doesn't hurt to try, other than taking time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

I left one message for you at Talk:Bulbasaur, because it's about your comment. This one is about your edit summary: aren't you one of the people that always claims that there's no need to take a redirect to AFD? That AFD should only be used if the article actually needs to be deleted? Here we have an entire project devoted to a topic. They realized that this article fails notability guidelines, and installed a perfectly reasonable redirect in its stead, but you refuse to let the redirect stay and insist that they take it to AFD? Why?—Kww(talk) 03:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it does pass NOTE. AfD is better for when merging has been discussed, and no consensus or policy/guideline rule applies? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be better for you and Colonel Warden to discuss this at Wikiproject Pokemon and attempt to form a consensus? Before moving articles back and forth across namespace (and creating a really tortured history for some admin to have to unwind in the process)?

I already tried that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see you did. Doesn't look like you overturned the existing consensus that there aren't enough good sources on Bulbasaur to meet WP:N. Perhaps abiding by that would be the best thing.—Kww(talk) 03:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much of a consensus. A few people over at POKE, mostly. I believe a wider audience would agree with me, and would like to find out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And, obviously I'm an involved party, but I'm not impressed by their strength of argument. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur suggestion

Since the holdup is notability on the grounds of reception, might I suggest going to the talk page and building the reception section there so we can all agree on something useful? There's a lot of confusion on what's real-world reception and what's promotional too it seems, and the lack of development information doesn't help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you see that IGN ref? It's pretty good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but did you see the rest of the reception? It's still a bit of a mess. Rebuilding it and treating it seriously would make it a lot easier to work with and know what's needed compared to the others now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's a mess. I'd prefer to just work on the article normally. I'm kinda busy getting Abraham Lincoln to FA, but it would be ideal (to me), if the POKE project would let it live and work collaboratively on it with me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3#multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: )

You have been mentioned at WP:AN3#multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: ).—Kww(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Silver Age of Comics

I don't see why you would undo all my edits, or do you just mean the one edit I made in that article, in which all I did was alter a sentence that had confusing grammar/syntax? Anyway, it was done in good faith, so if you feel the article is better served without it, then by all means do so and I apologize.24.190.34.219 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using 'interregnum'--this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. The main thing is that the grammar of the sentence is off. Since there's no quotation marks I assume the sentence is not a direct quote from the source. "...and the interregnum the Atomic Age..." You need to either remove the 'the' before Atomic Age or mark the Atomic age as a dependent clause by separating it off with commas "...and the interregnum, the Atomic Age,..."

Also, the sentence is written as if referencing 'the Atomic Age of comics', which I've never heard of before--which is why I removed it. (Is there one? I figured as there was no wiki article about such a classification, it was a mistake). Now I realize it was probably referring to the so called Atomic Era of mankind which was around the same time period. However, as I said, to someone reading the sentence and seeing an ordered list of 'ages of comic books', this is confusing and a distinction should really be made (a wiki link to the Atomic Age article would help, but it's still an awkward sentence flow due to the similar naming conventions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably should be clarified. According to Over street, Robert M. Official Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide 38th Edition New York:2008 (Glossary Pages—1026-1031) Page 1026, it is the Atomic Age of Comic Books, not just the normal Atomic Age. It's not very famous, is why I think there isn't a page on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it's about time...

For this requested image to be made! :) Sorry about the delay; would have had it done sooner except Illustrator was being stupid. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks a lot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

EphBlog suggestion

I am trying to follow your advice with regard to expanding the EphBog article. Is that what you had in mind? Thanks for the suggestion. David.Kane (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions to Jackie Robinson and for nominating and seeing it through to featured article status. Congratulations! BRMo (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, congrats! Sorry I never got around to doing a thorough review. It's an impressive article though -- great job! -Pete (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good take care of the biggies like Columbia River and Jackie Robinson every so often. I think both of them just miss being a WP:VITAL article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we oughtta take one of them on sometime? Eesh, that'd be a lotta work :) -Pete (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing Abraham Lincoln right now, or at least trying to. It is a lot of work. I keep waffling between giving up and continuing on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I never realized such a simple question of partisan politics it was that prevented Lincoln from becoming Governor of Oregon. Interesting! I'll try to pitch in if I can...still feeling pretty overextended, and it's not really a strong area for me, but if I find the time I'll pop by. Good luck! -Pete (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kinda like passing over Jordan in the NBA draft. Go Oregon! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

About the New Jimmy Hoffa Book

I just noticed that you and another editor decided that because my book is self-published, that it should not be entered into the biblio of the Hoffa page. I understand wikipedia's policy of not wanting to accept a bunch of half-baked, guerrilla style books that are flung at the public on a day to day basis. This book, my book, is self published, however, it is the culmination of three years of research and also is endorsed by the author of "I Heard You Paint Houses" Charles Brandt. Mr. Brandt and I worked together on this case, and although I do not have a "traditional" publishing house backing me and my book, I believe the information within that book is important, and newsworthy ( obviously so did the Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News Media and Fox News Channel). I do not expect a link to my book or website, however I do believe it has merit to be included in the biblio. The video links I added on the talk page are there so that whoever would like to view them can see that this was not just a flyby night attempt at getting my name in lights or a publicity stunt. I'm working my way from the ground up, much like the folks who started wikipedia and Benjamin Franklin who started his own newpaper. Please have another look at this.

Sincerely, --Spectre7277 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like your book doesn't meet our requirements. If you've got enough news articles on it, and each one discussed the book in enough detail, it may be notable enough to have its own article. That might sway peoples opinions, although it might not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess the book itself is not really what I should be focusing on, but the new information that is in it about the case. In the next few months and into next year (Spring) there should be details emerging that will hopefully have the information I uncovered brought to the publics attention. Thanks for at least looking it over. --Spectre7277 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can get it into a newspaper or similar, you'll be good to go (probably). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

I got your message at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎, but your response is really needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive2‎ where this matter is currently at issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For a determined effort to improve/submit the Jackie Robinson article for FAC review a fourth time (this time succesfully), a feat I would not have attmepted on my own. BillTunell (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on JR. Any more thoughts on a team up? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get to look at Abraham Lincoln this weekend, but should have some time this week. The cleanup alone looks daunting. BillTunell (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a WP:VITAL article, so it ain't trivial. Probably about as hard as JR when you started. Maybe a bit easier. It had 100 refs when I started, I've added 100 (and removed 20), and it needs about 100 more. I was talking to another editor about maybe doing one of the biggies, and I think mentioning Lincoln scared him off. I've been trying to add 5 refs a day. I figure another 20 days, and that part will be done. If I don't give up. There are a few other editors who have been helping out a bit, too. I could switch to another article, maybe. I just want to do something important like Lincoln, or United States, or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you from me, too, for your work on Jackie Robinson, and for showing up at just the right time to give Bill another kick in the pants about taking it back to FAC a third time :) Maralia (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Third time is a charm, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AtGFAC?

I added some from each of the reviews; check it out and let me know what you think. I'll hopefully be un-busy in a short while (no promises though!) BOZ (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet, but I'm sure it's awesome. I'm a little busy now too. I'll be ready for FAC soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln question

You inserted a ctie in the Lincoln article on Sept. 28 at 3:54 referring to "Lincoln 2001." Which book is this? BillTunell (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I added it to the Bibliography.[3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lincoln Project

With regard to the drop a couple thousand words from the main article...good idea, you name the words, I'll create the article. With regard to getting Lincoln to a higher recognition, I think we might want to try "A-Class", which is basically that the article has all the important facts, although it doesn't need to be a GA. Maybe get A-class, then shoot for FA. I also am sorry I haven't been much help on the ref front...how is that going by the way? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which words need to be dropped, since I'm kinda reading as I ref it. My guess is that the words to be dropped are in the "Religious and philosophical beliefs" and the "Medical history and "melancholy"" sections. They look (and I haven't read them) like seperate topics that can have their own articles and just be summarized in the main article. What sucks about that is that they were the two best refed parts of the article when I started, but oh well.

I'm not normally a big fan of A class, since it varies so much project to project, but I've heard that the Military history WikiProject has an excellent review system that really prepares an article for FA, so I would be willing to do that.

The refing is going slowly, but it's going. I'm trying to add five refs a day. If I can keep that up, it should take about 20 more days. If you could add some refs, it would be super duper awesome. It's a big job, and I don't know as much about Lincoln as you and some of the other editors do. So, if someone else would get some experience with the refing, we could coordinate and make sure we do it right, and don't have to redo it for FA.

I asked a wikifriend, User:BillTunnell if he'd like to help, and you've probably seen the edit history blow up. He does great work. He and I got Jackie Robinson to FA recently. He said he's going to leave the refing to me, so I still could use some help on that front. Or just make whatever improvements you feel like. Any work other people do let's me concentrate on the refing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I outsourced "Medical history and melancholy" into a new article, and added a bunch of refs. BillTunell (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Frickin sweet. We're getting closer. Thanks for the hard work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to commend you for working to really move the formerly featured page Abraham Lincoln forward by adding citations. It was a shame the GA review process was abandoned. I suggest you ask the MilHist folks to assist with the A-class review directly. Lincoln is certainly within the project scope, as US CinC during the ACW. I suspect you'll find project members more than willing to help on such high-visibility pagespace. For my part, I'll see if I can assist directly with citation. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I only have a couple hundred books on the subject in my personal collection. If you see any glaring needs, drop in cite needed tags and I'll attend to some. BusterD (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds awesome! There are a number of citation needed tags starting around Abraham_Lincoln#Secession winter_1860.E2.80.931861. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been afk this last weekend (it was really nice three days in a row), but I'll add some cites this eve when I get home. BusterD public (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds awesome. User:Rjensen took care of a number of them, but there are some left. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Check out [4]. BTW, I was told not to delete the notability tag but to let a non-involved party do it, you did it, and then an involved party (who told me not to delete it) reverted you. What's that about? Doesn't seem right. How does one get it removed. An AfD was brought on the basis of notability, but did not garner consensus support, so shouldn't it be removed?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.

Well, that's wiki for you. I can't remember which page it was, but if you can't find sources, and they can't get it deleted, then it may just sit with a tag. It sounds like they're willing to edit war, which means you'd have to edit war, and win, to get it removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome. The diff is [5] -- and there actually are sources there.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not enough for that user, I guess. They seem like a recently popular band, so you'll probably have some good sources soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

You keep mentioning "the FICT battles" on A Nobody's RfC/U. There may be a place where old wiki-warriors go to discuss old "battles" and old "battlegrounds" but I don't think that's it. If you've got a relevant point to make, please could you make it on the talk page there. I for one would like to hear it, as I have no idea what "the FICT battles" refers to.   pablo_hablo. 09:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging during live AfD

You are receiving this notification because you commented at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. I have started a follow-up discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think your comment at this discussion misses a crucial point, as redirecting early – while potentially disenfranchising those supporting a separate article – does not include copying and its attendant attribution issues. I intend to reply there also, but I wanted to bring it to your attention first. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. I just think we should be able to do it. And while it doesn't require attribution right then, people may want to merge something from it later. I don't support deletion followed by redirection. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see how the points connect now. Thanks for the reply. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

John Winchester

Hey, I'm having some trouble finding reception stuff for John Winchester. If you get the chance, do you mind giving it a try? Ophois (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You probably already did this.[6][7] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, those will work. Though I need more critical reception. Ophois (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Might also work.[8] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you happen to have the DVD of the first season? If you do, do you mind watching the pilot episode's commentary if you get the time? I'm working on The Pilot (Supernatural) and don't have access to the DVD's. Also, in case you didn't know, All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural) is going through FAC. Ophois (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and look at it. I'm kinda busy in RL right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can either get the DVDs from the library, or I think there are some transcripts on the web. Unfortunately I don't have it anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln speeches

Note to self: [9] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) [10] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC) [11] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Arbcom and the class assignment

Thanks for asking, I'll reply by email. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Campaign promises

If you care to go through that table at User:Kww/AFD and point out a single time that my position showed such a lack of comprehension of policies and guidelines that I would have been incapable of being trusted with the tools, I'll be happy to discuss it. If you can't find such an example, I think you should agree that the argument was based on disagreement with my philosophy, not any risk of me abusing tools.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about you abusing the tools. I believe that you've left fiction behind, and wouldn't close a close one as delete if you started working on them again. But, I think you're refusal to make campaign promises kinda shows how you're a little bit stubborn and inflexible. That is your only weakness as an editor, and it's one I think you could fix pretty easily. Don't give up your beliefs, but show some flexibility in your thinking, starting with some promises designed to put other editors minds at rest. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded broadly at that crat chat talk pave, but if you aren't worried about him abusing the tools why is there a problem? Haven't you just proved his point? He won't abuse the tools but you don't want him around fiction articles. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a higher standard for admins. Not abusing the tools isn't my minimum criteria. I'd also like a little more tolerance of those that one disagrees with.

I took that crat page off my watchlist, because I think you may have been right about me not helping. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll be a good admin soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson TFA

Good work! BOZ (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really want it featured, because there goes my one point for first TFA, but it's still pretty awesome. Getting an article like that to FA pretty much means it's going on the front page soon. That's why I'm working on Abraham Lincoln now, and haven't really done much on DnD stuff. It all comes and goes in waves. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't request for Jackie Robinson to be a TFA, then I could be wrong but I don't think that takes the point away from you. I think, for example, if you wanted to lend the point to Honest Abe or something else at some point it would still be legit if you have never successfully requested a TFA before. I need to stay on the ball a couple of weeks from now, so I can get my Planescape: Torment request in for Dec 12. :) I've been working on some other VG stuff lately, so hopefully when I am ready to get to working on D&D again we will more or less intersect! Don't want to work on any one subject for too long or you'll get burned out. BOZ (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul will put Abe up either way. I want to do Ravenloft. I should probably just ask Raul to do it after I've gotten Abe done, since the TFA process will kinda owe me at that point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish we could have had Ravenloft up for this month, with Halloween and all. :) BOZ (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That would have been sweet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AC/DC Back in Black samples

Back in 2007, you uploaded File:Back in Black by AC DC.ogg, which was used in the song's article. However, another sample (File:ACDC - Back In Black-sample.ogg) existed since 2006 and is used in the band's article.

Wikipedia:Music samples says only one sample for each non-free song should be used throughout WP, so I've changed the song article's sound sample to the 2006 one. With that change, yours is no longer used in any article and may be deleted after seven days. If you want it kept (despite the guideline) you may revert my edit at Back in Black (song). --an odd name 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Are Dungeons & Dragons articles correctly listed under Video games Featured articles? I thought they would be more suitable for "Sports and recreation". If so, you may want to ask SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) or Karanacs (talk · contribs) to take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think SnR is correct. I moved the Ravenloft one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and Planescape: Torment are correct? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Barrier Peaks is in SnR, and Planescape is an actual video game (based on DnD). So I think that's how we want it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a happy 'ween. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Wikipedia:Linkrot

I have completed a major rewrite of Wikipedia:Linkrot, an essay that you commented on in the past. Would you be interested in reviewing it for grammar, comprehensiveness, and clarity? In the next few days, I will place notices of the rewrite at the Village Pump and maybe the signpost.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I'm kinda busy lately, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular comics pages

We now have Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Popular pages much like the list on the D&D project. Gives some perspective on some articles which should probably be better than they are. :) BOZ (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

silver age of american superhero comics

Well,

"although a part of the comic book mythos since an alien named Superman arrived on earth in a rocket ship from a distant planet, played a more prominent part, replacing gods and magic in the origins of characters such as Green Lantern and Hawkman." doesn't match the associated ref. "The term was coined by fans of costumed adventure storier; the silver age also marked a decline in the prominence of comics from other genres such as horror, romance, teen and funny animal humour and westerns which were immensely popular in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and fans of these genres see the silver age as a decline from the earlier era (see, e.g. Trina Robbins, From Girls to Grrrlz, Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 1999)" doesn't have a ref "writers John Broome and Gardner Fox and artist Carmine Infantino were behind the Flash's revitalization, as well as Robert Kanigher, who wrote the first Showcase story" doesn't match its ref. "In the first Silver Age Flash story, the golden age Flash was mentioned as being a character in a comic book. However, in Flash no. 123(September 1961) it was establshed that the golden age heroes existed in a parallel dimension; the Silver Age Flash crossed over to the world of the Golden Age heroes, known as Earth-Two, where he met the Golden-Age Flash and explainied to him how he had read about him in Flash Comics as a child; the explanation was that the author of the stories had tuned in to the Earth-Two events in his dreams and wrote up the stories based on those dreams." rewrote a section with a ref, and replaced it with unreferenced info. etc. Basically everything in that article came from a source. Since you don't have an account, why don't we discuss it on my talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

All but the first of these paragraphs does have a reference. The second paragraph is referenced by Robbins book, the addition of Kanigher to the third is referenced to Showcase no. 4, the fourth is referenced to Flash 123. The main problem with the article as written is that it references secondary sources - articles about the comics - rather than primary sources - the comic books themselves. As a result, a number of inaccuracies have crept in, as well as a lot of disputed opinion. It is an anachronism to say that the golden age heroes lived on Earth Two up until the 1950s; at the time, they lived on the only Earth there was.

With respect to the first paragraph, a reference could be added to the first issue of Action Comics. The statement that science replaced gods and magic, without qualification, is simply false: Wonder Woman, Dr. Strange, and many others were gods and magic based, while Thor was a god! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk)

I don't mean references to comic books, I mean references to normal books and articles about comics. I got that article through the good article process by citing everything to a secondary source. While there's lots of info that still needs to be included, it needs to come from researching scholarly sources that discuss comics. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The good article process does not say that you need to go to secondary sources, It says that you need to use verifiable sources. The best verifiable source is the original document, not what someone else has written about the original document. In the silver age article, many of the secondary sources quoted are inaccurate in that they contradict what is actually in the original source. It may be a good article, but it is not an accurate one, and is in some respects misleading. I can go back to the article and do the changes a piece at a time, citing sources more specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.13 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, just in general. But, if you want to make small changes and cite each one, we can discuss them. I'll tell you though, when I began the article had no citations, and was written from the perspective of a comic fan based on what they'd read. Other editors and I then put in a lot of work to take it away from that, and make it more scholarly. Also, be careful of original research when using primary sources. And, we have a rule about verifiability, not truth. In a way, it doesn't matter if something is true or false, it just needs to come from secondary sources. It's crazy, I know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you selling Wikipedia short? Many articles are much more scholarly and accurate than you are willing to give them credit. Wikpedia does not prefer secondary sources; it avoids sources such as personal interviews or communications, which cannot be verified, and may not like to use archival sources because they are relatively difficult to verify, but an article about a novel will refer to the novel itself for a description of the contents of the book, rather than to a book written about the novel. If there is a rule saying secondary sources are preferable to primary, please point it out; I do not see one anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Interviews with comic creators are much preferred over the comics themselves. Books and other sources where a library must be visited for verification are also held in very high regard, even though they can't be checked on the web. For plot summaries, primary sources are fine. You can read about it at WP:PRIMARY. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things. If you want an outside opinion, you can ask at the comics project WP:COMICS. Also, summarizing issues like you're doing is encouraged in the plot/bio section of character articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

List of American politicians who admit to cannabis use

Thanks for the encouragement--I had almost forgotten about the list, as I was not sure it would be worth starting and I was not getting much feedback from other WikiProject Cannabis members. I seriously need some active members there, so do consider joining if you have an interest in the topic. I think this could make for a really interesting list, with a lead that talks about the history of cannabis in the US and how despite this there are still many politicians willing to admit previous use. Feel free to contribute in any way you wish, whether it be with the lead or by adding additional politicians to the list (I am sure there are many more). Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. I've watchlisted it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! Can you think of any other lists that could be created? "List of American celebrities..." seems a bit too general--the list would be massive! I can't really think of any other groups of people that would make for a relevant list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. We could do one for anyone who has a blue link article on them, but as you say, it would be large. It could be broken down by letter if it was created and actually got that large, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Williamson

Want to help me work on this one? :) It's likely to pass GA after I work on the lead, and if there's anything you can add to the article in general that would be helpful. BOZ (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

and now ...

See the conversation at the bottom of my talk page (at the moment) for a new date thingy ....--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember what date thing I was involved with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You had left me the following message last month ...

"How do you do that script assisted date thingy? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"

--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:BOZ#Userfy_please. Ikip (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was involved with that one. At least, I don't see myself at the AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

no worries, thanks for responding. Ikip (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks! Yeah, the show is really based around smart humor and feels like an old cartoon. Glad that you've taken interest in it. :) The Flash ^{talk} 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Weight Gain 4000

Hey Peregrine. I've done a fresh CE round through Weight Gain 4000 and brought it to your attention over at the FAC page. I was hoping you'd take a look at it and at my FAC comments. As I said there, I'm hoping we can get through any outstanding CE problems by the end of the FAC process, but maybe you can give me an idea of if you think I need to copy edit it any further. Thanks, as always! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of copy editing. I certainly wouldn't oppose, but it could be better. I think you've gotten most of the grammar and repetitiveness problems fixed, but now it's awkward sentences. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks again for your patience and incredibly helpful feedback throughout this whole process! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 08:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural Season 1

Hey, do you have any experience judging FAC? If you do and if you get the chance, could you please take a look at Supernatural (season 1) and give your opinion? Thanks. Ωphois 11:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamada Gaku

Hi. It looks as though your "delete" is the only obstacle to a speedy keep (the other two editors declaring for delete having changed their minds in light of changes to the article). Fancy reconsidering? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Educational assignments now in GAN phase

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Request_for_reviewers_for_educational_assignments_GANs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk: Politico-media complex

Done. No problems from my end but I'm sorry if I mucked something up on some script or something you may have had running as part of supporting your assessment work.

Best of wishes Lomcevak (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also tried to a bit more thoughtful ... reblocked ahead of your main project block ... Lomcevak (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: GA Reviews

No... I haven't done a single one... just yet. --TIAYN (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Polyethnicity

Would you like to review Polyethnicity? It's the last of my edu assignment articles waiting for a reviewer :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. When's the do date? The politico media group isn't moving too fast. I'm not sure they understand the talk page thing. They may not have it watchlisted, or maybe they're just busy right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlike in the summer, this time they have, well, more time (4 months course instead of 1.5). So they have few weeks to address the issue(s) raised - due data is around Dec 8 I believe. I designed the assignment to decrease the "we edit in the last few days before the deadline" problem, and I hope that most students will realize they can finish this assignment before they have to study for the finals (as I've been telling them over and over) but in the end, there is only so much we can do... PS. Regarding the talkpage - I've been trying to tell them to communicate via it from the very beginning. Next time, I think I will make an explicit BAN on using emails... we have another session discussing the assignment on Monday, I'll stress the need to use the talk pages (again...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Something to be on a lookout for when dealing with educational assignments (I do it as much as I can but more eyes...): potential copyvio/plagiarism problems (as seen here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some google searches.

I wanted to ask you, what are the deadlines? I'm going to be busy thanksgiving weekend, and I don't want it to conflict. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of time - Dec 8. Enjoy the holidays! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. THanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Proof that copyvio/plagiarism is not an isolated problems. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really surprise me. There probably even more close paraphrasing, which even I struggle with at times. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peregrine Fisher. You have new messages at Talk:LGBT_themes_in_American_mainstream_comics/GA1.
Message added 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ^talk 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gobble. (got that from BOZ) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural Season 2

Hey, I know you're probably busy with the Lincoln article, but your suggestions for season 1 really helped. If you get the chance, could you please look over season 2's nomination here? Thanks. :) Ωphois 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, two people have already opposed in regards to the prose. So I think I'm gonna remove the nomination and submit for a peer review. Ωphois 10:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. You probably just want to give it a real thorough copy edit, since the peer review will probably just turn up the same issues. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it to peer review, so hopefully they can assist in copy-editing it. Do you mind taking a look? Again, I completely understand if you are too busy to. Thanks either way. Ωphois 14:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:File:Perry Platypus piggy bank.jpg

Huh? The image is of a piggy bank similar in design to a copyrighted character, but is not specifically exactly like it. The source of the image specifically states it is filed under the free license it is put under. As well, it is at commons, fairuse images are un-allowed, which means if you're claiming this as fairuse (are you? I'm sort of confused here) then it would have to be nominated for deletion. The Flash ^{talk} 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To meet our rules, it has to be removed from commons, and uploaded to wikipedia and used under fair use. Derivative works are discussed here, or you can ask at WP:NFCC if you want. Basically, we can't draw our own pictures, or create 3d models (including toys or banks) of copyrighted characters. You can kind of imagine what would happen if you tried to sell your own line of Perry the Platypus banks. I love what you've done the the FnP articles, and I'm not going to nominate it for deletion myself. I just figured I'd tell you. I could be wrong, too, but I used to do a lot of work with fair use images, and I'm pretty sure this one doesn't work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if you say so. I'm just very positive that it only closely mirrors the character and is not an exact replica, plus the source licenses it for the specific 2.5 license it's under now. But if you are positive it is is understood and the image can be deleted — I've only been using it because it's freeuse, but if it's not then there will be no need for it in any article it's on now. The Flash ^{talk} 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread for a second; would you suggest I nominate it for deletion myself or....? The Flash ^{talk} 19:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can nominate it at commons if you want, or you can do it. It only takes a click and an explantion ("derivative work of copyrighted cartoon character"). It will go through the deletion process there, and possible be kept. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you could nominate it. I'm just not all that clear on the deletion process for Commons. Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 03:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I did it here. We'll see what happens. Keep up the good work on PnF. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. The Flash ^{talk} 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. I've kinda already said it, but this isn't becuase I'm a deletionist or want to get rid of PnF stuff. I'd like to see every PnF character and episode get its own well referenced article. I'm just trying to keep an eye on those articles, and help them be the best they can be. I might review the Perry article, since it's one of the most awesome article subjects I've seen in quite a while. Not sure why, but I think he's way cooler than Phineas or Ferb or their family (I do like the evil doctor's daughter, I forget her name). Right now I'm stuck in the middle of trying to review some articles for a class assignment, so I'm waiting to see what happens with that before I review any more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Politico media complex

If we can keep it on hold, it would be good. Educational assignments, as I noted earlier, are likely to be plagued from last minute deadline rushes - no matter what I do or say :( Of course, it is likely those will fail anyway, but I suggest avoiding additional confusion/demotivation that would result with renomination (starting with the fact that some students will not realize they can renominate articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I just send a general email reminding them the time is running out. Hopefully this will yield some results. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I mispoke earlier - the assignment ends on 11th, not on 8th. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Rachel U

I've moved her in to mainspace & dropped the protection to semi for 2 weeks. Pls can you keep her watchlisted (I will too). Best & thanks, Nancy ^talk 17:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Will do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

hey there, girding for some drama, i've asked for permission to go to DRV on this User_talk:Coffee#BLP_defaults_to_delete. any thoughts?--Milowent (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

oh oh, already underway -- Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Rachel_Uchitel--Milowent (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

BLPN

Saw your observation regarding unlikelihood of finding neutrals to mediate contention on Roman Polanski. (No surprise given social/cultural conflict re his arrest etc.)

While the way that BLPN topic was begun (and rhetorical tactics involved) does not make that framing a good mediation setting ... perhaps there are more narrow issues that can be resolved there.

But question: When there's a social/cultural conflict finding its way into a Wikipedia BLP (eg, Polanski), where *are* disputes resolved? (Excuse my ignorance. I've cleaned 5,000 pages of vandalism, but only now taking time to learn my way around all the noticeboards etc.) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• PS Lincoln: I've got a copy of Honor's Voice by Douglass L. Wilson. Like that title. Like that book. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • There isn't really a good system. If people behave crazily enough, you can take it to WP:ARBCOM, but they won't look at the Polanski issue. They'd only look if some editors need to be blocked. I think WP:DISPUTE talks about it, but the various things don't work. You just have to work it out on your own. You might get some help at WP:ANI, but like arbcom, they look at editor behavior and not article content. You might post something at WP:FILM. You might get some more opinions there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. It sure felt like a "messy thing," and your experienced eye is I'm sure correct. But I will ask one clarification: you said ARBCOM wouldn't look at Polanski issue. What would their "logic" be for exclusion of consideration for that? (What words/concepts are they thinking.) Or did you simply mean they don't consider content at all. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't look at content disputes at all, only editor behaviour. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, my thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods

Hi, I removed this comment [12] as an unsourced allegation violating BLP. It may also be potentially libellous. I'm sure you meant no harm, but please take more care when commenting on living people.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Jaquays

Paul Jaquays is a brand-new article, check it out! BOZ (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a FU image could be added of this art? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Will give that a try, thanks; even if slightly wary following those pic deletions on Dave Arneson's article thanks to one individual out of tens of thousands. Dark Tower with a caption hook into Dork Tower (+citation) seems like a good option for that, perhaps.

I've added a DYK hook to Template talk:Did you know, if you might have a check and nudge that forward if it looks like a good one, please (and for project visibility in general).

Best wishes & Have a good weekend, David. Harami2000 (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Knox

Could you unprotect it? I'd like to start a separate article. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done so, as multiple people have now requested I do so...NW

There are many people wanting to start an article so many more people are wanting to read an article. What happened? There is no article. John Obamo (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be a big fight to get the article started, and I don't feel like fighting over it right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:King of Beggars DVD cover.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Polyethnicity

Hello, our group was wondering what you would like us to do, and what we have to do to make our article have a GA status. We were confused by the other persons comments and it would be helpful to know what you think we must do, seeing as our article is almost past due, our teacher is planning on looking at it sometime monday or tuesday. Thank you for all your help. Jeh123 (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I don't really agree with that other persons comments, other than the WP:LEAD needs to be expanded. So, make sure the lead cover everything in the article. Look through the article, and make sure each section has a summary sentence in the lead. Then I'll pass it. You're going to want to do this today, as early as possible. If that other person still doesn't like it, and they probably won't, they can take put it up for review and take away the GA status. I don't imagine that will mess up your grade, but you'll want to talk to your teacher about it. Good luck. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We did some edits to the lead section to include the whole article. Please let us know your thoughts! Happy Holidays!!Jeh123 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA reviews

Thanks for your comments; I tend to agree with them. Do you think that the p-m complex could be improved over the next few days? If so, could the students ask you to re-review it again? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going out of town tomorrow, and probably will be away from keyboard until early next week. Also, some of the issues are pretty big for a GA newbie to try and fix. The newspapers part is mostly off-topic, and would require a lot of work. Radio is pretty good. Film is in-between. It's got a couple citation needed templates on important statements, and goes into too much detail on Frank Capra but it's fixable. The TV section is about TV and American politics, but not really about the PMC. It then gives four big paragraphs just to Rajagopal. The internet part is also too US and Presidential campaigns centric, and not about the PMC in general. The problem is it's a lot of rewriting, not fixing what's there. They could probably fix everything in a weekend, since a group of 4 could theoretically write a pretty big GA from scratch in a weekend, but I won't be around. Not sure what you want to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Polyethnicity? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I passed it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update; I am not sure how to record it so I am going to inform another GA reviewer of that, hopefully they can do whatever maintenance edits are needed easily. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 23.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 23.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

D&D wikiproject

Come on by and see what's been going on lately at the Wikiproject. :) BOZ (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Back in Black by AC DC.ogg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My prior note on the audio sample, for reference. --an odd name 04:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and happy holidays to you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Castiel

Hey. There is a move discussion for Castiel (Supernatural) here. Since you were involved in the Castiel article, I thought you may want to give your opinion. Ωphois 06:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kiely Williams from the Cheetah Girls free.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kiely Williams from the Cheetah Girls free.jpg. 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.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 09:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Desert of Desolation

I think we got tangled up as I was working on this one, but I am done with it now.  :) Happy New Years by the way - it is officially 2010 in Wiki-land.  ;) BOZ (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I added some stuff to the article's talk page a few months ago; do you see any way to work that stuff in? BOZ (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bristol Palin

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bristol Palin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Palin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural Request

Hey, I'm gonna submit What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural) for FA after the second season nomination finishes. Do you mind giving it a quick glance to make sure that me and the copyeditors didn't make any glaring mistakes? Thanks. Ωphois 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 7.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 7.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 9.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 9.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 12.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 12.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hunter × Hunter episode 38.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hunter × Hunter episode 38.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

My dear friend

It is wonderful to see you again. I am impressed with this: MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#BLP_RfC Thank you for your contributions. Ikip 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Tim1357#Notifying_active_editors_who_have_created_unrefereed_BLPs_and_have_been_notified_by_the_BLP_bot_already, thanks! Ikip

Question re "Loss of editors"

In a comment on the unreferenced BLP RFC, you commented "That would be fine if we hadn't lost so many editors in the past year or two. "

This is news to me. I was not aware that Wikipedia had "lost" editors. Can you point me in the direction of more information on this subject?

Thanx.

--Richard S (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but here's a reference to this, which has been in the press the last few months, I think.[13]. I am sure there are rebuttals as well.--Milowent (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple of links there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural FAC

Hey, just letting you know that the article What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural) been nominated for FA here. Ωphois 05:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've watchlisted it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_from_SirFozzie

SirFozzie is a moderate arbcom member in this case, he voted against the amnesty. I am walking a tight rope, I want to support both SirFozzie and your views, while express my frustration at the arbcom ruling. Ikip 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Peregrine Fisher/Archive 16, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Peregrine Fisher, for his continued excellent efforts to build the project. Ikip 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA?

Hi Peregrine!

In just a few days, it will be three years since your previous RfA, a little bit more than the recommended three months. If you are still interested, I'd be happy to nominate you. I understand it if you've made other arrangements, or are perhaps no longer interested in adminship. A lot can change in three years, after all! Look forward to hearing your reply. Regards, decltype (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! I don't really want to be an admin any more. I don't do much that requires the tools. Thanks again, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame. I've seen many constructive comments from you in various fora, and I think you would make a fine addition to the administrator group, probably more so than myself. That is, apart from your tendency to put two spaces after punctation :) If you change your mind, feel free to let me know. Regards, decltype (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Peregrine Fisher/Archive 16, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kate Brenner

You know better than to use IMDB as a source. Fences&Windows 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate on BLP deletions

• Thank you for your various comments on the BLP-deletion debate. Those comment stand out from the crowd (in my opinion) with their common sense, which is not all that common, as evidenced by many other comments in that debate. Thanks! --Mdukas (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Part two is coming up, so get ready, it's going to be a bumpy ride. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags

I think something strange happened in this edit. :-) Theleftorium 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. Can you move your comments from the Asgardian RfC draft page to the live page, and/or offer any further comments you might have (be they responses to endorse or not endorse the other summaries, or offer your own)? I'm thinking that a resolution is now in order, but I'd prefer if all who have an interest in this had an opportunity to voice their dissent or endorsement before one is carried out. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to spend any more time on him. I just want to avoid him. I don't think I can say anything that hasn't been said, and I doubt it will do any good either way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unearthed Arcana

Figure Unearthed Arcana is ready for a GAN yet? :) BOZ (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, but its got one of those RPG.net reviews. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the only thing I've got for the 3E book... BOZ (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This might help (probably not).[14] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's blocked here; I'll have to look at it later. What is it? :) BOZ (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the translated version of this. It says a (very) little bit about UA 3.5. It's a french VG website, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an article about D&D Online, perhaps mentioning how well (or how poorly) it integrates with UA? BOZ (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lech Wałęsa

The transwiki from Piotrus is complete. I believe you do the GA review? Thanks! Xavexgoem (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)