User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

accusations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#X_on_Twitter

This is a quote from above..."had some problems in the past with TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) and seems he is causing a lot of trouble through all Wikipedia:

The author of this quote also is attacking me. This is too bad. TeacherA (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Tony,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:20090524 Buildings along Chicago River line the south border of the Near North Side and Streeterville and the north border of Chicago Loop, Lakeshore East and Illinois Center.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 12, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-07-12. —howcheng {chat} 18:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Foo on Twitter articles

Hi. Can you please go about improving the multiple foo on Twitter articles you've created, blowing them out and adding sources to them? When I first noticed you creating them, it gave me real concern because the topic was so contentious and people so clearly do not believe they are worthy of an entry despite the abundance of sources. The only way to inoculate them from this argument until people leave the articles alone is to make them so obviously WP:GNG proof that it makes it hard to argue for their deletion. (Hence why I have removed non-newspaper citations inserted into the Bieber and Gaga articles, unless the information is supported by other sources.) Instead of working towards this, you're adding infoboxes, adding sources that don't necessarily help with notability and not adding content to the articles. And then when problems happen on the articles you work on, you cited Biebs and Gaga as examples instead of improving those articles.

Short version: Please add a shit ton of sources that help with notability to Ashton Kutcher on Twitter and Barack Obama on Twitter. --LauraHale (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Portrait of Madame Cézanne

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Blue brushstroke/Mermaid stalled nomination

Hi Tony, sorry that I failed to come up with an alternative that we can both agree on, and to have taken so long to give up on it - I've asked for a second opinion. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Roto Broil

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

‎Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners

I'd love to, but I was hoping it is rejected in favor of split discussions. Also, as said before and I should have explained earlier, the hook is too long and not that interesting to read or care, and I'm not sure if re-editing the hook is needed. The hook also has too many relevant points to summarize. --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with my separate hooks (ALT 7)? You prefer original, which I thought looked too lengthy and... not that interesting. --George Ho (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review

How is WP:NFCR redundant to WP:FFD? I just nominated all non-free screenshots of Hill Street Station for review, not deletion. --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• NFCR and FFD are not the same. I would have nominated one of your uploads for deletion, but I chose review because I have doubts that it would pass NFCC, yet someone may disagree. With NFCR and three more screenshots, we can wait until each either passes or fails NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Will Venable

Would you be able to re-expand the article soon? There's virtually nothing about his career post-2008, so I can't see it remaining a GA; I'll probably put it up for reassessment soon if no expansion is made. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Lockett

This conversation was malplaced here. It has been moved to Talk:Tyler Lockett.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tony, I have restored most of the changes you have recently reverted to the Tyler Lockett article. Here's why: Infobox 1. He's no longer a freshman as of the end of the 2011–12 school year; he's now a rising sophomore for the 2012–13 school year. I would hesitate to promote his class since he is coming off a season ending injury and there is a possibility of him redshirting. I generally wait until the end of August or early September before promoting class.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) In the grand scheme of things, this is minor. However, as of the end of the 2011–12 school year, he's no longer a freshman, regardless of his injury status. He's either a healthy sophomore who plays or an injured sophomore who doesn't play this fall. If he redshirts, he will be a redhsirt sophomore. If it's a question of timing as to when we uniformly update the class status of all CFB player bios, I will gladly defer to WP:CFB policy or consensus.Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) If he redshirts, he will be a redshirt freshman during the 2012 season and a redshirt sophomore during the 2013 season. I don't update players until their season begins (around early September). I don't know what policy is, but don't feel I am doing anything unusual.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) His KSU roster profile says he is a sophomore. He can't be a freshman or a redhsirt freshman because he has already exhausted his first year of NCAA eligibility. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) WP:CFB needs to set a policy on whether one advances classes, when the school year ends, when practice starts, when the school year starts, when the season starts or when you play your first game. This is even more important for winter and spring sport athletes, but not for CFB to worry about in that regard. Not worth fighting about. The only problem is that now I am going to forget to read his text and change it to talking about his sophomore season for the 2012 team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Raise the issue at WT:CFB. I'll support a uniform time for updating class status. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Lede 2. The previous lede was ridiculously long and overly detailed, especially for a relatively short article, and was chock full of random factoids, few of which are the actual reasons for Lockett's notability. For example, the lede prior to my edits mentions that both his father and uncle played for Bill Snyder's K State football team. Why would that be in the lede? The lede should be a brief statement of the reason(s) for a subject's notability and a brief summary of the article. The lede should not attempt to regurgitate every detail from the article or cite every minor award or honor received by the subject person. Biographical details of other family members almost never contribute to a subject's notability and are rarely worth mentioning in the lede. That's trivia. 2a. His father and uncle should be in the WP:LEAD as they are for half of the stories about him in the press. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) WP:LEAD states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable . . . . The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." Notwithstanding that "half of the stories" about Lockett mention his father and uncle, we still have to use our judgment as writers and editors as to what to include in the article and the lede. Lockett is a star college football player in his own right; prominently mentioning his family members in the lede detracts from the reasons for his notability and the summary of the article's major points. Ask yourself this: Is the fact that his father and uncle also played for K-State so large a part of his personal history that it deserves mention in a three or four-sentence summary of his life? Does his father and uncle's history somehow make Lockett more notable? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) As evidenced in the content of my version of his article his father and uncle are a huge part of his life and part of the summary of his article. Additionally, many Big 12 fans, especially K State fans may be looking for him. It is quite common on WP to note famous relations in the WP:LEAD for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Tony, I would love to include a meaningful description of the important family relationships with his role model father and uncle, but that's not what your article provides. It says that his father and uncle played for K-State, notes their college records, and says that Lockett sought advice from them. Describe the substance of those meaningful relationships and how they have impacted his life and football career in the article and I will stand up and cheer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) BTW, the practice of randomly including famous relatives in the lede of sports bio articles without a good reason is a bad practice. It was started by a couple of WP:NFL/MLB editors (who shall remain nameless), and I have deleted such references from virtually every one of the 3,000+ NFL, CFB and other sports bios I have edited. I have yet to find a knowledgeable editor who will defend the practice. This information invariably fits better in the "early years" or "personal" sections. Based on the article summary purpose of the lede, I would only feel right about including a family member in the lede to the extent such family member was a major subtopic of the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I disagree (currently working on updaing Will Venable). I think it belongs in a personal section (which also needs to be highlighted in the LEAD).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Looking at random famous sons to see what is standard starting with Ken Griffey, Jr. (2nd paragraph), Barry Bonds (1st paragraph), Peyton Manning (1st paragraph), Ken Norton, Jr. (2nd paragraph), Anthony Dorsett (2nd paragraph), Jalen Rose (not in lead), Luke Walton (1st paragraph), Laila Ali (1st paragraph), Mark Howe (1st paragraph) and Al Unser, Jr. (not in lead). 8 out of 10 have it in the LEAD. It seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the famous relations belong in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Tony, I don't doubt that it's a common practice, but that doesn't make it a good practice. It's also contrary to WP:LEAD, which says that the two main purposes of the lede are to provide a concise summary of the article, and to establish the reasons for the subject's notability. I don't see anything about providing links in the lede for the convenience of interested fans of the subject's notable family members. If the family members play a significant part in the article, then their role in the subject's life should be concisely summarized in the lede. If the family members get a sentence in the article, mentioning their family relationship to the subject, probably not; then it's just trivia that some editors think is "cool." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I disagree strongly. If you believe your opinion is correct even though the majority of pages have achieved consensus with relations included, you should bring this to a larger audience to try to make this an issue that many editors try to correct. I personally believe that being related to a notable person is a part of what LEAD seeks to present. It is one of the first things a person may look for in an article. I often navigate to the page with the first thought "is this so and so's dad/son/etc?"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 2b. The coach could be removed. Agreed. IMO, adding the name of subject player's coach to the lede is unnecessary detail. If the player's coach is truly notable (and Bill Snyder is), mention of the coach fits better in the "college career" section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Let's keep in mind the primary reason for the subject's notability: he was an outstanding college football player who received consensus All-American honors. In the absence of the first-team All-American recognition, the subject would probably fail WP:COLLATH and WP:GNG and the article would be subject to AfD deletion. A well-written lede will usually include a concise statement of the primary reasons for the subject's notability in the first sentence or two. Why is Lockett notable? In one sentence, he is a college football player who was a consensus All-American as a true freshman. That's why. 2c. Reread WP:LEAD. The objective is to summarize the article not the subjects notability. There is more to the article than his consensus AA status.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Tony, I thought I was pretty clear in the first paragraph above: "The lede should be a brief statement of the reason(s) for a subject's notability and a brief summary of the article." Nowhere do I say that the only purpose of the lede is to state the subject's notability; it is, however, one of the two major purposes expressly identified by WP:LEAD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) It is a fairly standard policy of mine to refuse to promote WP:GACs that don't summarize each section of an article in the WP:LEAD. This article is not summarized without a summary of his high school career given its contents are a significant portion of the article. This is advice I got from the Director of WP:PR and have used for years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Good rule of thumb. I've restored a brief mention of his high school career to the lede. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 3. The revised lede links to "American college football player," not "American football player" because an applicable link should usually be to the most specific subcategory for which a Wikipedia article exists. Lockett is notable as a college football player, not as high school player or professional player. This can be changed if and when he actually plays in a professional league. You may be right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 4. The previous lede mentioned his second-team and honorable mention All-Big 12 honors at different positions, neither of which is a major award or honor, nor among the primary reasons for his notability. Details like these belong in body text, not the lede. See 2c.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Generally, see my response to items 2a and 2c above. Specifically, secondary honors are not highlights deserving of mention in the lede. The guy was a first-team All-American kick returner; there is no need to include honorable mention all-conference honors for a different position in the lede. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) In order to summarize his article we need to clarify that he was good at several positions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) The first sentence of the lede already says that he is a "wide receiver, punt returner and kickoff returner." As you know, it is not at all unusual for backup wide receivers to excel as kick returners. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) We need to say he excelled at various positions. A lot of people play multiple positions and star at only one. In the lead, we need to summarize what he stars at and this enables us to do so objectively.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) What exactly does not "excel" mean to you? Lockett was an honorable mention all-conference selection at wide receiver. There were three first-team WR selections, three second-teamers, and five honorable mentions (see [1]). Kinda-sorta that means he was among the 11 best receivers in a 10-team BCS conference; extrapolate that to the six BCS conferences, and that kinda-sorta implies he was among the 65 best receivers in the country in 2011, perhaps among the top 75+ when all Division I college football teams are factored in. Still think his honorable mention all-conference honors need to be mentioned in the lede? However you slice it, it's still very much a secondary honor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) In this case excellence may only mean he is in the top 20% of wide receivers who get significant playing time and top 10% of those on scholarship, but that is good enough to merit a distinction in the LEAD. It would mean that as a true freshman, he was the best returner in the country and among the top 10% of scholarship wide receivers in the Big 12.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 5. The previous lede mentioned the fact that he failed to qualify for NCAA category-leading stat because he only played in nine of thirteen games. Why would we mention an honor he failed to receive in the lede? By including this, it read like it was written by a family member who was making excuses and did not strike an appropriate NPOV tone. This is another example of a detail that belongs in main body text, not the lede. His most important statistical accomplishment is nearly being the NCAA leader, IMO. see 2c.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Undoubtedly, this is why he received All-American honors. Let's include a brief summary, without making excuses or saying what he didn't "win." Something like "Through the first nine games of his freshman season, Lockett led the nation in average yards per kickoff return." Probably should immediately precede the All-American honors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I would add that he was injured and only played nine games--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) that this was higher than the eventual NCAA statistical champion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I have restored his college statistical leader status. Further expounding his injury and ineligibility for the "official" NCAA stat category lead smacks of excuse-making; this guy doesn't need any excuses for not "winning" the official stat lead. He was a consensus All-American—everyone gets that he's a great athlete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I kind of disagree, but I'll let this one go.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 6. The previous lede also mentioned his high school team championships. While high school accomplishments rarely contribute much to a subject's notability, I could go either way on this, if a brief mention of his high school exploits is included as a brief summary of the article. Rattling off high school all-conference, all-district, all-state, etc., honors in the lede is rarely appropriate. If you want to re-add a mention that he was a member of two state championship teams in high school, I would not object. See 2c.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) As I said above, I would not object to restoring a brief (probably one sentence) summary of his high school career, the most noteworthy aspect of which was the three state championships. Agreed. However, IIRC some of your changes regarding this matter made the main body redundant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) As mentioned above, I've restored a brief summary of his high school career to the lede per item 2c above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Why aren't we mentioning the high school association?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC) "High school association?" Do you mean the OSSAA? If so, why would we insert "Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) championships" into the lede and then have to explain with OHSAA is, and that those championships are really state championships? Those details are best left to the main body text, if mentioned at all. You've got to balance random details in the lede vs. the lede's purpose as a concise summary of the article's major points. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I think the whole LEAD is written slangily. "Led the nation" s/b Led NCAA DI. "consensus All-American" should be a 2011 NCAA DI consensus All-American.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Early years 7. Before my edits, the second sentence of this section included "He worked out regularly with his father before fall football camp." What "football camp" are we talking about? Why is this worth mentioning? Is there some missing detail that makes this relevant? If so, please add the missing detail. As it stood, it read like it was something cut and pasted from another source. I have also added introductory detail regarding his high school that makes sense of the previously incoherent paragraph. Fall football camp. Generally in high school and college football starts in August, fall may be a bit off. I will have to go back and check the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) That would be helpful, but if we're going to restore the deleted sentence, it needs to be expanded to provide missing details sufficient to explain the relevance of "football camp" to his high school career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) This content may belong in the personal section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Whether it goes in the "early years" or "personal" section, it still needs further explanation and development of its contextual relevance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) The source is there. What do you think is necessary?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 8. The section previously included "Growing up, he sought advice from both his father and his uncle." Well, he probably did. Got a source for that? What advice did he seek? On what subjects did he seek advice? Why was that advice relevant to his football career? In the absence of further language that explains the "advice," it's just unsourced filler. If you have a source and can explain the relevance, please include them in your own edits to the article. Remember: every fact in a BLP is subject to being removed when it's unsourced. Everything in the article was sourced from online material. Check it out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Tony, the major point is the deleted sentence is vague and adds no real information to the article. The minor point is that it's unsourced, and is subject to being deleted for any reason. No footnote = unsourced. It's not the reader's job to find BLP sources. If there were some meaningful substance to the deleted sentence, I would have looked for a source to add in a footnote. As the sentence stands now, it's meaningless filler. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) If you think a sentence is unsourced it is because consecutive sentences shared a source. I do not find this content unencyclopedic. It is different than say Jalen Rose who never spoke to his NBA father. Not everyone has role models like that to get advice from.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Tony, I'm sympathetic to your perspective, and I understand what you're trying to do. It's similar to the reason why I always include college jocks' degree information when they graduate. Yes, kids need role models, and, yes, it would be nice to describe Lockett's relationship with his father and uncle in detail. See my last comments to item 2a above. More personal section content, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) My personal opinion is that if you have the substantive material to describe the important influences of his father and uncle on his "early years," why wouldn't you incorporate that into the chronological "early years" section and explain the importance of these role models during his early development as an athlete and a person? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) That is acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) College career 9. I have included an introductory sentence for his college career, including a statement of his university, his football team, his head coach, and his years of play. Do you really object to this? The change was so drastic (and incorrect) that I reverted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Tony, here is the introductory sentence added at the beginning of the "college career" section: "Lockett received an athletic scholarship to attend Kansas State University, where he has played for coach Bill Snyder's Kansas State Wildcats football team since 2011. Both his father and uncle played college football for K-State." What part of this section introduction is incorrect? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) The way you have added it, it remains a.) unsourced and b.) a one-line paragraph needing to be merged or expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Well, it was a two-sentence paragraph, and now it has three sentences . . . and footnotes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 10. In the second paragraph, I fixed the improper capitalization of two honors. If you want to cite the actual proper names of the awards, they may be capitalized as appropriate (e.g. "the Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year," and "second-team All-Big 12 selection"), but generic descriptions like "conference offensive freshman of the year," and "all-conference second team selection" are not capitalized. Presumably, you do not object to proper capitalization. Probably meant to be capitalized as pronouns for the actual awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure what you mean by "pronouns" here. The most commonly used pronouns include subject pronouns (e.g. I, he, she, it, they, we), object pronouns (e.g. me, her, him, it, them, us), and possessive pronouns (e.g. my, his, her, its, their, our). They are shorter substitutes for proper nouns, and are typically used to avoid repeatedly using the same proper noun over and over again in prose. Only the first-person singular pronoun (i.e. "I") is properly capitalized. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I may have my part of speech wrong. What I mean is substitute for the full title. President of the United States Obama should still be capitalized as President Obama. You do not have to have a full title to retain capitalization. When substituting use for the capitalized full name, the shorter name is still capitalized. However, president is not always capitalized—only when it is substituting for the full title. All-Big 12 Conference could be shortened to All-Big 12 or All-Conference depending on the context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC) "Big 12" is the short version of an easily identified proper noun. The word "conference" is not a proper noun, and could easily refer to the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) It looks good now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Personal 11. Can we consider merging the substance of the "personal" section into the "early years" and "college career" sections? Separate "personal" sections usually create an awkwardly artificial separation of information and a non-chronological paragraph of random facts dumped at the end of an article. It's not the most elegant way of doing things. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC) See my comments regarding considering adding additional content to the personal section. I am highly averse to reformatting away the personal section. It is difficult to build a personal section for many notable athletes. Often players with long pro careers even have sections this short. To have one this long for a college freshman (or sophomore as you say) is a good sign that we may be able to build a substantive personal section. Let's not tear it down.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC) It's my personal preference to incorporate family information into the chronological narrative when it makes sense to do so. If you want to do otherwise in this article, that's your call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Family stuff unrelated to football belongs in personal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Tony, as a courtesy to you, I have taken considerably more time to explain these edits than it took to make them. If you have any problems with these edits after reading the explanations, I ask that you discuss them before reverting them again in a wholesale fashion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Tony, I have reincorporated your comments from my talk page here, so we can more easily follow this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Brushstrokes

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not Sure What This is Referring To?

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at A House Divided (Dallas). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dallas (1978 TV series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

These messages were left back in April...not sure what they are referring to? I have added some info to the "Dallas" page, and what I added was only a small bit of "technical" info that was correct. I also did not delete or "vandalize" anything. (174.70.168.111 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC))

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Here We Go Again

Here the chart position for "Here We Go Again": No.65 at Country Singles, 1982. [2] --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The episode is from the 3rd season

It seems that you feel A House Divided (Dallas) is from the third season, but it is from the second season. Please do not change this unless you have a source to back it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the episode is from the 3rd season...but it sometimes can be considered from the 2nd season too. This is because the first season is now what was originally (in 1978) considered the 5-episode miniseries (because producers thought the 5 episodes would be it. But it was so popular they turned it into a regular series). From the original viewpoint the episode would be from 2nd season. However, once the show was turned into a regular weekly series, the miniseries was then considered the first season and therefore "A House Divided" would be the 3rd season finale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.168.111 (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is that now it is convention to count the early episodes as the part I if you will of season one and the first full season as part II of season one. You would have to provide sources otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of the first five episodes of "Dallas" being considered a "Part 1" of the first season, and second season as a "Part 2" of the first season. Basically, once "Dallas" was picked up as a regular series (after the first five episode miniseries in the spring of 1978) the miniseries was then viewed or considered the first season--sort of a late-season starter, if you will. My sources are basically interviews I've read or watched online, from the special features on the show's DVD sets, etc... Most of those were with people involved with the show--actors, producers, writers, etc... If you still want to look at the first season as the "miniseries", then I guess you can make the "A House Divided" episode part of the second season. Some still do refer to season one as the miniseries, but really the "miniseries" aspect was pretty much dropped once "Dallas" became a regular series. ANY episode could actually be debated on what season it was from, because of the whole miniseries/first season thing in the very beginning. Rather than trying to state a "numbered" season...most episodes should just state the "years" of the season instead--Ex: "A House Divided" was the season finale of the 1979-1980 season. The years can't be debated. Just an idea. (174.70.168.111 (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.168.111 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Did You Knows

Hey. Did you have any non-Twitter related DYKs you need reviewed? I'd like to sock away a few more QPQs. --LauraHale (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks re: WikiWomenCamp. :) Sorry about the Twitter drama. Just had stress and I'd kind of like to see Justin Bieber on Twitter get past WP:GA with out having to worry about WP:AFD so random spluging. If you link me to the DYK noms, I can try to review them anyway and we'll see how it goes. If you're feeling brave, Template:Did you know nominations/List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones could probably use a second opinion. --LauraHale (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Think I got the golf balls. Not wading into ones with half review messes. They scare me a lot. Will review Coast at Lakeshore East. (I want to clear my backlog of things I want to take to DYK. I think my to do list is still around 40. If you want to help with the women's national football teams, getting them formatted for DYK moving, that would be fantastic. The CAF ones are big on my list for gender gap related reasons.) --LauraHale (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Smile

Hello TonyTheTiger, Hahc21 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea?

Hi TonyTheTiger, you seem to be a more experience baseball editor than me, so I wanted to ask your opinion on whether or not a navbox for current MLB umpires is likely to be struck down? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I have it almost completed at my sandbox. However, I'm not sure how to fix the problem with the last person being listed below the others. Can you help? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Coast at Lakeshore East

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for I Know...Brad

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Happy Tears (Roy Lichtenstein)

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Tenney, Fred Tenney (outfielder).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Albacore (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Orange, Red, Yellow

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Umpire notability

Do you know what the standard is for determining an umpire's notability? Is any experience in the Major Leagues enough to establish notability? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Tiffany

Orlady (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Steven Hoggett

Orlady (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber on Twitter

Hi. If you get the time, can you do a peer review on the Bieber article? Or edit it with the idea of nominating it for WP:FAC? --LauraHale (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to self

Template:Did you know nominations/Holothuria spinifera still unused.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter GA review

Hello, Let me quickly introduce myself, my name is Tito Dutta. I have started GA review of the article Barack Obama on Twitter. See you in the review talk page. Feel free to contact me anytime in my talk page!
Best, --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Note of appreciation

Thanks for re-adding the collapsability function (and notations) to Template:So You Think You Can Dance. I must have neglected to replace it after reworking the format of the template, woops! Snow (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Golf Ball

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

New message! Heads up!

Heads up! I have replied in my talk page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 22:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Created temp collapsing. Everything you can see non collapsed are not done .--Tito Dutta ✉ 22:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have hidden accomplished tasks to highlight incomplete tasks. --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Graph creator!

There are multiple graph/chart creators in internet. Google chart wizard might be one of the best, though may not be directly helpful for Obama Twitter article, but, still I sometimes find this highly helpful! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have got your email, not the file. And you need to delete the screenshot from your post in requested template page. We don't have fair use rationale for using in that page!--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48h

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for levying accusations of racism/discrimination against other editors without any supporting evidence after multiple calls to retract or support the claims. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by unfounded. I'll repeat. Fact "44 of my last 56 nominations had passed", which was higher than the average pass rate at WP:FSC over the same time period and the nominators charged that I was "generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured". I don't understand what you don't understand about my complaint of discrimination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Unfortunate! Now, I need to wait for 2 days for Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter/GA1 where he was nominator and I was reviewer!
Umm, well, is it possible to allow him to participate in that review and edit that article in these two days? I found Tony's responses very friendly and polite in review page! Any chance of this special permission? Actually the review was flying– I fear we'll loose the speed after two days (I'll be busy at that time etc)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tony: Well, first, it's certainly not racism. Second, seriously? Your claim is that they're discriminating against you because you had a high rate of accepted nominations? I'm not saying that their claims were accurate, but that's not the point. Your claims are completely unreasonable and disruptive, and you don't seem to understand this despite almost every single person at the AN thread stating as such. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Tito: No. That's not how blocks work. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Okay, so, can you please postpone the block? Block after 3-4 days! Hope you can understand this block is also blocking me (my task list for next two days) and the GA review! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tito, I'd suggest you read the blocking policy - blocks are meant to prevent disruption, in this case, Tony's insistence on making unfounded accusations. Postponing the block would completely defeat the purpose of placing it, and make it purely punitive in nature. I'm sorry you're being inconvenienced by Tony's absence, but in the grand scheme of things, personal attacks outweigh a GA review. There is no deadline on things, and the review will still be there two days from now. You can still leave comments about the review, Tony just won't be able to work on them until he is unblocked; in the meantime, there are plenty of other things to do on Wikipedia. I will not be unblocking Tony, nor I hope any other admin will, until it's clear that he understands why his conduct was disruptive and commits to improve upon it. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TonyTheTiger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your block is an administrative dick-swinging and the circle-jerk of bobbleheads nodding along does not really address the reality of the fact that I was being discriminated against. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Either this is some sort of performance art, or you're genuinely having trouble using words to mean the same things as everyone else uses them to mean. In either case, your accusations of racism - even after people tried to explain to you that they weren't supported - were tendentious and unsubstantiated, and following them up with name-calling like this indicates that whatever tear you're on, it's not over. Try taking a walk, calming down, getting away from the computer, and then come back and attempt to convince us that you understand what went wrong and will try not to repeat it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ok, so the lesson at AN hasn't sunk in yet, let me say it explicitly... Rule of Thumb #1 when appealing blocks and/or bans: It's usually not a good idea to levy personal attacks against those who placed the block and/or ban, as doing so often only serves to justify why the block and/or ban was placed in the first place. (See also WP:GAB) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, for all the time I have known him he hasnt done pleasant, nice, constructive GA reviews, so I personally cannot believe that Tony has done something wrong, and believe his innocence. But Tony, the language isnt helping. — M.Mario (T/C) 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This block is highly inappropriate per WP:INVOLVED, and I have urged Hersfold to unblock immediately. Note that my objection is purely on the INVOLVED side; I will neither support nor defend the idea of you being blocked for these comments. Nyttend (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page, but I'm not sure where you feel I became involved here. My involvement in this matter was as an administrator from the start, encouraging Tony to retract or support his accusations. When he failed to do so and persisted with them after a number of warnings, I blocked him. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think it was probably a counter-productive block (to match a counter-productive unban request), but can't see how WP:INVOLVED comes into play. Unless, Nyttend, you're saying Tony called Hersfold a racist, which doesn't appear to be the case; Tony was saying the people originally responsible for his topic ban were racists (then, later, retracted and replaced with discriminatory). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Hersfold engaged in the discussion with four different edits 1, 2, 3, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=497576848 4]. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.", and there's quite obviously a dispute when you're opposing an editor's request for unban with "I see no reason to even consider an unban appeal". Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm being quoted out of context. That sentence ended with "...but instead characterize those participating in your ban discussion as racists and/or liars" - a somewhat subtle hint that he needed to remove such claims. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not hersfold was "involved" is a discussion which should be taken off this page, I think. (I'm tempted to copy/paste move it myself.) Another admin has declined unblocking. (And after reading the AN discussion, as an uninvolved admin, I think I would endorse the block too.) So there is no purpose to having a discussion about herfold (and their use of the admin tools) here. - jc37 20:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tito, if you are following this page, you can give me feedback on File:20120614 @BarackObama Follower Chart.jpg--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am following this page! I think you are using XY scatter! I feel it'll be better, if you use line chart or bar chart (see an example image). --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the excel line graph (the version at commons) is that if you are missing data points they are not connected. The line graph only connects sequential points. We only have 6 datapoints from about 1000 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons has graph creator? I didn't know! I do not have and have not used Microsoft excel for a long time. In Libre office or open Office (Linux version of excel) when you right click on the graph, you can change graph types), Do you have this option in MS excel? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

While I'm away

Wikipedia:Peer review/Juwan Howard/archive3‎ will close without editorial activity. Is it possible to get a message to Acdixon (talk · contribs) to make some sort of edit to that page between about 0:00 and about 3:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC). Thus it will not close today or tomorrow and I can resume my involvement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and dropped a comment on the peer review page just now and will comment again tomorrow. If I read the above right, I could do it with one comment delivered between midnight and 3 a.m. Friday, but I hope to be blissfully asleep then, so I'll do the two-step method instead. Looking forward to picking up where we left off when you are back. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes after a PR gets to 30 days it will close the second day after its last activity. However, the bot does not operate right at 0:01.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam just pointed out on my talk page that this was unadjusted GMT (assumed otherwise since you and I are in the same time zone). Still, I probably won't be on-wiki Friday night at that time, so I'll just try to ping as I'm online and remember to do it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter/GA1 won't go anywhere. I'll be back.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Template:Did you know nominations/Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Look Mickey

Template:Did you know nominations/Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Look Mickey was approved at 10:50, 15 June 2012. It is the oldest approved hook at T:TDYK.

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 was loaded up between 12:22, 15 June 2012‎ and 12:36, 15 June 2012 by Mentoz86 (talk · contribs) with 7 hooks.

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 was loaded up between 18:09, 15 June 2012‎ and 18:30, 15 June 2012 by Mentoz86 (talk · contribs) with 7 hooks.

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 was loaded up between 20:08, 15 June 2012‎ and 20:51, 15 June 2012 by BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) with 7 hooks.

Can someone explain to me why 21 hooks have been chosen over the oldest approved hook? Can we get it in the next set?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Engagement Ring (Roy Lichtenstein)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Data!

• Please send me data of the graph you have created (you can send in any file format, but not image file)
• Is it possible to create interactive graph in Wikipedia article, do you know? I personally don't know how to insert code in a Wikipedia article? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song). LittleMountain5 00:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Great work! LittleMountain5 00:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, congratulations for reaching ten Four Awards! LittleMountain5 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Time 100

Template:Time 100 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Phillip Humber

I closed the peer review per your request, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Artist's Studio—Look Mickey

Thanks from Wikipedia and the DYK team Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Look Mickey

Thanks from Wikipedia and the DYK team Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mural with Blue Brushstroke

Thanks from Wikipedia and the DYK team Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cat Daddy

The article Cat Daddy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cat Daddy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

re your GAN Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein)

Hi,

I've made some comments regarding your nomination at Talk:Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein)/GA1 and would like to get some feedback from you. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Zou Bisou Bisou/GA2

Best, Statυs (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

2011 Michigan Wolverines football team GA Review

FYI Talk:2011 Michigan Wolverines football team#GA Review. Please help make this article better per the reviewer. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Review status!

I have started final assessment, hope to complete it within next 1-2 day(s)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!

I have conducted a review of the following article. Best, Statυs (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have also reviewed Girl in Mirror, Drowning Girl, Big Painting No. 6 and Whaam!. Will begin a review of Girl with Ball and Torpedo...Los! soon. Statυs (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have finished the above, and additionally reviewed Look Mickey and Artist's Studio—Look Mickey. These are very well written articles that have barely no problems. Best, Statυs (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pin perreault01.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pin perreault01.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I saw that you had replaced the image in The French Connection's article with File:Frenchconnectionlogo.png, the image above was used in LeRoy Neiman's article without fair use justification. I suppose that one could justify it's inclusion in his article, if one were so inclined. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Corzine

See Talk:Jon Corzine#Motorcade speed after the accident. In the meantime, please refrain from reverting any further. GotR ^Talk 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing International Finance Corporation

Thanks again for taking the time to conduct the review, I really expected to wait some number of weeks before anyone would bother. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 04:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Barack Obama on Twitter

The article Barack Obama on Twitter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Tito Dutta ✉ 07:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! And just to mention– I didn't try or think of wear someone down! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Done! –Tito Dutta ✉ 08:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, TonyTheTiger/Archive 71. We are pleased to invite you to join WikiProject Baseball's Umpires task force, a group dedicated to improving articles related to baseball umpires. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members on the task force page.

This task force is still in a developmental stage and your assistance would be appreciated. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cecil Newton, Sr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cecil Newton, Sr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Newton, Sr. (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cat Daddy

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Hazard-Bot/Requests#Chicago

Hello, could you please attend to an issue at User:Hazard-Bot/Requests#Chicago? Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face (Dion) sample.ogg)

Thanks for uploading File:The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face (Dion) sample.ogg. 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg

As an uploader of this image, I just put this image up for deletion because... it's a lousy shot, and frontal view is better than seeing them kiss. If you oppose, then remove the "db-g7" thing. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Orphaned non-free image File:@justinbieber screenshot cropped.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:@justinbieber screenshot cropped.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives (season 2)

In response to the Good Article Review for Desperate Housewives (season 2), I wanted to let you know that I have addressed all the issues, with the exception of one. Please, visit the article's talk page and see what this is about. Thank you again for reviewing. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Juwan Howard

Heard some chatter on ESPN Radio yesterday about how Juwan Howard dedicated his part in the 2012 NBA title to the Fab Five. Doug Gottlieb talked about how, for all the hype, this was the only championship any member of the Fab Five had ever won. That's kinda harsh, but something about this whole issue would probably be a good addition to the Howard article before it goes to FAC again. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

PR closure

Hi Tony, the bot closes PRs which have been open 30 days after 2 days of inactivity. I am pretty sure this is after 48 hours without activity have passed. Since the bot checks once a day (usually 10:00 UTC) this sometimes means it is closer to three days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

2011-12 Harvard Bball

I saw your article was nominated for GA, so I took a look at it. I was confused when I saw the article didn't have a roster box or section, or whatever you want to call it. Most of the other articles I've seen about seasons usually have roster boxes. Did you intend to do that? ThurstAsh13 (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a valid point, no one really does expect for the Ivy's do anything astounding. I saw your achievements on your page and you're more experienced than I am; however, I still for some reason believe that the players that were a part of that team should be recognized in the article. But that is merely what I think of the subject, I just thought I'd voice my opinion on that. ThurstAsh13 (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with an article

Hi I have written an article and I'd like to see it grow, an admin called Keegan suggested that you could help me based on your experience. The article is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheongye_Kwan. Thank you hjc2012 —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

They are going to remove it anyway so i wrote this... Regardless of months of work and effort and constant fixing and re fixing with help from numerous admins and helpers, I feel I am fighting a losing battle that is frankly a little insulting. Barry Cook is a world renowned Martial Arts Master and founder of arguably one of the best Martial Arts systems to have been developed in the past 10 years. And to have to keep justifying him and coming up with more and more refs is simply an exercise in fruitless nonsense. By all means remove BOTH (not 3?) articles (Barry Cook) and (Cheongye Kwan) because I am at a lose. hjc2012 —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Thanks!
	Thanks for your review of Svetlana Kuznetsova! :) GoPTCN 18:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Zou Bisou Bisou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cha-Cha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say a quick and belated thank you for certifying an article I worked on as eligible for the Four Award. I'm not big on awards and such, but must admit that it feels great to have acquired this one. Thanks again. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Topic

Hi, Currently the iPad, iPad 2 and 3rd generation iPad articles are all considered good articles, if a good topic was to be created, would an article that specifically focuses on the original iPad be required or will the general iPad article suffice. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 07:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

File:@BarackObama screenshot.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:@BarackObama screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

File:@aplusk.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:@aplusk.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:@justinbieber screenshot.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:@justinbieber screenshot.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads up!

I personally feel the file is important in that article. I have posted my comment on that basis. Let's see.. --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)