I'll see what I can do. Busy busy! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, can you check out family guy like when Stewie and Brian. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there! I noticed that you claimed ToHII quite some time ago, but haven't worked on it since. If you want, we could co-write the article (I'm doing the Production section as I type). What do you think? Cheers, I'^mperator 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other senators use the date of the letters-patent summoning them to the Senate, as I have established for every senator from 1996 to January 2009 by going through the online Senate Journals. I would ask that you please revert your edit since it is based on an incorrect assumption. -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, read the talk page. I am not saying the source is completely unreliable; I am saying it is unreliable on the point of dates of appointments for newly appointed senators. They did exactly the same thing with the last batch of appointments. They said immediately that they were appointed on December 22, 2008, but changed the dates once they had the summonses. Since they have established unreliability on this point, we cannot rely on them to be correct this time. -Rrius (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to see you are leaving as FLC director. You have done great work there and I admired you for standing out from the crowd and giving us a "rambling essay" to think about. Thank you very much for all you have done and I hope you will migrate back to the process some day. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Answered your question; I think it was a good one. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been dropping hints about this to me for some time, but your announcement was still a shock. I really appreciate all you've done with the process, and working alongside you as a director has always been a pleasure. I hope everything goes well for you in real life, even if it does take you away from here, but I hope you'll still be involved in FLC in some capacity. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm french, so sorry for my bad english. You reverted my modification on the article Lisa Simpson, but without justification. However, on the image, we can see only two points behind the three main points. Why revert ? 77.199.19.43 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was submitted to FAC, but I withdrew it since it didn't seem like it was ready and you weren't ready for it to be submitted. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, look i and some friend have been editing family guy and it looks good but it may need some copy editing so if you have free time can you check it out. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and you probably will. Well WWE and TNA both suck these days. You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. Though TNA have been pushing more young talent to the main event than WWE, so I guess there is a company out there that is listening to the majority of fans who want new blood in the main event scene.--WillC 04:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going anywhere either. Plan on FLC/FLRC being graced/stuck with my presence for a long time to come. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm a new user and I made a newby mistake and I'm apologize to you. I should have known better than to include a speculation. But I think that's been a distraction from the change that I really value making. It may be nuanced but I'm not speculating, being picky, or argumentative. Read my new suggestion for how the sentence should be re-worded I think then you'll see what I'm getting at. I'd like to find that commentary you mentioned, Groening might explain the switch.

I deleted what I first posted so that the errant speculation won't enter into the considerations. I also won't make the edit until we can create some kind of consensus. It was late and I was with friends when I did the first one. Again sorry about it, and try to forget about my blunder. Once you see my suggested re-wording I think you'll like it. Prodigalapagos (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vlcsnap-309300.png, 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You commented on the last discussion about whether to include a Category:Fictional LGBT characters on the Stewie Griffin article. We have a new discussion going for an updated consensus. Your comments here would be appreciated. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 03:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa something I should take to GA or FL? I'm sure it needs more citations for FL though. CTJF83Talk 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, I'll try GA (should I remove the Template:One source template before nominating?) CTJF83Talk 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see what I can find, thanks! CTJF83Talk 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love when people make up stuff, and they are wrong  :) [1] [2] [3] [4] It is a really early airing this year. CTJF83Talk 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI its the only weekend available to air the episode if they want to air it before nov 8, since the prior 2 weekends have mlb postseason baseball on FOXGrande13 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about the last GA review for neighborhoods. The last post suggests taking it to FL. I have no experience with that, is the page ready yet? Is FL just as strict as FA? CTJF83 chat 23:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found a website at all where I can watch all the shorts? CTJF83 chat 16:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! I suppose I can try youtube too. CTJF83 chat 16:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Cheeers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you. Why did you remove the national team portion of the Infobox? All players are now getting these in place of the old nationality field. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I can't be arsed to do in-line citations for my guest star list table, it'd take too long and be too long, there's already over 180 and I'm barely half way done. I'll just upload the table to the article, the references at the bottom will suffice for now. Any comments before I do? Gran² 16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cam you fix Wikipedia:WikiProject_Family_Guy#Barnstar so it looks like the Doh section? I tried to copy and paste the same as Doh, but didn't work. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best! :) CTJF83 chat 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, most of FG is a copy of Doh, remember? CTJF83 chat 01:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix the edits running into the stuff about Edna List_of_cast_members_of_The_Simpsons#Recurring_guest_voices CTJF83 chat 01:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to fix the quotes at the top so they are staggered? I tried the colon, but that doesn't work. CTJF83 chat 17:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks anyway CTJF83 chat 01:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, can you make it so User:Ctjf83/GayPride automatically adds Category:LGBT Wikipedians? CTJF83 chat 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, in case you need to know for future reference, it is as easy as going to the specific UBX page, and putting Category:Name! CTJF83 chat 01:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your comments on the sculpture list. I replied to them. The first two should be resolved, I can't do much about the third. Please let me know if I should add linebreaks (4th item) and remove the kanji (5th item) from the list. bamse (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list was on your FL audit page, and there is a discussion over what exactly needs to be improved. You might want to take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has shown signs of being a Conservative Democrat. I'll try and cite it before re-adding but I wasn't vandalizing the page.----occono (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, as a major contributor you might want to request that this article appear on the main page. The anniversary of the first airing of this show will be November 3, it's a featured article, and it has not yet been on the main page. It looks like it would get at least 3 points (2 points for having been a featured article for 2+ years and 1 point for November 3 as the anniversary of airing, with no points lost for main page representation as the most recent similar main page article was September 21.) --66.194.74.18 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey scorpion, see i am working on the family guy plot, and i do not know if i have to put everything like in the FG page like the voice cast or the history can you check it out.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 11:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will be able to use the book for some things. I've read up the end of the Sam Simon chapter and I think it's a fair source for his article and for some mention of the behind the scenes politics. But the book itself does have errors, not just typing but factual errors like the fact he calls Brooks' writing partner on MTM "Ed Burns" when his name is Allan. Gran² 19:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ortved's blog is a perfectly fine source, as long as we say that that is explicity the source. Could you add the Homer's Phobia thing, because it's not in the British version for some reason, need to complain somewhere about that. Gran² 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just searched a few Australian booksellers, can't see it listed. Gran² 16:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my comments. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you not think hommer the whopper is ready for a GAn.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well i just made it a bit bigger but i can see you just did your paragraph.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

i will nominated my first simpsons no,mination.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quik question who must i put as the nominator cause left has been working hard ion this, me and flash a=have been helping out and you have been doing your simpsons majic so who has the name in the GAN page.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'll add flash.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help, nice working with you and left for once insted of asking for just advice.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 04:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

scorpion would you help me try to get lisa to fa.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

those this look like a goood start for the hallmark section

In the opening sequence of many Simpsons episodes, the camera zooms in on Springfield Elementary School, it is shown that Lisa is seen being ejected from band rehearsal due to her non-conforming playing. She exits the room playing a saxophone solo, which sometimes changes. Some of the solos have similarities with pieces by Donovan, Frank Zappa, James Brown, and Charlie Parker.^[1].

One of Lisa's hallmarks is playing the saxofone or the sax, in the episode Lisa's Sax she says that she practices one hour a day, it is also shown that she started playing the saxofone in 1990 where Homer buys it for her, because he discovers that a musical instrument is a way to encourage a gifted child. He sacrifices his air conditioner money to buy Lisa her first saxophone. He asked the clerk to engrave on the sax: "Dear Lisa. Never forget your daddy loves d'oh!", as Homer drops the saxophone.^[2] Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey scorpion do you think that the hallmark section would be alright for lisa.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Scorpion. A user has opened up the review for the article - I've adhered to a few issues, but there's still some more. The Flash ^{talk} 23:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am admittedly a newbie to Wikipedia, and I see that you are certainly not.

I added a sentence to the Nancy Cartwright page with the fact that she wrote the foreword to a book written many years ago by a friend of hers. I made it a point not to mention the author's name or link to Amazon, etc., assuming that might be viewed as somehow being an attempt to promote the book.

I would appreciate it if you would explain why this addition was not appropriate, since you immediately deleted it.

Thank you. Centerpunch (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your work with this type of list, so I wonder if you can review this list for me?--Cannibaloki 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanier Cup.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Vanier Cup.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Vanier Cup.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree heartily with your position that my brief discussion of the Denver Broncos reference crosses the line into trivia. It's a joke that requires some explanation, as it made more sense at the episode's original airing than it does today. I don't believe that there's a point to having a section with cultural references, if honest attempts at explaining those references in the episode are redlined as trivia. I also dispute your observation that my contribution represented original research; it was a mere summary of facts. Finally, I didn't see a citation for the claim that the Broncos had been "a consistent .500 team throughout the 1990s" and considered it fair game for an edit.

Finally, your brute-force revert of minor changes that improve the sentence structure and grammar of the section tell me that you believe that nobody but yourself should dare to edit this article. Rather than simply reverting the changes, it would have been more appropriate for you to open a dialogue with me. But it's quite clear to me that you have an awfully proprietary attitude about the subject, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to discuss this. LibertyHiller (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Thank you for your response, but you might have done a little homework first and looked at the edit history. The bit about the Broncos being a "consistent .500 team" wasn't added by me; it had been added (without a source) about three days prior to my edits, by an anonymous user. (You are correct, Marge didn't say that; at the time I was making my edits, I lacked access to anything approximating an authoritative transcript. However, I did recall that the scene in question was a conversation between Homer and Marge; I'd made a note to myself to follow up on the exact quote.) Nevertheless, your wholesale reversion was unwarranted; the false quote could have been excised without removing the explanation.

As far as violating NOR, a mere recitation of facts in order to explain the reference hardly qualifies as original research. My decision to include the information (was in no way indiscriminate; a joke that was deadly in 1996 has lost some of its punch with time, and I thought it useful to explain to readers why using those particular teams made it work. This edit was not made in the plot summary, but in an appropriate section, so I fail to see where I ran afoul of WP:PLOT.

The difference between cultural reference and trivia is apparently in the eye of the beholder. What is the point to having a section with cultural references, if honest attempts at explaining those references are redlined as trivia? I'm not sure who appointed you a cultural arbiter, but you seem to have placed yourself in that role. It's clear that you consider this article to be your property, so have fun with it. LibertyHiller (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is currently a proposal to raise the percentage of articles featured topics need to have featured to 50%, from 1 September 2010, and as someone with a topic with less than 50% of articles featured, this change if passed will directly affect you. Any input on your part to the discussion, and opinions both for and against the proposal, would be most welcome - rst20xx (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		2009 WikiCup Award: Most Featured Topics in a Round
		This WikiCup Award is awarded to Scorpion0422 for his achievement of contributing the most featured topics in a round, with 2 in the first round. Congratulations!

		The 2009 WikiCup Participant Award
		This WikiCup Award is presented to Scorpion0422 for their participation in the 2009 WikiCup. Your contributions along the way have greatly improved the quality of many articles, pictures, and sounds on the English Wikipedia.

Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already! iMatthew ^talk at 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You brought up an issue regarding the featured list nomination of Gwen Stefani discography at its 2nd FLC. It wasn't promoted because one site I linked to as a source, alphacharts, crashed for several weeks. The site is back up and I have renominated the list here. Would you consider offering your support, given that you issue was resolved? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCorpion are you good reviewing.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Family Guy cast members/archive1 now do not take this as a FG artical take this as a favor beetween fox anamation editors:)--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responded.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responded again.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scorpion! Could you review the list 2007 Pan American Games medal table? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		In gratitude for your review in the list 2007 Pan American Games medal table, wich is now a Featured List Candidate. Thank you. Felipe Menegaz 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Simpson/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i nominated lisa for an fac after a pr--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey is it normal for an FAc to close in two days cuase that happened to lisa--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let me follow up with this quest how do you think i could improve lisa.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah they trust you becuse you are an FA expert, so what do you think i could expand.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if i ask for your help now and then?.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

look this is my first plain of lis as cultral refrenmces look it in here, and conect to see i i am conected to java simpsons.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC) What do you think i should add cause alot of influence of lisa is inviorment--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Just corrected in word.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Quest has lisa ever guest started in any other show.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you tell which it would be helpful for the artical.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just remembering you that you have to help out on my lisa sand box.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to a comment at this FLC, do you think the horses' names should be added to List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners#Equestrian? Also, if you could comment at the above FLC and/or List of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners (FLC), that would be dandy. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If tv.com is not a reliable source, why is it listed as an external link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angiex3-2 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links don't have to be reliable because they're not used as sources for information in the article. Theleftorium 15:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man this page is empty ah well left cleand up some of the artical but i really need that you whacth it when you have time.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You now what i am going to ask Dabomb to see what henthinks.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you just how far from fa is the artical--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well yes there is not much so what i found i put, tell me what you think you are the main editor i am just an honarable and noble helper--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

scorpion i am 13 years old i go to school every damn day i think i have got time to wait.,:)--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus that gives me time as i have some GANs on the line to be reviewed. plus working on an artical that i cannot name cause it would isult you like if i yeld yankees on a red socks game.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do a copyedit on Lisa Simpson, since she's so important and awesome. However, I don't have time to offer more thorough reviews of content, which is what you seem to be requesting. (To be honest, the stuff in your sandbox looks at first glance to be just like what's on the main article.) Please let me know when you're out of the sandbox stage and closer to FAC. Scartol • Tok 12:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scop has the two weeks pased--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, when you get the chance, this FLC needs a revisit. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scorpio.

I don't agree with you that it's too early to add the events to the nations' pages. It's knowledge, and even if it hasn't happen yet, it's gonna happen, that's for sure. People might wanna know Canada's hockey schedule. Yeah, I know, they can check the tournament page. But it can't hurt anyone having the info there already (as far as what can be known now).

A second reason why I added the info now, is that I wanna make sure that nobody edits away without using the templates I've created - with some effort - for the purpose of avoiding doubling storage space and typing for all the various pages that soon will share the same info, while at the same time keeping them from diverging.

The reason why I didn't add all the other schedules, is simply that I don't know them. Every editor contributes with his or her knowledge and creativity. Wikipedia grows bit by bit. It didn't happen in just one giant edit.

Thanks for not deleting the info totally, though.

Cheers

LarRan (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's a good change. Thanks.

I was thinking - couldn't we just remove the "Qualification" heading? That way we wouldn't need two sections for each event: one under "Qualification", and one under "Results". We could just let each event section evolve gradually from focusing on qualification to focusing on the results, as we get closer to the Games.

LarRan (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

While I can agree that the trials are important background information, I am more inclined to believe that linking to that article, combined with a short summary (as in the previous version), would be sufficient in the "Canada at the 2010 Winter Olympics" article. Information on participants in the trials belong in that page. It does not belong in this page. We can't possibly have all background in this page, all wannabes that didn't make it to the team, and so forth. Where's the limit?

Cheers

LarRan (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "do it yourself" logic is not sound, especially for sourcing. I don't have the time to do all the sourcing myself. Outright removal of necessary, relevant information is not how we fix things unless they are clearly unfixable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, they do belong. They're directly related to the release information of the DVD. At what point is its PSP release irrelevant to the article? And second off, I'm gonna have to ask for an explanation why it's not my burden to fix all the other problems, only sources. If I think that it needs sourcing, then it's solely the burden of those who want it to be a good article. My shoulders have no room for other peoples' work. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he tried to search for a source to state that it's available on UMD, he must not have bothered to notice "Blue Harvest" + "UMD" bringing up in excess of 4,000 hits, the first from Amazon selling it.

And again, outright removal is not how you fix sourcing problems. I'm adding it back because the information is not being deleted for being unsourceable, but because the nominator didn't want to source them. I can say immediately that it can't pass GA on the basis that it is factually incomplete. I already can say what is missing, and until the content is added back in I can't call the article comprehensive in its coverage. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon establishes that it exists. It's not like factual information from Amazon is written by users. Regardless, you're suggesting that the information be removed immediately based on the first result of a Google search not resulting in a source. Again, I'll repeat this: It's verifiable information. The UMD clearly exists, appearing on dozens of major shopping web sites. The interview appeared on the DVD, and all it needs is for someone to source the specific quote from the DVD. And the list of episodes in the season six boxset is a reference in and of itself to it not being included. In five minutes I showed that these woefully unsourcable things could be sourced. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm mexican and actually I am in 7th grade, I know much english but I have this mistakes, this mistakes of basic english is not going to be another time and actually User:CaRaNt11 is my friend and he is of Peru not of Mexico. Have a nice day :D Francisco97 (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one had done any serious editing in a very long time, so there wasn't reasonable expectation that it was controversial. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Andria "Dreamz" Herd. 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/Andria "Dreamz" Herd. 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) 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Barneyfirst.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. Skier Dude (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SimpsRoastingLisa.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. Skier Dude (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive the weeks have passed have they scorp--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have some time next week, so I'll look at it then. Scartol • Tok 11:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that, I've done that a hundred times.--WillC 04:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish they would take the rollback button out of the watchlist. Having it there doesn't exactly encourage users to always check the edits the rollback on. It would cut down on accidental rollbacks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't even use either button until I check the article. I accidentally hit that button alot as I check my watchlist. I got tabs so I just open a new one for each article edit I want to check. Sometimes my window freezes and when it unfreezes I hit a rollback. It is so annoying.--WillC 04:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Judging from the info you entered on Canada's 2010 Olympic page, it's time to fill this template: Template:2010 Winter Olympics Canada women's ice hockey team roster. The purpose of it is to keep the info in one place, so when changes come, you will only have to edit in one place instead of two (Canada's page and the page covering all rosters), thus turning around only round about 1*1500-2000 bytes, instead of 2*85000+ bytes, for each save. Would you be so kind and do it? Thanks. LarRan (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? What planet are you from? Oh, yeah, Canada. I'm really getting tired of delusional editors who try to, "own," or keep control, of the Wikipedia pages they create or heavily edit. That explicitly cannot be the case, according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is for anyone and everyone to edit.

The reason the Youtube video was posted as attribution was because it clearly makes the point for the "Raymond" reference, period, with no guesswork needed for any reader. It clearly shows Dan Castellaneta in the exact role he's attributed to for, "Raymond;" and, there is no reason that reference is wrong, other than personal preference. So, the point isn't about having circular reasoning, as you so incorrectly try to accuse me of, genius. Have a better day. Canihaveacookie 10:43, December 22, 2009 (UTC-6)

FYI, that YouTube link is a violation of WP:COPYLINK and must not be restored. Theleftorium 18:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a problem here. I don't see any consensus on the FLC talk page that says I've been made a director. In fact, The Rambling Man suggested that no new directors be named until after 2010 begins, to see how FLC runs with two directors (him and Dabomb87). I'd better make note of this on FLC talk. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scorpion0422, it's been a long time. How are you? :) Are you still planning on getting Flaming Moe's to GA status? If not, I'd be interested in working on it for the WikiCup. Anyway, I hope you have a happy new year! :-) Cheers, Theleftorium 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Just making sure that we get season three done sometime during the second round. :) Hopefully I'll be able to get the season two topic completed and promoted before the first round ends. Theleftorium 10:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Julie Kavner - This is my life.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) 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought your article up here for a possible Winter Olympic-related TFA to mark the start of the 2010 Winter Olympics and the 90th anniversary of the sport being played at the Games. You may want to nominate it when the time comes, but it's entirely up to you - some people hate having their work as TFA. All the best, Pyrrhus16 16:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the decades? The table isn't sortable so I believe it makes sense to list it in decades. 90.184.240.251 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know I've polished up this list which you put a great deal of work into, and it'd be great if you could stop by the FLC! In addition, you definitely deserve to claim a piece of the FT credit when WP:MLB nominates the MLB Awards topic (once this list and the MVP list finish their FLCs). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Non-English versions of The Simpsons. 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/Non-English versions of The Simpsons. 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) 01:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jsyk I wasn't vandalising the Flight of the Conchords (TV Series) article when I wrote about the character Steve as one of the recurring gags. I was also the previous editor when I wrote about the "recurring props". Just letting you know. 121.91.95.130 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you rollback this? Majorly talk 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unconstructive edit, and I reverted it, what is so unusual about that? May I ask why you feel the need to check my edits? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it didn't look particularly unconstructive: how was it? (And I have no idea why you believe I check your edits - I have a watchlist, and I had previously noticed the edit and left it, and merely wondered why you decided to revert it). Majorly talk 18:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the unsourced addition of a minute detail from an episode, the type of addition that those of us who frequent Simpsons pages would deem unproductive. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. It seemed like a good-faith edit though, not really appropriate for rollback in my opinion, unless the user kept deliberately doing it. Thanks for explaining. Majorly talk 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scorpion0422! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Crystal Cox - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Scorpion, I noticed your name on the LOST WikiProject members list and was wondering if you could possibly help with the continued vandalism from User:Greenbird534 to, currently, the Lost season 6 page. They continue adding IMDb as a reliable source, and, they have a large history of vandalism on other Lost articles, as well as other articles overall. I know your amazing history on Wikipedia and thought I'd come to you. Thanks. Happy editing. --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not really any of my business at all, but I was kinda wondering why you used rollback to undo this edit. It's not vandalism or even unproductive, really. I'm not trying to be a pest or anything, I'd just hate to see a good contributer like you lose your rollback.  :< Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could look at it that way, though the user does seem to be a good faith contributer (contributor?) even if they're a little misguided. I just feel that while their edit could be construed as disruptive, an explanation as to why you're reverting them might help them learn, right? Sorry if I sound like kind of a jerk, I'm not meaning to be. D: Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 02:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources says, "The overrun of the Green Bay Packers-Arizona Cardinals playoff game helped Fox win the night overall. [...] The biggest beneficiary was The Simpsons; the 450th episode and 20th anniversary special performed very well." Also, "Cardinals-Packers game boosts Sunday ratings [...] A thrilling NFL playoff game produced monster ratings Sunday, leading into some of the best scores in years for "The Simpsons," which aired both its 450th episode and 20th anniversary specials on the night. It says that both the special and the 450th episode were somewhat benefited from the game even if didn't quickly succeeded the game. I know that you are a clearly more experienced user than me, especially in The Simpsons field and maybe discussing with you is hitting my head in the wall but I think have to try. Thank you in advance. Sparks Fly 03:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for the reply, it did cleared up the things, I didn't know especifically why I coudn't mention that part. I think that would be no problem if we compare the special ratings with a episode rating since the sources do so, but I'm not convinced about this point so let this die here, and I don't want argue about it. Sparks Fly 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, the problem is that I was stricly following the sources and I did not avaliate the reality. Even if they say that it did helped the special, how is that possible? LOL
It was good for you to mention that you plan to expand the article because I thought do the same but since I already started with the wrong feet I prefer to jump off this boat and leave the work to the real workers. Anyway, thank you for your time and sorry about the bother. See you next. :) Sparks Fly 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could probably update this a bit, so I've added a quote from the BBC and CNN, you might want to look over it and see if you can find anything to add, because there's so many articles around at the moment we should exploit, for stuff in all of the articles. I also think we should spread some of the blame in the section to Jean as well, in the CNN article, Jon Ortved gives a few Jean attacking quotes which could be useful. Gran² 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Left some thoughts on further improvement. J Milburn (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wrong page Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it to Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Scorpion0422 for you. :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw you had done some work on the list of nobel laureates. I am currently working on the Nobel Prize article. Since it is a top importance article and not even GA class I am trying to make it a GA article and perhaps further after that. However, I'm in a state now where I could use some help. I need a new pair (several pairs in fact) of eyes to look at the article and the talk page for improving prose, debation of different things and some sourcing. Do you got any possibility to help out?

Cheers --Esuzu 16:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of IIHF World Under-20 Championship players for Canada, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scorpion0422! Since you reviewed the List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures), I thought you might be interested also in List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) which is currently a featured list candidate and in need of feedback. I'd appreciate if you have time to look over it and leave comments at the candidacy page. (The list is shorter than the sculptures list.) bamse (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've finally finished off the topic guys! Given your role as a major contributor to one or more of the articles in this topic, please stop by the FTC when you get the chance! This is what Wikiprojects are all about! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup/GA1. In particular I feel that this might be better classed as a WP:List article. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from the personal attacks. How do you know that they aren't planning to produce such a CD? After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Accordingly, this is not an obvious hoax, and thus cannot be speedied under G3. Moreover, this is not nonsense (G1), so there's no criterion under which this may be speedied. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious to me. That's enough to decline the speedy (read the "Dealing with hoaxes" section of Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes), and to avoid wasting time with an AFD, I've used a prod. Nyttend (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Given that I am not a Metallica fan, I do not stay informed of the band's projects. Which means that it is not obviously a hoax to me. Please keep in mind that while the deletion discussion is open, the article will bear a prominent deletion tag, and an accuracy concern tag I just inserted, which will alert readers that they are looking at a possible hoax. That should be enough to address the concerns you had. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is following the processes by which we operate — an allegation of a hoax by a single editor (bear in mind that I trust your words; I've already voted to delete at AFD based on what you've said) is insufficient to pass the speedy criteria. If this sort of article were seen as speedily deleteable, we'd see the well-meaning deletion of lots of articles on real but obscure topics. I'm not forgetting IAR, but speedy deleting this page as vandalism would set a bad precedent and thus not be good for the encyclopedia. One question — why did you take it to AFD? Because you opened the AFD after I placed the prod, it will likely take longer to be deleted than if you'd not started the debate. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Montgomery Burns you said "[...] all of those names are secondary to his common name in the show, 'Mr. Burns'. Since we can't use the latter, I think the current title suits things just fine." Is there a reason to why we can't use "Mr. Burns" as the title? Theleftorium 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think that applies to fictional characters. Many character articles begin with "Mr.", such as Mr. Eko, Mr. Freeze, Mr. Moto, Mr Mulliner, Mr. Big (Sex and the City), Mr. Mackay, Mr Benn, etc. So I think we should move the article to "Mr. Burns". Theleftorium 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Theleftorium 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude.. Just a note to let you know that I haven't abandoned Lisa Simpson.. I've just been insanely busy lately. If you don't hear from me again by Monday of next week, could you drop a reminder note on my talk page? Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.. Thanks for the reminder. I got real busy again, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. Thanks for your patience! Scartol • Tok 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I finally did it! My review is on the article talk page. Good luck and sorry for the incredibly long delay! Scartol • Tok 20:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about that, oh! I'm so sorry I accidentally click the "vandalism" button that's why I revert it again. Hope you won't get mad. Again, I apologize for that. Thanks for your concern! --Wht_Pal888 (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]