Jump to content

User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.34.241.15 (talk) at 22:56, 6 July 2009 (→WAF). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible


FS promoted

Template:Multi-listen item
A sound file created by you has been promoted to featured sound status.
Your recording, Image:Nixon_resignation_audio_with_buzz_removed.ogg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate a sound file, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Xclamation point 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Creatures of Impulse.

♠TomasBat 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still interested

Hello SH. Another editor provided info about the methods requested. If you're still interested that is. And again, thank you for attempting to help. :)Synergy 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

POTD

Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Watsonandtheshark-original.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 10, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-10. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPC Update

Any update on this? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Opera/Selected audio/22

Portal:Opera/Selected audio/22 - Any ideas on how to fix this one like the others? Cirt (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Wicked World - Illustrated London News, Feb 8 1873.PNG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinafore

Hello, Shoe. I've put in info from Stedman, Jacobs, Ainger and Allen. Those are all the books I have. Can you add anything or is there anything else that you want to do to the article before we go to peer review? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippina

I told you so. I told you so. I told you so.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting an opera project article to FA and on the main page! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Traumatic insemination
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Traumatic insemination 1 edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 12:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

Hey SH, I'm wondering if you can give me some very quick input on an image concern. File:KarenMok HKfestival2009.jpg was recently uploaded by an editor who claims s/he took the photo. In the past, this editor has uploaded other people's photos and claimed them as his own, so I just want to be cautious. In this case, the file page does have extensive camera metadata, so I am more willing to assume that the uploaded really did take it...is the camera metadata enough, or is there also a good way to search the internet and stuff to verify that the image isn't sitting around somewhere else? Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; I jumped to conclusions because of how active you are at FP :). Anyway, I'll keep asking around; thanks for your reply. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Cid

I'm afraid I can't consider this at the moment, with too much going on. I have virtually no stuff on Massenet beyond what's in the basic reference books, and I don't have any time for in-depth research in this area. Best of luck with it, if you go ahead. On the bright side, I'm glad your almighty strop did the trick with Raul and that Agrippina will be on main page on 14th. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's that? Tippett, you say?

Surely Knot Garden can't be as bad as that - though granted I've never heard a note of it. Still, I've got a soft spot for Midsummer Marriage (which I would have loved to have seen when Chicago put it on a couple of seasons back). And I find myself liking what little I know of his other music more than I think I should. Ah, well...I doubt, at least, that it could top that absolute horror I saw in Baltimore some years back. The Alien Corn, that was called. Now there is an evening worth forgetting - totally useless piece of junk. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 08:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...oh. In that case, consign it to the dustheap. I confess that I don't know much of his vocal music at all; most of what I've heard is purely instrumental. It's Britten with wrong notes, and pulled apart a bit. As I say, I like it more than I ought.
By the way, congratulations on making today's Featured Article! One of these days I mean to take my copy of John Tyrell's book on Janáček's operas and give Jenůfa the FA treatment; is that something you'd be interested in helping with? Or are your tastes more Baroque? --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.\[reply]

Please rewrite Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC

And while you are at it archive your comments please. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot RFC comment

Hi Shoemaker. My best guess is that you created the RFC on the inclusion of plot summaries in WP:What Wikipedia is not (please let me know if I am wrong). Accordingly, I wanted to let you know that I have reworked the RFC intro. Please understand that this is not any sort of criticism of what you have written. I think it was a great start. Also I have moved your original statement into the discussion section so your argument is preserved, and I would request that you sign it. Please let me explain the rationale for my action. The intro to an RFC should state the nature of the disagreement and briefly summarize the main points in made in support of each position. Your previous intro was more of a pure position statement in opposition to inclusion of plot summaries in this policy. In addition to summarizing the points in favor of inclusion, I have tried to honestly and briefly summarize the points you have made in opposition. Hopefully this will present the most neutral introduction to the RFC to editors who may be entering this discussion for the first time, and allow for a balanced and well thought out discussion. Similarly, I have removed a few of the lines leading into the straw poll that I felt could polarize discussion or imply that the straw poll was a substitute for discussion. My hope is that we can all work together to find a consensus through discussion instead of just 'duking it out' in a poll, so to speak.

In order to hopefully allay any concerns you may have along these lines, let me also mention that I am undecided on this issue. There are many pages that are pure summary that I very much like and feel are valuable and would be unhappy to lose from Wikipedia. I very much understand and empathize with many of the arguments in favor of allowing pure plot summary in Wikipedia, and am concerned about the potential ramifications of a policy statement against it. On the other hand, I understand the arguments against plot summary and feel that there are strong points there too in terms of the overall quality of Wikipedia as a source of real world knowledge. My point is that I am on the fence about this, and I hope that solid, well reasoned, amicable discussion from both sides will help me decide, and will work towards a consensus policy that is best for Wikipedia.

Given the above, I feel like I am in a good position to be able to facilitate an RFC intro that everyone feels is fair and that maximized the quantity and quality of the debate from the community. Please do not take this as any sort of negative statement toward people of either persuasion; sometimes it is simply helpful both for execution and appearances if someone less invested in either standpoint helps with the wording. If you feel that there are any main points that I have missed in the RFC intro, or that I have mischaracterized any of your points, please let me know. I'll volunteer my help in clarifying or adding points that each side feels is necessary, in order to keep things orderly so there is not a giant edit war over the RFC intro, and so that there is an appearance of fairness to people of both perspectives. To be clear; I am not in any way trying to impose this approach; if you wish to make more edits to the intro you are clearly free to do so. I am merely suggesting that having a more neutral person do so might help things go smoothly.

In any case, my apology for the long comment, and I look forward to what will hopefully be a productive discussion in the RFC. Thanks-Locke9k (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/King John
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Shakespeare's King John at Drury Lane Theatre.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

If you could take a look at Red, that would be great. Wrad (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

FWIW, I really think this should have passed. I wish you had the votes. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Judas Kiss, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Le Cid: Act 2, Scene 3
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Jules Massenet - Le Cid 2e Acte, 3e Tableau - L'Illustration.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Portal:Opera/Selected picture/11

Please remember, in the blurb text, to bold the article that is the focus of the text. Also, please remember not to wikify or otherwise code (bold, italics, etc) the text in the caption field - as the caption field is simply what appears in the rollover text on the image itself - it will not recognize the wiki coding. So, with that in mind, I made these fixes: [1]. Please keep that in mind when adding new entries to portals. :) Cirt (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imponderables

Should look like Havana Harbor, 1639.

This used to display. Any guesses why it doesn't anymore? DurovaCharge! 21:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marguerite of Navarre
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hinchliff - Marguerite Queen of Navarre crop.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 09:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choral symphony

Hi, Shoemaker. Hamitonstone suggested that I contact you. He passed this article through GA review but suggested it could use a good copyedit to make it more user-friendly for people who are not musicians. Could you please help me out? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd appreciate whatever help you can lend. The goal is FA. Jonyungk (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, hope you're sleeping better and am looking forward to seeing what you might do with this piece. Thanks again. Jonyungk (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B'nai B'rith
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:B'nai B'rith membership certificate 1876.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Le Cid: Act 3, Scene 6
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Jules Massenet - Le Cid 3e Acte, 6e Tableau - L'Illustration.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 10:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XIV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

POTD notification

POTD

Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Tortilleras Nebel.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 27, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-27. Yes, I realize that's today, but I'd forgotten to notify you last night when I wrote the blurb -- sorry about that! howcheng {chat} 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Sorry I missed your IRC PM, I'm running home right now! howcheng {chat} 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPC and litterature

Hi, regarding the current discussion on the FPC talk page, i would like to clarify some personal points, without cluttering the talk page.

First i would like to say my intervention was in no way a rebuttal of your work. I have great respect for all the time you dedicate to Wikipedia and I must say i was even more surprised to know you had to buy something to do it. Moreover i took the Tristam Shandy submission only as an example of a broader problem. I could have used others, such as your Grant submission (where I don't even understand either point on the debate).

Now, on to the main point, i would like to try to explain to you why I can't assess your work as well as I would like. I'm also a big fan of literature. If you check my contributions, you will see that the main article I contributed to is literature-related : Les Rougon-Macquart.

This article is a good example to try to explain my point. The Rougon-Macquart are one of the main novel series in French literature. However, since there are almost no English translation of the book, nobody (even on the Wikiproject:Novels) is able to cross check what i wrote about it, or suggest improvements on it (except cosmetic ones). Were this to happens on the French wikipedia, almost anybody with a passing interest on literature would have something to say about the article.

For Tristam Shandy, I'm on the opposite side. You mention that it started a lot of English tropes, whereas I never heard about the book nor the author (but i do know about the four most important influences you cite). The article is well-written, but doesn't ring anything for me because it's written for people with prior knowledge about it. I sense that this book may indeed have a profound impact on English-speaking countries, but I can't tell how much. As for as i know, it could even be a biased viewpoint from some fans (note that I'm not accusing you of any bias, I'm just saying others articles on non-notable subjects may have this kind of bias). Therefore, I feel I'm not qualified to assess the picture.

Best regards, Ksempac (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Bride of Lammermoor
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Charles Robert Leslie - Sir Walter Scott - Ravenswood and Lucy at the Mermaiden's Well - Bride of Lammermoor.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Interview

Thanks again for the offer :) The first three questions are here. Thanks again!  GARDEN  20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!
Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for valued picture status, File:The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

POTD

Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Beethoven opus 101 manuscript.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 4, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-05-04. The audio files are included too, but I'm not sure how I'm going to get those on the Main Page yet. howcheng {chat} 02:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Purcell

Hi. I'm planning to overhaul King Arthur and The Indian Queen over the next week or two. Just thought I'd let you know so we avoid treading on each others' toes at this early stage. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's no hurry with the Purcell project (remember, the anniversary is in December). I'll get back to you about King Arthur when I've done my bit. --Folantin (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it was September so I have no idea why I wrote December. Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:George Cruikshank - Tristram Shandy, Plate VIII. The Smoking Batteries.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Cappadocia March 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 08:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Featured content dispatch

Hi! I noticed this suggestion you made at WP:FCDW:

How to find, scan, and prepare engravings from old books well enough to make a credible FPC run. - This would pretty much be me (Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)) explaining how I work, in collaboration with one or two others who I'd lead through such a process. Might work best as a series.

I think this is a great idea. I'd be happy to help with the 'making it a dispatch' part of the work if you are still interested in writing it. Maralia (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC?

The RFC did not wind up with a clear consensus to removed WP:NOT#PLOT from policy. If you think it did, please explain to me how.—Kww(talk) 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are only changed with clear consensus to change. There's an inertia to policies that must be maintained for stability. I agree that something has to shift, and the RFC clearly indicates that something has to shift, but removing it from policy is premature and excessively bold.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of edit-warring tactics in an effort to shift policy has been brought up at ANI.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

Hi -- can I suggest that you expand your statement by explaining why you feel this falls within the jurisdiction of Arbcom? It seems at best unclear. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR clarification request

SH - I don't usually get involved in RFAR issues that don't concern me. However, your experience regarding the MH case is close to something I've had happen to me in real life (not wikipedia). I made some errors in judgement in executing some responsibilities, which happened to fall on the radar of a certain group that was seeking to effect some changes. I was publically excoriated for what I had done in a way where the reaction was far in excess of the stimulus and more a reflection of a certain clique's agenda than my actual performance. It wasn't a pleasant experience, none the least since I had to agree that to a certain extent they had a point.

Ultimately others spoke up for me, and clearly many more people felt I was being unfairly singled out. With time the whole thing blew over. But someone searching hard enough for me by name can still come across traces. This type of blowup happens all the time - politics is the best example, but anytime you do anything with any public face, it is a risk. What is more, anyone who does anything worthwhile knows others face that risk, and will not judge you harshly for having had the experience.

My advice, as an impartial observer to this situation but also having been in a similar position, is just move on with your life. Ignore it. The cat is out of the bag and periodically someone may write something unpleasant about you and it somewhere. That will not change regardless of what Arbcom would do now. If someone stumbles across it, most likely they will ignore it. If they decide to investigate further, there is enough in the record from more than a year ago that they will discount it. However, to be rather blunt, your repeated attempts (a year ago and now) to reopen the discussion look more suspect and less mature than ignoring the issue altogether.

The bystander comments at your clarification request are by and large supportive of you and critical of Arbcom. That probably feels good but don't let it gear you up for a fight where winning doesn't mean anything. As usual, NYB has it right. In fact, I would go even further than what I wrote above: to "ignore it". I would withdraw your clarification request, requesting a clerk close it (not blank it, hide it, ... - just close it and archive it in the usual way), thanking both the current arbitrators and peanut gallery for their comments and in particular for their reaffirmation that findings reflecting adversely on you have been withdrawn. Then I would go on doing worthwhile things to the best of my ability with my head held high, without ever letting myself be provoked to discussing it again in a public or semi-public setting. There is nothing to gain. Martinp (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely my opinion. With time, all this will pass, move down the google rankings a bit etc, and stop being talked about; if it doesn't keep being brought up. Sticky Parkin 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate file

Hi SH, I deleted File:Handel - Fitzwilliam Sonata 3.ogg here (on Wikipedia) as it was a duplicate file (also on Commons). I am unable to find an English Wikipedia Featured Sounds template on Commons to add, though. I assume you know where this is an can add it. If for some reason you want it restored here, please let me know and I will do so. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - I had it on my watchlist from DYK and generally clear our duplicates when I notice them, but understand having this here too. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Útgarða-Loki

Pretty sure it's Louis, not Charles. See File:Giant Skrymir and Thor.jpg. But, wow! Awesome scan! Haukur (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is appreciated, it's great to have such high-quality versions. And I'm certainly still keen on the other book! Haukur (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this was what finally convinced me. Haukur (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant FPC

I know reaction to this is really pissing you off, but ranting probably won't help you any. I agree with you, but the sarcasm won't help you any, I expect. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost again

I'm putting it up for publishing now. Thanks for your help!  GARDEN  19:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Red Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to the revolutionary Shoemaker's Holiday, for his/her continued work on policy pages. Thank you for making a difference in so many wikipedians lives by helping chart the course of what wikipedia is an where it is going. Ikip (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered deleting or archiving your comments? I am having problems loading your page because it is so big. Ikip (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'll get to that shortly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plot stuff

Just wanted to say that it's helpful to see the discussion shift away from "ideal" or "principled" proposals, and instead towards incremental changes that most people can live with. It's not pretty, but that's how consensus building works. I think your latest proposal is more or less bang on, and better than what we had before. But above all, patience goes a long, long way here. Give people time to simmer on it, and maybe massage the language, if only so they can feel important. Process matters. People don't like to feel like they're being force-fed something, and often like to feel included. For an issue that's as contentious as this, we have to expect some amount of bickering. Randomran (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When people can't agree on how to sculpt something, find ways to build coalitions that will help you chip away at it a bit at a time. When the coalition to leave it be is bigger than the coalition to chip away, you'll know you've taken it as far as it can go. We're making progress. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Yeah, but we don't slap disputed tags over everything we don't agree with, especially on policy pages. If there's a discussion going on, that's fine. If the discussion doesn't reach a consensus, then that's fine as well. Otherwise practically every single policy on the Wiki would have "dubious" tags plastered all over it. FWIW, I think PLOT needs overhauling. What it doesn't need is removing - that's a fancruft nightmare waiting to happen. We already have enough useless, redundant, plot-only non-articles which waste endless amounts of time. Black Kite 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Thure de Thulstrup - H. Rider Haggard - Maiwa's Revenge - Fire, you scoundrels.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of Amendment Request in MH ArbCom Case

Hi Shoemaker's Holiday, FYI the request was archived by AGK on a private direction from some member(s) of ArbCom. I have posted to AGK's talk page about this, and also notified Carcharoth. Best, EdChem (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Per list

Very well; I'll see what I can do. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Giant Skrymir and Thor
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Louis Huard - Giant Skrymir and Thor.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:N. M. Price - Sir Walter Scott - Guy Mannering - At the Kaim of Derncleugh original scan.png

A tag has been placed on File:N. M. Price - Sir Walter Scott - Guy Mannering - At the Kaim of Derncleugh original scan.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FASTILY (TALK) 04:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lemavia hoaxes

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Series_of_possible_hoaxes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the promotion. I see you've tagged File:Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000629.jpg with {{FP}}. But isn't that the unrestored version? Why not tag File:Apollo 11 Launch2.jpg? Sorry if I've got this confused! - Pointillist (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks again - Pointillist (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Punishment of Loki
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Louis Huard - The Punishment of Loki.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinafore

Wait. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, take another look: The Bab ballads are most important to the Background section - the fact that Gilbert used them in writing the show is an important part of the show's genesis. We should also say that the Bab Ballads had been very popular, no? Then, in the Analysis/satire section, we can just expand upon the ones that Stedman said were important to the satire of the show. The fact that a character was introduced previously is not an explanation of the satire, it is just part of the background. If you want to discuss what is satiric about it, that can go in the satire section, but I am certain that they fact that these Ballads were used must be mentioned in the Background section. As for the Lead, I think it's enough to say that he used some of the Bab Ballads, and list them out in the Background section. Now I'm going to read your newest message to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, linking them from Wikisource is a good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the peer review comments? There are a number of issues, especially re: some references, that I did not have a really good response for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Awadewit promised to give us a review, but has not gotten to it yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us.

BTW, isn't it time to archive this very, very long talk page? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but I really need to copy over all the FP promotions into my gallery first, and I've been lazy. I'll have a look at the project in the morning. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000629.jpg

Hi you marked File:Apollo 11 Launch - GPN-2000-000629.jpg for speedy deletion. However it is a Featured picture for the en:wikipedia, and the commons entry does not mention this. When you nominate this type of thing for speedy delete, can you please transfer the marking to the commons file entry so that nothing is lost when we delete it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now deleted, I should have compared the name of the image rather than the look of the image, and thanks for removing the full sized display yourself! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XVI

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Treasure Island illustrations

I don't even own a copy of Photoshop and have never restored an image of any kind. I'm not sure what kind of contribution I could make. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Vauxhall image

Unfortunately, with Highers currently ongoing I'm trying my hardest to avoid doing pretty much anything on Wikipedia :/ I'm a bit annoyed at my own lack of self discipline in that issue as you can probably tell I am still editing at my usual rate (not good). I'll get to your image as soon as I can or as soon as I would like to, that is, after exams are over. This year my final two Highers, Spanish and Art & Design, are both on June 5 so I will likely be able to get round to those on the weekend following that. Sincere apologies Shoe, but I really do want to at least attempt to study :) Hope you understand,  GARDEN  08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Dalziel Brothers - Sir Walter Scott - The Talisman - Sir Kenneth before the King.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 | Talk→ 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinafore peer review

Did you review Ealdgyth's comments yet? Can you please let me know what you think? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see what you can do here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/H.M.S._Pinafore/archive1#Awadewit_comments_.28finally.29 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello! By any chance, might you reconsider on the Anastasia discussion? As you can see, I have been working pretty hard to improve this one. Given the historical basis for the character, the titular appearance in a film, video game, and novel as well as having been marketed in about a half dozen different dolls, I am coming across a number of sources from which to construct an out of universe article. I next hope to see if I can find any interviews for a production section, but anyway, I truly believe we have the basis for something here. One other note, the ones for Anastasia and Drizella Tremaine essentially concern the wicked stepsisters from Cinderella. These could easily be merged into a Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella type of article. If you check Google Books doing a search of that nature, they are discussed in academic books in an analytical and out of universe manner, because these characters' have origins that go back to at least the early 1800s with the Brother's Grimm. Their transformation from the original literary characters to the Disney film appear in such books as this. Whether their role in the individual film is notable, their place in a centuries old literary and then film culture is something that has indeed been covered in academic resources and in this case, a merge to a new article on the wicked stepsisters together seems appropriate, because these are characters that certainly at least English teachers/students as well as those studying folklore and its reception in modern culture have written on and have an interest in. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, thank you for keeping an open mind. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Matthew Hoffman

A statement covering the points you requested is being drafted. However, progress has been slower than we'd like because of the simultaneous efforts to clear our case backlog. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/FAQ

Per your comment on the NPOV/FAQ talk page, can you rewrite Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion so that it's a concise statement suitable for inclusion in NPOV Policy instead of its current question/answer form - similar to what Dave did for the Wikipedia:NPOV#Making_necessary_assumptions and Wikipedia:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 sections? Once that's done, we can move it to WP:NPOV proper. Thanks. Dreadstar † 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinafore

'Nuff said. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting and delisting

Sorry, but I didn't know how to do what you asked me! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XVII

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 20:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.[reply]

Yay!
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rajpoots 2.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. — Jake Wartenberg 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ya might wanna archive your talk page ;) — Jake Wartenberg 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRAMA report

In answer to your question from a few days ago, it's the "Discussion report", about ongoing discussions of policy and other issues of community-wide interest: "Discussion Report And Miscellaneous Articulations" (like TROLL and BRION, the punnish acronyms for the arbitration and technology reports).--ragesoss (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup newsletter XVII.V

This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009. I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.

Pool A
  1. Wales Shoemaker's Holiday (647)
Pool B
  1. Colombia ThinkBlue (247)
Pool C
  1. Sweden Theleftorium (455)
Pool D
  1. Denmark Candlewicke (539)
Pool E
  1. Mexico Durova (479)
Pool F
  1. Switzerland Sasata (961)
Current Wildcards
  1. United States Useight (393)
  2. Iceland Scorpion0422 (372)
  3. Thailand Rlevse (329)
  4. Japan Wrestlinglover (307)
  5. Cambodia Paxse (285)
  6. Maryland Ottava Rima (248)
  7. Mitchazenia (226)
  8. Republic of Ireland Juliancolton (181)
  9. Michigan the_ed17 (179)
  10. Isle of Man J Milburn (168)
  11. Confederate States of America Bedford (156)
  12. Toronto Gary King (147)
  13. New South Wales 97198 (142)
  14. Luxembourg Ceranthor (111)
  15. India Tinucherian (106)
  16. Vanuatu Matthewedwards (98)

 GARDEN ,  iMatthew :  Chat  , and The Helpful One The Helpful Bot 00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YAFP for you ;)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:N._M._Price_-_Sir_Walter_Scott_-_Guy_Mannering_-_At_the_Kaim_of_Derncleugh.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Ksempac (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the counter on the FP section is right, this is the 1800th FP on en:WP ;) Ksempac (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for your message on my talk page, but what's the question? Which article are you talking about? I need you to focus on the Pinafore images and satisfying the many outstanding comments from Awadewit. Can you help there please and take a break from other things for a few days? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re photos: I'd be sad to loose the photograph in favor of a drawing of the photograph (assuming that's what it is). Can't we keep them both in, perhaps, two different articles? Maybe the drawing could go in the article on the The Tempest (Sullivan) music? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair use images

From user talk:Drboisclair: I hate to be a pain about this, but I really do feel that fair-use images, where free-use ones clearly do exist, only serve to prevent free-use images from being sought out. (As for myself: I've probably provided far more free-use images than the number of fair-use images I've ever suggested for removal: I'm currently working my way through a complete works of Sir Walter Scott from 1886-7.) I'm happy to try and search out replacements for the ones I've asked to be deleted - just shove a list on my talk page of those, and any others that need illustrated and I'll search them out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right, but I think that you will find with this novel, i.e., The Prairie that you will only find dark, plain covers that could be the cover of any book. Perhaps one could use the title page of the first edition, which one might get from Google books or something. I would imagine that images that are digitalized from Google Books or Internet Archive are public domain if they are from books that were printed before 1923, right?--Drboisclair (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)--Drboisclair (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it needs another round of publicity? And a variety of choices ... well, as much variety as possible. I should have probably spoken up a bit more last year ... I just couldn't stand the drama of the place, the way some editors seemed to oppose some noms for IMO ridiculous reasons. TBH I don't think many editors value sounds on Wikipedia, which is sad. Graham87 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you make an exception of this image

As per your tag on File:Black Arrow 2007 ed from Penguin Books.jpg I have downloaded a smaller image: File:Black Arrow 2007 ed from Penguin Books r.jpg. I ask that in this instance that a public domain image not be required for two reasons:

  1. This image illustrates a section on this novel, which deals specifically with this edition, and
  2. This edition specifically endorses the Wikipedia articles on Stevenson and The Black Arrow. If a smaller image is required, I will be ready to oblige, but I request that the "prejudice" against this image being a non-public image be waived in this case.--Drboisclair (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert Flower

Your image from Act II has a home now. ;-) Should I nominate it for FP? Or are you still working on it? Voceditenore (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cover of Black Arrow 2007 edition

This one? What possible scene can this illustrate? Isn't it just kind of, weird symbolism for the Wars of the Roses? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this section in The Black Arrow: A Tale of the Two Roses:
Latest annotated edition

On December 18, 2007 Penguin Books issued the latest annotated edition of The Black Arrow with the introduction and notes by Professor John A. Sutherland, Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College London and visiting professor of literature at the California Institute of Technology.[35] Professor Sutherland makes mention of this article in this edition.[36]

There is no need for an illustration of the novel per se. We already have images that are public domain. This section speaks specifically about this edition, of which the image is the cover. This is a reasonable rationale for the fair use policy.--Drboisclair (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XVIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Matthew Hoffman

There's a draft statement currently under discussion. How that will move forward will depend primarily on how quickly the Committee can come to an agreement, which is unfortunately not something I can control or make promises about. Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audio editing and format conversion

Converted another presidential speech to .ogg format. For unexplained reasons it's acquired various clicks and thumps that were not present in the original .mp3. It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Any explanations why it occurs, or suggestions what to do about it? DurovaCharge! 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture WHO criticisms

Hola,

You mentioned here that there are studies critical of the WHO's analysis and endorsement of acupuncture. Do you have any you could e-mail me? I wouldn't mind including them on the page, or at least reading about them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the DOI is great, with that I can probably find the article no problem. If you think of any others with a similar concern, feel free to drop me a line and I'll dig for it. Interesting issue! Thanks for the reply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Louis Huard - Giant Suttung and the Dwarfs.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ZooFari 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear

Just read the thread at WikiCup talk. Happy birthday, but so sad these things go with it! Would you like to talk? DurovaCharge! 19:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday, mate. I would try and persuade you to stick around but with nonsense like this I'm not sure it's worth it any more. Wikipedia seems to be haemorrhaging good editors lately [2] [3]. Good luck, whatever you do in the future. --Folantin (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following up: you make several serious accusations regarding Wadester16 here,[4] and assert that I agree with you. Yet the post is unclear about what you state I agree with, and doesn't include diffs regarding Wadester's actions. Since you have named me, please give the specifics of the complaint and provide diffs. People may come to me with questions. DurovaCharge! 19:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

Happy birthday, old fellow! 30 doesn't seem so bad when one is looking at the rapidly approaching half-century mark! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty is a good age. It's better to be out of your twenties. Happy birthday. It's been a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update regarding the Matthew Hoffman case statement

The statement was been rewritten and is in voting again. Currently it has enough support votes to pass, but we usually allow enough time for all arbs to vote. For you to leave now because of a lack of a statement would be very sad timing since it is likely to be posted within the next few days. I hope you will reconsider. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the end has come

If I'm never going to see you on Wikipedia again, I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for all your hard work and dedication to the project. It is appreciated. Useight (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My fondest of fond wishes for you in the future - your work here was undervalued and I for one saw the true worth of your edits and restorations and I know they will continue to enlighten readers and contributors alike. It's been brilliant. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to offer my thanks, and to remind you that you're always welcome here if you ever want to come back. Thanks for all the time you have dedicated to this project (and for teaching me sound and image restoration, despite my being terrible at it). Dendodge T\C 22:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if all the good people leave...

I have come very near today to doing what I said I never would conceivably have done, which is leave the project as a protest, to show my support for your actions at ANI, and my sympathy and understanding why you should have left. But just before I hit the send key, I decided to do the opposite, to stay and fight all the more those who would use the personal prejudices about what is important in the world to destroy the idea of a comprehensive Wikipedia. I'm going to let other delete the junk, while i defend what should not need to be defended , if it were not for the people who think the analysis of creative activity an unencyclopedic subject. Please come back and help me. You did extremely well today, and I hope even your temporary leaving will energize the rest of us. DGG (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Do not let others bully you away. I made that mistake myself in the past and as Eleonor Roosevelt said, "Learn from the mistakes of others; life is too short to make them yourself" (or something along those lines...). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with A Nobody and DGG. It wasn't Voltaire who said this, but while I may disagree with what you say, I defend to the death your right to say it and have that opinion. I'm truly sorry that my actions have led you to make this choice and hope that your absence will be temporary. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shoe. I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Things can get awfully frustrating here at times, but I was happy to see that your efforts and good works are appreciated by many of our best editors who have been outspoken in your defense. And I notice Stifle made something of an attempt to mend fences after I kicked him in the Gnads, so hopefully that makes you feel better. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your work here is not done, and your contributions are not for the benefit of the admins or other editors with whom you have disagreements, but for the readers of an important encyclopedia—arguably the most important compendium of information currently available. Your impact as an editor has value beyond your own contributions, but also as leadership by example. May I urge you to put aside what are real, significant grievances for the benefit of the project and those who you can inspire to do the necessary work here?
DGG suggests staying to fight the good fight, which is one reasonable approach. And it's hard not to rise to the bait when topics you deem important or critical to the project are threatened. But if you don't want to be embroiled in these disputes, there are probably tens of thousands of articles / files that you could create or improve without any conflicts whatsoever. Bongomatic 05:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Say it ain't so. Could we lure you back with a weekly ration of grog? Cookies? Funny hats? I remember what fun it was to read Creatures of Impulse. Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just come back

I'm listening to one of music files that you nominated for featured sound....and you're indeed one of accomplished and valuable editors here. Please don't give up Wikipedia... --16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for valued picture status, File:Lord Byron - Childe Harold's Pilgimage - Dugdale edition.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. wadester16 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr

Do doctors in the UK use the term Mister for surgeons regardless of sex? Fuzbaby (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXI

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Opera Project discussions

Hi Shoemaker, just in case you're still reading your talk page, I've included you in this mailing. We miss you over at OP!

Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:

  • The use of italics in article titles
  • Possible changes to the article guidelines concerning "Selected Recordings"
  • Suggestions for the July Composer of the Month and Opera of the Month

Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Treasure Island GAR notice

I have conducted a reassessment of the artcile as part of the GA sweeps process. The article needs some work to meet WP:GAC so has been delisted. You can find details of issues that need addressing at Talk:Treasure Island/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

POTD

Hi SH,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Thomas Keene in Othello 1884 Poster.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 2, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-07-02. howcheng {chat} 05:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

We can expect to have other valuable images and sound files uploaded/edited by you for FP and FS. :) Again, welcome back.--Caspian blue 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist

Hey Shoe, good to have you back. You forgot to sign here. Happy independence day! ZooFari 05:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXIII

Delivered by –Juliancolton | Talk 16:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Ruddigore

I replied on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin take on digitizing 78 RPM records

I do it occasionally... fun but cumbersome without a special A/D rig. First off, you need a dedicated player with the proper pickup: pickups for LPs will self-destroy the needle and the record in a few spins. Second, a dedicated photo corrector - equalizing pre-WWII, non-standardized, records, may be a bitch because the original equalization curve must be restored by trial and error. I have three settings in my dedicated 78 RPM phono stage and ... honestly ... usually none of them fits good. Try as good a match as possible: do all EQ in analogue, reduce destructive digital processing. That's where all-in-one USB thingies fail miserably. Here's my workflow (fun flow):

  1. Familiarize myself with the record, identify where the recording shines and fails technically (rumble, low bass cutoff, voice spectrum resonances etc.), get the feeling of what a proper recording level should be. This may need an intermediate tt-to-tape analogue recording to reduce turntable hussle and wear.
  2. Select proper phono stage EQ curve by trial and error
  3. Feed analogue to an MD player programmed to high-speed mono mode (a poor man's A/D)
  4. Feed SPDIF from MD to PC.

NVO (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bartered Bride overture

Thank you for your efforts in establishing that the overture soundfile is indeed PD. The extended The Bartered Bride article is now nearing completion. Please feel free to add any comments/suggestions on the talkpage. I hope to send the article for Peer Review by the end of the week. Bedrich Smetana has been at FAC for the last eight days and is doing OK. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Shoemaker's Holiday. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

→ Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Portal:Opera and Portal:Finger Lakes

Yes, they are featured. I just haven't got around to list them yet. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAF

Whoa. I'm just taking an interest in WAF since I wrote the bulk of the current version, way back when. Your personal attack regarding me "stalking" you and me "trolling" you at WT:WAF is way out of line. But actually reverting my comment? Please don't do that again. I've simply confronted you with the one fact you are ignoring in your "inclusionist" stance, and your response is to undo my comment as trolling? Sorry, that's worse behaviour than I'd ever expect from you. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored what I said, not the other way around. 78.34.241.15 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoemaker%27s_Holiday&oldid=300688125"