Misplaced Pages

Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed.

Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November.

Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote.

Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/Banner (December Version)

• Featured editorial: "Drive-By Reviews": A Retrospective About Reviews During Backlog Drives
• Project News: A backlog elimination drive is being held now at GAN.

• Good Articles of the Month: Our picks for November, 150+ promotions.
• GA Task Forces: Results from the Backlog Elimination RfC
• Member News: 227 members of WikiProject Good Articles and counting

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:

• The December 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best December copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
• Voting is in progress for the November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not.
• From Sunday 16 December to Saturday 22 December, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} from January 2012. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded.
• January 2013 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2012. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

Coodinator election: Nominations are open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January to 30 June 2013. Nominations close on December 15 at 23:59 UTC, after which voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

• Read this newsletter
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  21:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:NCF

Hey, with regard to our recent interaction on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Variant titles of foreign films?: I would be very interested in seeing a change to the NCF on the matter of official titles vs. the titles home video distributors come up with. One of the problem articles I was talking about, Taboo (1999 film) is apparently actually better-known by its Japanese title Gohatto, but because of one disruptive editor I am at the moment unable to even add the fact that it has been released in several English-speaking countries under this title, much less request a move. I don't know how many articles like this there are, but I found another one not long ago. It would be so much easier than Googling all variant titles under a whole bunch of different variables, if we could actually call all the films by their official titles. Are you by any chance still interested in such a proposal? I will be there with bells on! (^_^)/ (I don't actually feel comfortable proposing such a change myself, as I am not a member of WikiProject Film and don't intend to become one, although the disruptive editor mentioned above is a member of Film and not of Japan and made such a suggestion on WikiProject Japan...) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've certainly been meaning to bring it up, especially as in some cases there's been articles passing GA and FA reviews with their real titles instead of translations, which points to a changing view on the matter. I'll see if I can come up with a good proposal some time tomorrow afternoon GMT, possibly this evening if the coffee holds out. My film work frequently focusses on gialli from Italy, which as you can see often have multiple translated titles, which has been a point of contention in the past. I'll see what I can come up with soon then. GRAPPLE X 02:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be there with bells on!

(What follows is just a rambling story about my experiences on this topic. If you're interested and you enjoy a good rant, read on.) Most Japanese films have one main English title, although sometimes the UK (and Ireland etc.) prefer a romanized Japanese title. This is problematic in that some Wikipedians consider it redundant to give the native title twice (once as the native title, and once as the UK English variant). However, this only really applies to modern films that have been released globally by a variety of DVD/Blu-Ray distributors, and I just discovered that someone has been going around creating articles on obscure pre-War films (i.e., films that were never released outside Japan and the then-part-of-Japan Korean Peninsula and Taiwan, and possibly Manchukuo) under titles that only exist in filmography lists in books about the directors, or on IMDb! This is getting out of hand.

elvenscout742 (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I work extensively with Indonesian films, ranging from the first one in 1926 to modern films (like this, this, and this). I generally work under the belief that it's better to have the original title, especially when there is no official title (like, say, Sam Pek Eng Tay). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

NCF already says that we should use the original title if there is no official title. Other translations that are given by scholars don't even belong in the opening, unless they are being given as a gloss because the article uses the original title. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Essentially my view, although I still tend to disagree with using an international name as an article title (especially if the film has had several titles) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh I agree entirely! I was just quoting the guideline as it stands now, but it is my view as well that it should be changed. I agree with what Grapple X said to me on the above mention project page that the "official English title" is usually a marketing decision made by a company that actually has nothing to do with the film itself. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds about right. Compare Darah dan Doa (literally "blood and prayers") with The Long March. Although generally Indonesian films seem to have stuck with literal translations (c.f. Ruma Maida, Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet!, Sang Penari etc.) Do you generally work with Japanese films? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I generally worked with Japanese literature until about a month ago when I decided to branch out. I edited Misplaced Pages articles on numerous topics, including Japanese cinema, from 2005 to 2008, before taking a long break until summer 2012. When I came back to Japanese films last month, I found that one particularly stubborn and not very polite user had basically seized control of all of the articles, and any edit he didn't like (in addition to all edits from me, whether he liked them or not) tend to get reverted. (I'm still working on this.) elvenscout742 (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, that. Saw that thread. Pity...

(luckily?) I'm essentially alone in Indonesian lit, film, and music articles. Don't think I've ever gotten past 2RR on those articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anonymous (Tomahawk album)

On 18 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anonymous (Tomahawk album), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tomahawk's third album Anonymous was based on Native American compositions researched by guitarist Duane Denison? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anonymous (Tomahawk album). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Signpost question

Hi Grapple X, would you and GamerPro64 be willing to give a short (100-150 words each) commentary on featured topics promoted this year that you consider especially well prepared, interesting, or representative of what Wikipedians do well? It should end up looking like this. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

100–500 each or altogether? If the latter, here you (if the former, poke again til I give it):

"Although 2012 regrettably saw several periods with little progress, with welcome the return of GamerPro64 we have seen several interesting topics promoted—in addition to the usual Misplaced Pages strong points of numismatics, military history and meteorology, the year has also been a strong one for music with topics promoted featuring a mezzo-soprano wunderkind and an Indonesian legend. Sport saw a strong showing, too, with both baseball and motorcycle racing seeing hugely comprehensive topics put through, which reflect the ability of FT to showcase vast spans of knowledge in surprisingly deep chunks. My personal favourite of our 2012 topics was also the year's least—a topic on the Armero tragedy reminded me that there's still room to encapsulate subjects that are entirely new to the process, and to use the idea of a topic to explore an event rather than something that obviously lends itself to the process like a series of lists or a serried history."

If you'd like anything on GT I could manage that, too. GRAPPLE X 02:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's good, I think. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mirror Never Lies

Okay, I finished it and nominated it (with you as co-nom). Question though: I found a list of nominations which checks out with the number of nominations in another source. Issue is, no supersources have the list of nominations. KapanLagi is an entertainment website, but it's reliability at the FAC level will be doubtful. It's better than other places that reproduced this list, including blogs. So, question: should we use this, or let just the wins be in the (now growing) table? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. That's pretty hard to say; I'd like to say go with the bigger list but I don't know if it'd hold up to scrutiny. Then again I'm no expert in the field. Maybe WP:RSN would be of use? Betty Logan is also quite good at making these kind of judgement calls, especially with film articles. GRAPPLE X 19:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll try RSN. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: Newsted's Metal

Hi, I own a digital copy of the album. The digital booklet only contains handwritten lyrics, there are no song writing credits listed in it. I would assume Jason wrote the songs though; this Blabbermouth article states that the lyrics in the digital booklet were handwritten by Jason. The1337gamer (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair do. I guess I can just credit it all to the band as a whole, covers any necessary bases. Thanks anyway! GRAPPLE X 21:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Mirror Never Lies

On 24 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Mirror Never Lies, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the film The Mirror Never Lies was co-produced by a former Miss Indonesia winner? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Mirror Never Lies. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

DYK for Mit Gas

On 25 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mit Gas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that vocalist Mike Patton described the tour schedule to promote Tomahawk's Mit Gas as "a lot of time to be sitting in some stinking-ass club with some guy puking in your purse"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mit Gas. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Reviews

Greetings. I was wondering if you could review Tenhemad for me? Anything you want reviewed?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Might be busy for the next two or three days but I'll get looking at it. GRAPPLE X 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you reserve the review then?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Grapple X - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you that Batman Arkham City is up for FAC

I've nominated this article again, it failed last time not through opposition but lack of interest. It's a quality article encompassing all the available information in a neat, presentable and interesting way, so I hope you can lend your voice to the discussion if you have the time. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Misplaced Pages at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Anonymous (Tomahawk album)/GA1

Hi, I've placed this GAN on hold for a week, with issues noted on the page. I'll be checking in at least once a day to see how progress is going. Good luck! WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Mirror Never Lies again

Think we could go to GAC with such a short plot summary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. Think of it this way, the problem is usually that plots are too long, so you've avoided that one right out of the gates. :P GRAPPLE X 08:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• LOL. Sure, I'll nominate. I think my longest plot summary is still at Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI (I really should hit the archives for reviews of that) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Pointing fingers

I'm going to blame this on your album articles. As a side note, somehow his articles are all a mess. Case in point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm an awful person. Though yeah, some of those are surprisingly stubby. Just for You looks good, though. GRAPPLE X 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Guess he doesn't have as much of a following now as MJ did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think post-"Dancing on the Ceiling" things tapered off a bit. GRAPPLE X 23:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Except both Dancing on the Ceiling and Can't Slow Down are very DYK-able. Geeze, I know where I'll be tonight. Really? DotC is not even 500 characters! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I meant in terms of support, but yeah, those could make for pretty solid DYKs. I'm sorry for what I done... :P GRAPPLE X 00:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reword: What support could he have had until 2013 when his biggest hits are... well, lacking in article size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• So, yeah... but... really now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

HUGE CONGRATS!!

"Unrequited" just passed GA, so that means that ALL of The X-Files episodes have been promoted to GA. I think this might be a first on Misplaced Pages, or at least a first for a long-running television series. Now if the season four page can get promoted, we'll have all the seasons DONE. That's really cool.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Now you've only got a few characters, actors and other production staff, and FA endeavors ;) Glimmer721 21:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we can do it! I'll try to keep chipping away, if I don't get distracted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy days! I'm pretty sure that's a first for the site. We've still some fiddly things to get seen to, but I think we might be able to work through some of the crew for the likes of DYK quite easily now—I was pleasantly surprised to see Cliff Bole at DYK due to Star Trek fans working on the article, and as we know, Howard Gordon, Alex Gansa and Vince Gilligan are all doing fantastic now with new shows. GRAPPLE X 23:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The synergy between a lot of franchises is interesting. Now we just need to finish that Scully article that's been on the back burner forever. :P--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well done to all of you! This just has to be an achievement -- definitely something for all other series to emulate (especially Fringe!). Perfect example of editors collaborating and focusing on good content, rather than getting bogged down in administrative details (something that seems to be becoming increasingly rarer at this site). Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely a first, but Fringe will probably be the second! Glimmer721 01:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Attack page

Someone created an attack page against you here. I thought you should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.9 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I needed a good laugh. GRAPPLE X 01:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• And it's deleted. Bleh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Aww... GRAPPLE X 01:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There is another attack page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.187.9 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Somebody's having too much fun... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL, of all the editors on this site, I think Grapple X is the last one I've seen "attack" someone for no reason causing, with a history of "long-term abuse".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Definitely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

FTC

Could you close some of the nominations? Seem to not having a chance to close them myself. GamerPro64 16:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Your message to a certain user on a certain film talk page was exactly what I was thinking. Have a pie. :) MisterShiney ✉ 21:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I'm just after dinner so that'll hit the spot nicely. I hope it's cherry. GRAPPLE X 21:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any other kind? ;) On that note I have now closed the conversation. Hopefully the guy will get the idea and move on. If not, he was been warned sufficiently for the matter to be taken further (again). MisterShiney ✉ 22:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it depends. There's the good kind and the awful kind. And don't hold out too much hope, even if this particular article has seen the end of it, he'll just find something else equally as baselessly jingoistic to do. He did last time. Ah well. GRAPPLE X 22:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thought you ought to know

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MisterShiney ✉ 23:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

On my way, thanks. GRAPPLE X 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for putting your talk page on Blake's. Major Malfunction on my part. MisterShiney ✉ 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably the most outlandish mistake I've seen in a while, definitely raised a chuckle. :P GRAPPLE X 00:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweet holy prepuce, has that still not been lifted yet? GRAPPLE X 22:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

On da house! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll drink to that! GRAPPLE X 00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• That doesn't look like a drinking man's beer, but I'll have a round too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• If the doctor's buying I'm not going to be picky. :P GRAPPLE X 00:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, agree. I said the same thing when J. V. d. B. offered me a beer in Jakarta. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• The Dawson? GRAPPLE X 00:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reference.

Head.

? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

JVdB = JVDB = Dawson? GRAPPLE X 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I never got into that. No, this one. I've known him and his wife for several years now (and did work for Mrs. Vandenberg of Wikimedia Indonesia before they were married). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey now...

This edit summary is probably a bit over the line. Calling someone a douche based on their first edit is not a very friendly way to greet a new editor. Take some care when you're making jokes. --Jayron32 06:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Because I check the edit history of every spammer. :/ GRAPPLE X 06:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, you still shouldn't call people "douche". It reflects badly on you, and generates a generally unfriendly environment (even to non-douches) to work in. --Jayron32 06:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Cleaning up unconstructive bullshit is best done with a smile and a held hand. Gotcha. GRAPPLE X 06:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:) --Jayron32 06:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

X-Files ratings

I found this site: http://www.tvtango.com/series/x_files/episodes?filters%5Bday%5D=&filters%5Bseason%5D=8&filters%5Bbroadcast%5D=No&filters%5Bmedia%5D=&commit.x=25&commit.y=12

Do you think it is reliable for Nielsen ratings? It is under the command of Maj Canton, who apparently "started her career in documentary and reality programming" and "served as Executive Director of Development at the Larry Thompson Organization and then as a consultant to NBC Entertainment." A google search of the name turns up quite a few hits for books that she's written.

I'm leaning towards yes, but I thought I should check.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

She certainly seems to fall under the "expert SPS" category but I'd maybe run it by WP:RS for a second opinion on that. GRAPPLE X 17:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Money No Enough WP:GAR

I have requested a GAR for Money No Enough, which I feel does not meet our GA criteria. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE news: February 2013

Guild of Copy Editors Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

GAN review

Hi! You were recommended by Gerda as a good GA reviewer, and the GAN American Saddlebred/GA1 has been languishing a bit. Dana boomer and I worked on it, Dana is in the wikicup, and I was hoping we could get someone to trot over (pun intended) and start the review. Dana has one or two other articles in the queue, and we are starting on another soon. If you haven't the time, perhaps give one of your friends a ping? Thanks! Montanabw 23:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Well done for reaching the 100 DYK milestone! You are at 101 and counting :-) — AARON • 17:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted

On 3 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jason Newsted has recorded songs with Metallica, Voivod and several musical supergroups? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Laborintus II

Any word yet when you'll be taking this to FAC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest, man. I think it's in good nick but I might try shopping it around a little more first, either a second PR or just a general talk message at one of the music projects to have a once-over at it. I managed to have the GOCE copy-edit "Ice" (another X-File) so it might be nominated in the interim. Sorry it took so long to get back to. Blame effete ninjas. GRAPPLE X 22:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh my, ninjas? And here I thought Ireland was all about the rain and beer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• The rain and the beer are why the ninjas seem so appealing. GRAPPLE X 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just wait until the earthquakes come... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous GA review

Hey Grapple X - I did a GA review of Anonymous (Tomahawk album), and then noticed that you haven't edited for a while. I'm not sure if your break is planned or unexpected, but if you do return in the next few days, you can read and respond to my comments here. Take care, Moswento 10:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, man. Really appreciate the review; will be on it like Max Clifford on a has-been in about 20 minutes. GRAPPLE X 22:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, whenever you have the time in the next few days. Moswento 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Grapple X; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I am not entirely sure wither or not to close this FTRC yet. While the majority are voting for delist, two articles that need to be part of the topic are currently at GAN. What do you think? GamerPro64 00:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say delist, Halo 4 isn't at GAN yet and even at that the queues can run for weeks. There's no fallow period after a delisting so even if everything passes GAN the second it's delisted it then it can be renominated at leisure. Also sorry for the delay, I've kind of been surgically attached to the xbox this past while. GRAPPLE X 22:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Deadalive" Concerns

The FAN for "Deadline" has been inactive for quite awhile. However, a reviewer went through and argued that, because a majority of the references are from Fox products (DVDs, commentaries, websites), that "very little of represents independent sourcing". I'm failing miserably at trying to get words out. Is there anyway you could drop by the page and see if I've adequately responded/maybe add a few points yourself? I really don't see anything wrong with the article's source, and honestly, I feel that the concerns are kind of super-nitpicky. But maybe I'm just grumpy at this point.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a check now, but the rule of thumb I'd go by is that controversial or likely-to-be-questioned facts should be third-party, but the motives, methods and opinions of a creator are perfectly sourceable to their own work like a commentary. GRAPPLE X 19:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I see the objection was withdrawn but I'll see if I can add a review for you within the next few days. GRAPPLE X 19:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'd appreciate that. This article has been stalling for awhile now!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-March 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Featured Topics concern

So I was checking on topic retentions and noticed that two of the topics, Bloc Party albums and No Doubt albums, are incomplete as they are missing an album in their topic and their grace period has been long gone. Kinda makes me concerned about what other topics are like this. GamerPro64 14:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a scan now, but as a rule of thumb I'd say anything focussed on discographies, filmographies or currently-running tv series will often become incomplete without constant care. I'd say anything passed from now on which has the potential to grow—not just those which we know will grow—should be added to the retention list for periodic checks. Obviously if, say, a topic about Alfred Hitchcock came up, he's not making any new films, but one on David Cronenberg would have room to grow even before he announces anything new, and should be kept on hand to be checked conveniently. GRAPPLE X 21:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking at WT:FT, I'm not convinced that several of those television season topics could be considered complete—the Smallville and Supernatural ones appear to have sidestepped the "no cherry-picking" idea by not having a full set of articles actually existing. I'm sure it wasn't done out of deliberate convenience but, for example, season one of Smallville is 21 episodes long, only 2 of which have articles; I wouldn't consider that a complete topic as there are 19 missing articles (having worked in this field I know it's entirely possible to put even some pretty obscure stuff through a full treatment) and there are several which would fall under that same umbrella. GRAPPLE X 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So what should we do? We can't clog FTRC with nominations all at once? Do we just put some of them in a group and review them one at a time or something? GamerPro64 01:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we start with the ones that have definitely lapsed (Bloc Party and No Doubt), and consider setting a brief-but-workable grace period for any that are incomplete due to missing-but-notable articles that lets us revisit them soon. They'll certainly need delisted as FTs but with maybe six weeks notice to the involved editors they could be salvaged as GTs. If they're not then they can be assessed in a group because they'd be being assessed on the exact same criteria. GRAPPLE X 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our March backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Deadalive

I restarted the dead FA nomination for "Deadalive", do you have anything you might want to add/critique?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Love the shirt!
	Just got the shirt through the Merchandise Giveaway Programme. Thanks for your vote of confidence!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive. The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Bluerules edit

Thanks for the revert at The Dark Knight Rises. Bluerules has already been a major problem amongst several editors these past few weeks (more particularly his edits at Burt Wonderstone and his feud with Darkwarriorblake and BattleshipMan) and tries to turn things around his way against the tide. I find it so despicable like really, "Stop following me"? Can't blame stuff if that has been under watch for a long time, and his diatribes against admins are just stupid. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm more than familiar. It's been going on since at least last year. GRAPPLE X 16:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oddfellows (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Stanier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar COI editng

Hi Grapple X. I am concerned about seeing one Gibraltar DYK per day. That's way, way, way too many for such a tiny land with a tiny population. We know there's been heavy, paid, COI editing on the topic. We should be a lot more careful. Where is the correct venue to discuss this. I hope you'll talk rather than reverting. Jehochman 21:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you talk to me, rather than just reverting and making snyde remarks? Jehochman 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

WT:DYK is the correct venue for this, and I'll thank you not to take a condescending tone about this. DYK frequently features many hooks on narrow subjects—hooks on racehorses, Indonesia, US television or mushrooms feature much more prominently than Gibraltar ever has, and your assertion of COI is baseless these days, that brief "paid" (read: contest with a prize, which is not unique) period having ended. If you feel that further punishment of volunteer editing is required over and above the topic being unduly singled out for restriction, you're free to propose it, but it's already been talked about ad nauseum and one editor attempting to overrule the correct procedure, which has come about due to community-wide consensus, is entirely wrong. I'll hope you'll see that rather than going off against consensus. GRAPPLE X 21:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like "one per day is allowed" as a formulation. I think "not excessively frequent" is much better. Ambiguity actually helps here. If people can remember the list Gibraltar hook, it's probably too soon to have another. Jehochman 21:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how your WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach is actually constructive here; surely your argument applies equally to any topic which may appear more than once, but I don't see you complaining about the frequency of any other topic. The restrictions have formed due to lengthy debate by both sides of this argument and arbitrarily changing them with zero discussion beforehand is poor form. If you want to see any change to the restrictions as they are at present, the burden is on you to propose a change to them and attempt to gather a consensus for it. Until then, I'd ask you to refrain from changing them any further as you are not above the will of the wider community. GRAPPLE X 22:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not IDONTLIKEIT (and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs), it's called L-O-G-I-C. A 2.6 square mile micronation with a hefty marketing budget targeting Misplaced Pages should not have its content featured on Misplaced Pages's home page once per day. It's that simple. Jehochman 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But it is a case of you personally not liking it, as you have once again failed to acknowledge that it features FAR less prominently than any number of subjects (I know I've put through as many hooks on one short-lived television series as I've ever read about Gibraltar). But you have no personal umbrage to bring to bear on that subject, so it's conveniently ignored. It's that simple. GRAPPLE X 22:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for La morte risale a ieri sera

On 14 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article La morte risale a ieri sera, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Duccio Tessari's 1970 work La morte risale a ieri sera contains "a great deal more humanity" than most giallo films? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/La morte risale a ieri sera. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Gender Bender

Congrats on the TFA!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes I wonder why I bother nominating them though. :( GRAPPLE X 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean, whether you create a small stub or write an FA, it never seems to really matter to many people on here. Often a site of silent appreciation. Email me. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree... wish people could show their love here. That was a good article though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing

Hey Grapple. If you can, could you close some of the nominations at FTC? Haven't been able to get around to do that myself. GamerPro64 18:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Its been a month since I asked before but can it be possible for you to close some of the nominations? GamerPro64 03:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

X-Files A-Class articles

Is there anyway you could drop by the A-class X-Files nomination and add suggestions/support/opposition to these articles: "Vienen", "The Gift", "Millennium", and "X-Cops". They've been waiting there forever, and I feel they may have been forgotten. I'd like to get them out of the limbo they're stuck in.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our May backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted

Hey Grapple X, just wondered, if you have a moment, if you'd like to return to the FLC, there are more comments waiting for you! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE June/July 2013 events

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive. The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured Topic Delegation

I'm really concerned about your duties for being a delegate for Featured Topics. When I ask you for to close nominations, you are unavailable to take care of them. Can you still able to to do this or should we get another delegate? GamerPro64 00:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber (submissions) and Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

	WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter Quarter 3, 2013	463	124	5.13	50	30%	» Full edition
		Unassessed Articles	Coordinates Needed	WikiWork Load	Project Members	B&M articles are GA or FA

GOCE July 2013 news report

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now! Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions02:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our July backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oddfellows (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oddfellows (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Niwi3 -- Niwi3 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oddfellows (album)

The article Oddfellows (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oddfellows (album) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Niwi3 -- Niwi3 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the September drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), Dana boomer (submissions), Status (submissions), Ed! (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Where in LEAD

You claim that LEAD tells us we are supposed to repeat a link if it's in the lead. Can you point me to that passage because I don't see it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant link to repeating what is linked in the lead is in WP:OVERLINK, which I also provided you. It's the last line of the section that link should anchor to. Please stop removing links which are there for a valid reason which complies with the MOS. GRAPPLE X 03:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• You cited two. I see nothing in WP:LEAD that says what you claim. So why did you cite it if now, when asked to be specific, you ignore the request? OVERLINK says a link may be repeated. It doesn't say it is required, which was your claim. So you cited a guideline that apparently doesn't say what you claim, then cited one that says "may" instead of the "requires" that you claim. Yet you now call me "disruptive"? And why does Dante Spinotti need linked again? He's linked in the infobox and the filming section. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is an overview on the purpose of the lead; I linked it to show that it should be considered a summation of the article rather than a section within it. The reason I linked both is that the second contained the specific guideline on linking. It doesn't say anything is required--but it certainly does not back up needlessly removing links which serve a valid navigation purpose. Links used in the lead of a long article, and then not mentioned again for the first time in the article body until near the very end will of course be much easier to read and navigate if they are (correctly) linked on both of those occurrences. To remove links which follow the manual of style, exist for a valid reason, and serve a reader friendly purpose is disruptive, especially when done with absolutely no supporting rationale or guideline to it. As for why a link is useful in a reference--they should be able to be read in a vacuum. It is not, nor should it be, incumbent on a reader to chase down a link elsewhere in the article if they have followed a reflink to a citation and want to know more. At the end of the day, this site is meant for readers, and any edit which falls within the MOS and aids in reading comprehension should be considered a positive one--conversely, any edit which has no basis in the MOS and decreases readability is a negative one. The article in question underwent several peer reviews and copyedits before passing a featured article review--if any of the content was considered to have contravened either the spirit or the letter of the guidelines it would have been weeded out long ago. Your own opinions on how to interpret a guideline which is almost entirely practised the way I'm advocating is not sufficient rationale to overturn that kind of consensus. GRAPPLE X 03:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Linking something twice really doesn't help "the reader". It just adds more blue type to a sea of blue type. You keep saying it follows the MOS, yet the MOS says "may" if it's helpful. May. While we can discuss what is or is not helpful, it will help greatly if you stop acting like your opinion is the only one and that this matter is black and white. It's not black and white. If there was not room for interpretation about what is helpful, the MOS would say "must" or "required" (as you falsely claimed it did). Claiming my edit has no basis in the MOS is a false claim, based on the notion that your opinion is the only correct one. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Grapple. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Manhunter (film) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! You are engaged in an edit war about whether or not to Wikilink one name. You are not discussing it on the articles talk page. You should. You are discussing editors not content. You should not.

Please visit the article's talk page. Without so much as obliquely referring to any other editor, explain why you feel the link in question should or should not be there. (I don't know which of you wants what and don't have an opinion.) After sufficient time for anyone interested to comment, I'll give a third opinion (which is something else you might have considered to resolve this). My opinion is neither infallible nor final. After that, you may choose to provisionally accept what I think or you may seek broader input.

Or, you might choose to continue the edit war and see if an editing block helps clear up the issue. SummerPhD (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 3 days. That should give you time to discuss differences (with others joining in, I hope) on the article talk page, and / or to draft an explanation of this fight for addition to WP:LAME, and in any event to read WP guidance on edit-warring (hint: don't). Hope this helps. Bencherlite 01:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Squeeze (The X-Files)

This is a note to let the main editors of Squeeze (The X-Files) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 24, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/September 24, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Doug Hutchison

"Squeeze" is the third episode of the first season of the American science fiction television series The X-Files, premiering on September 24, 1993. It featured the first of two guest appearances by Doug Hutchison (pictured) as the mutant serial killer Eugene Victor Tooms. In this episode, FBI special agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) (who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files) investigate a series of ritualistic killings by somebody seemingly capable of squeezing his body through impossibly narrow gaps. The agents deduce that their suspect may be a genetic mutant who has been killing in sprees for ninety years. Production was problematic; creative differences led to the director being replaced, and some missing scenes needed to be shot after the initial filming. "Squeeze" received positive reviews from critics, mostly focusing on Hutchison's performance and the resonance of his character. Academics have examined "Squeeze" for its portrayal of the politics of law enforcement, highlighting the tension—evident throughout the series—between the agents' desire to find the truth and their duty to secure criminal convictions. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on TFA!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for this Grapple, but I have no choice. That's three times you and Niteshift have gone to 3R at the same article, so protecting it is obviously not doing much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  Totally understandable; I don't mind sitting out for a while if it means the article isn't being trashed. GRAPPLE X 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  No worries about that. Niteshift managed to get 48 hours as this is nowhere near his/her first block for edit warring (I think I counted 8 or 9). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  You can't count. According to this log it is 5 counting tonight's, and only one of those not counting tonight's took place in the last five years. A fifth block, for sockpuppetry, was placed accidentally and removed.

  Hence why I said "I think". There are 8 or 9 entries, that much is clear. Now please keep discussion centred on one page. If Niteshift wants to appeal his/her block, let 'em. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)