User talk:Mastrchf91/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mastrchf91. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The December 2007 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What IS YOUR PROBLEM!!! The changes i made to the Nine Network Page was not so called 'vandalism' it was correct, the percentages that is on there for national shar is no longer 27.3%, according to the sorce stated it is 26.9%. I expect you to reply to me as soon you get this message on my page

A tag has been placed on Tom Collen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you're tagging alot of the Lost articles as having trivia sections. May I suggest that you just remove them instead, as I feel you are entirely right about sections such as 'First appearances' and the so forth are trivia, as I have done in some of the articles. The worst that could happen is that you may be reverted. Cheers asyndeton talk 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm noticing that you're adding a bunch of coach articles right now, without any real claim to notability other than their job. I tagged one, but I'm having second thoughts about being so harsh *grin* However as it stands there's nothing in there that makes any of these people encyclopaedic. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed deletion of Kevin Wolthausen. Somone else tagged it for notability concerns, and after searching for articles devoted solely to him, I agree. You are allowed to remove the "prod" tag; If you do remove it, please try to address the notability concerns. If you do not remove it, the article will be deleted in about five days.

I would suggest that you add a bit more content when you create articles like these. Sources help a lot. If there are two or more stories devoted solely to the subject from major news outlets, the subject would generally be presumed notable. Gimmetrow 19:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you must have no life, correcting articles on Wikipedia all day, especially obscure ones such as icarly-- Ihk221

On 27 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Collen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Collen doesn't seem to be in the DYK archives for whatever reason, but it did appear in the template. Gimmetrow 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it's a guideline and not a hard-and-fast rule, but in my experience, I've discovered that if you don't draw a line in the sand it quickly gets erased. If we start making exceptions here and there then soon every episode will be considered an exception and we're back to where we were before we had the rule in the first place, when episode synopses ran up to 1000 words. (If you want to time the episode and show that its run time is different from the standard 20 minutes then go ahead and update the run time and word count cap. But I don't have any reason to believe that the Branch Wars episode was granted 2 extra minutes of run time.) -- Raymondc0 (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for exceptional episodes (of which "Branch Wars" is not) the rule can be bent, but your changes brought the word count to 281, which is 40% over the recommendation. I can't see bending the rules that much for a comparatively insignificant episode. The Wikipedia recommendation for integrating trivia with the article implies that there is an article at all, but "The Office" episode pages really don't have any article at all. They're just an episode summary. (Consequently, I don't really think they're very encyclopedic either. No real encyclopedia would have an entry for, say, Hamlet that consists solely of a summary of the play.) -- Raymondc0 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Secret Page Detective Award
		This user has found NASCAR Fan24's secret page! Congratulations!

NF24^{(radio me!)} 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad to be a help. Jauerback (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Secret Page Detective Award
		Congradulations! This user has found Skittlesrgood4u's hidden page, and is the first person to do so. You are truly an excellent searcher. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Skittlesrgood4u (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanx,for RV the vandalism on my page...well TC. Lil'Khan (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

		Thanks!
		Mastrchf91/Archive 2, thank you for showing your support in my RFA which passed with 38 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral! I also want to give special thanks to my Admin Coach and nominator, Useight for all of his help and support. I promise that I'll give my best effort as an admin, and I hope that your confidence in me proves to be justified. If I can ever be of any help, please let me know. In the mean time, I have some cleaning to do. Have a great day! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mastrchf91

On my page, you said i made vandalism. How was making vandalism when i was adding info from IMDB travia section. I got info here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120685/trivia. So it not Vandalism

I hope you understand this.

Thanks --71.178.250.89 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was very delighted to receive the project newsletter, as it coincides quite neatly with me finally uploading some pictures I took during my visit to the convention in Scranton last fall (See Mall at Steamtown for the first one I've gotten up). I have noted the dearth of free images available for the show ... I hope at least to offer some alternatives. I will soon be uploading pics of the Scranton sign and the view of the Pennsylvania Paper & Supply Company tower as seen in the opening credits ... perhaps these can be used in template namespace where, it seems, they are sorely needed (I have already created a commons category). I'll let you know when I've uploaded them so you can check them out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

.

How do you like this? I think it would look great in the project template. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I just put it there. Looks OK. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Because of the two renamings of the article, there are a number of double-redirects. These all need correcting, because if you click on the link in them, they'll follow the redirect through The Office Season 3 to The Office (U.S. TV series) (season 3), but they won't follow that page's redirect to The Office (U.S. season 3). Regards -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Done all your requests except for the reviews one (as I can't do that). Will ^(talk) 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your GAR concerns as far as I could. Greetings, – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Diversity Day - Coincidently, I bookmarked this article this morning for GA review because episode articles seem easy for GA review virgins like me. You'll have it reviewed by tomorrow. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I left my review at Talk:Diversity Day. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed all the issue you brought up at Talk:The Fat Guy Strangler when you were GA reviewing it. I have left a small minority of points not done, but have explained why this is next to them. The article is ready for a review when you are. Take care, ~ Qst (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All done. Qst (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article. Unfortunately I am a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, and lack the knowledge to make a proper GA assessment. Best of luck. --Simpsons fan 66 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just checking. No hard feelings --Simpsons fan 66 07:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The article Pilot (The Office episode) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Pilot (The Office episode) for things needed to be addressed. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 17:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it looks better, and thus it now passes GA. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 13:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mastrchf91. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4