User talk:DR04/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well, hello there...

I was just thinking, it's been a long time since I saw Chupper around - perhaps Chupper's left WP? Then I noticed that Bono for some horrific reason seems to have fallen of my watchlist (for quite some time it would seem) and that you are alive and wiki well. Did you notice the little star on the top right hand corner of U2? When are you getting us one for Bono? :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with the concept of controversy

Did you once link to a Wiki essay about controversy and controversy articles? If so can you find the link? Thanks, --scuro (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to craft a good reply. Do you ever remember reading an essay from the founder or some other notable person on this topic?--scuro (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you would find this interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29 --scuro (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University‎

this article was just nominated for speedy deletion as db-group. I declined the speedy, as it doesnt fit under db-group, for it can be read as an implied assertion of importance to be a department of a major university. But practice at AfD has been tro delete articles about individual university departments, except for a very few of the ones with the greatest international notability. It will probably therefore be taken to AfD rather quickly. I do not think it's a good idea to create such articles as independent articles.DGG (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisit WP BYU

Hello. I noticed that you are a member of WikiProject Brigham Young University. Since we have recently overhauled the project's main page, I wanted to invite you to revisit the WP page and get involved however you can. Go Cougars! --Eustress (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WPBYU Collaboration for May

This month's WP BYU Collaboration of the Month is J. Reuben Clark Law School. I look forward to working with you to improve the article. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Canyon Ranch, Chicago

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Canyon Ranch, Chicago, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
--JKeene (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

I have finally gotten around to cleaning up Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). I just nominated it at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to get some pictures of the controversial kiosk soon and maybe add some more images since there is plenty of room given the amount of text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago) recently failed at WP:FAC. Since you have significant past service at WP:CHICAGO and participated in the debate, I am requesting your opinion. The substantive issues of debate seemed to focus on the following issues:

1. Should the article contain a section on the spa. My argument has been that the current plans call for it to be a business consuming two floors of the hotel and the the article can not pass WP:WIAFA 1b without describing it. Some say the spa is a trivial part of the business and its inclusion represents a form of advertising. I argue that describing a business operation is not per se advertising, but the perception on WP is that it is, which is why a project like WP:APARKS has no WP:GA or WP:FA articles. With that in mind do you feel the current section should 1. remain as is. 2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
2. Should the article contain a section on the bar. Although the case is not as strong for the inclusion of the bar, my argument has been that the easily found WP:RS have described it and the the article can not pass WP:WIAFA 1b without describing it. I concede the sources are less important sources than for the spa and most of the rest of the article. With that in mind do you feel the current section should 1. remain as is. 2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
3. There are three well-sourced (3 New York Times and 2 Chicago Tribune refs) sentences describing the role of Trump's Children. Should they be in the article? Should these sentences 1. remain as is. 2. be slightly edited for POV tone. 3. be significantly trimmed for over emphasis 4. eliminated for irrelevance.
4. There was debate over the need to have links to both List of tallest buildings in Chicago and List of tallest buildings in the United States in the article and further debate on whether to have these same links in the See also section. Please state your opinion on both issues.
5. There seems to be an issue on whether the second setback lines up with Marina City. Do you know of any WP:RS on the issue? If not do you think this should be mentioned in the text?
6. There are numerous words that I have linked that remain contentious with my rationales.

• • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - geography: London, Australia, New Orleans, Louisiana, North Africa, India, United States
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - relevant connections to other articles to help reader understand this article:
    • Many readers will be looking for information on the restaurant and they should understand the terms: cocktails, sushi (I have mentioned before that I did not know what the term meant when I was in high school), cuisine, decor, entrees, appetizers,
    • I want readers to understand the features of the building: VIP room, pool, saunas, health club, spa, antennas, parking garage, hotel, swizzle sticks
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - references to a page with more information: gemstone, diamond, ruby, sapphire, emeralds, billboard, standing room only
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - technical terms: wine racks, wine rooms, architect (I link professions when relevant as technical terms. This particular link has been hotly contested yet I don't believe most people actually know exactly what an architect does), hedge fund, floors (links to storey), business district, interior design, divers (although this goes to disambig page it is difficult for me to say whether to link to scuba diving or surface supplied diving)
  • see WP:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked - Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker: course, union

Please list all of the words above (and any others you may see in the article) that you feel should be delinked.

Also, please state whether you think full dates should be linked in this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Major depression vs Clinical depression

I'd like to get some experts commenting on the proposed move of the page Clinical depression to Major depression or Major depressive disorder. Any comment would be appreciated. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GAR debate on buildings under construction

You are the leading editor of Chicago Spire. There is currently a debate regarding the propriety of whether buildings under construction should be eligible to be GAs at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

GA thanks

Thanks for your contributions to this article:

This user helped promote Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

As one of the leading editors at Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) your feedback would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Historically, you have always taken a while to get back to me, so I apologize if I am pestering you. At Trump Tower a few sections above I asked for your help. There are several issues to be resolved from the failed FAC. I have selected one person who voted oppose, one person who voted support and one person who participated in the discussion without voting to get a fair set of responses to the issues. Without your response it may take a long time to reach a resolution on some of the issue. Please consider responding to the survey above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I am still hoping for the third neutral (abstained in the FAC) party to respond. If you want to help right now please watch the WP:CHIFTD and participate in FACs and PRs. Of course, when Trump Tower returns to FAC I will also contact you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Alterations of my text

Thanks for pointing out your alterations of my text. I suspect that trying to obtain a consensus on what is and is not psychiatric illness would depend on one's perspective. It sounds as if you wish the articles in Wikipedia to describe the entire set of academic and political controversies regarding that particular subject. If you don't mind, from my perspective, the Wikipedia should be a useful addition to knowledge of the users, rather than reproducing a thicket of philosophical dispute, from Heraclitus to Foucault. If you wish to have citations in the text, that can be arranged. A public discussion would be useful, but the truth is, a public discussion on exactly this point has been going on for several hundred years (at least since the motion of medical science was accepted in Western thought). If you are seeking a broad consensus on the view of what psychiatric illness is, then the consensus will depend on who is in on the discussion. Perhaps some back and forth discussion between us, on your talk page would not be amiss.

Sincerely Menelaus2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menelaus2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Chupper/Sandbox03

Did you actually want that page deleted or were you just testing something? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock lift request

Just wanted to let you know I'm working on it. I am not sure what I need to do, will ask on User talk:Keeper76 right after posting this. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I cleared the autoblock, does that work? --Stephen 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO survey

Apology

I want to apoligize for my remarks on your image contributions on psychiatry ... I guess I'm still mastering some of the finer points of wikiquette. No offence was intended. Regards, Anonymaus (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been marked as an inactive member of WP:CHICAGO since you have not updated your status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please correct your status. If you consider yourself a member you may want to get involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:08092007_CrandallCanyonMine.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:08092007_CrandallCanyonMine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO leadership

This month you have indicated new or continuing interest in WP:CHICAGO as either an active or semi-active member. The response to the project membership survey was strong enough that we should attempt to organize it in a more fully functional way. Please sign up at Wikipedia:CHICAGO/leadership if you would be willing to serve as a leader of the project from September 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009. The various leadership responsibilities are listed there. The roles will be somewhat similar to the roles of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. We are a less mature and developed project than WP:MILHIST however, so our division of roles will be slightly different. Please respond by the 23rd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.