This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
I've kept Calvin Johnson (American football) in a reasonably good state of repair, but I don't have the time to give it that last push to FA (or WP:BIO A-class, for that matter). I noticed that you pushed Tyrone Wheatley through FAC, so you're not a stranger to sports-related articles. Any suggestions/writing (I really, really hate lead-writing, for example)/etc you provide would be appreciated. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tony, since you have several peer review requests currently open, I wanted to let you know about the new guidelines at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy which places the following limits on peer review requests: "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review, FAC, GAN, or A-class review. For more information on these limits see here." This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits.
The current requests you have made can stay open (they are grandfathered in), but I wanted to make you aware of the new limits for future requests. Thanks for all your work here, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked at wp:pr/d and you still have four requests open - Jack Kemp was closed by the bot on June 1. To open a new PR, please archive one of the four (or ask me and I will archive). Barry Bonds is the current oldest request. Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, even if you would have had five PR requests open, they could have remained open. You only have to close one if you want to open a new one. My original proposal was to have a 14 day limit after a PR closed, this was extended to all reviews in the discussion (link above). The idea is that any review has suggestions made and time is needed to respond to these suggestions. FYI, I asked every person listed at WP:PRV for feedback on this. Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry for any confusion, but you seem to have misunderstood the idea of the limits on Peer Review. There is no change in FAC or GAN or any other process except for PR. If an article fails FAC or fails GAN, it cannot be listed at peer review for 14 days. If a PR closes, the article cannot be relisted at PR for 14 days. The idea is to make sure that the issues raised in the FAC or GAN or previous PR are addressed before opening a new PR. Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw you rearanged it slightly, and it looks slightly better, but the credits section is still especially squeezed. I'm sure it's not that big of a deal. Good luck with the GA, JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 12:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm using full screen. I hope to not sound like an idiot, but I actually don't know my screen resolution. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if you caught my response on my talk page, also you probably should look over my tweaks to make sure I haven't changed the meaning unintentionally. I'm thinking in particular of the bit about the boardwalk in Lurie Garden-I'm still unclear as to the layout of the park, and thus may have given the wrong impression with my tweaks. If you ever want me to read over these (or other) articles again, feel free to drop me a line. Loggie (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:LOTD
I have no date preference for List of Puerto Rican birds. Joelito (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Tony, as you are already aware, Infobox nrhp3 is up and running. I didn't go far enough back in your contribution history to see what you've been doing with it, so this may be an unnecessary post. While we are working on converting all the articles that currently have local designations on them through nrhp2 over to nrhp3, we're not planning on making nrhp3 permanent. When we're finished and no more locally designated articles use nrhp2, we're just gonna copy the code from nrhp3 over to nrhp2 and change all the infoboxes on the articles back to nrhp2. During this time (not to say you have), please don't create any new articles with nrhp3. We're gonna hold off until we get them all back to nrhp2 and then begin creating new articles. Like I said before, I didn't go back far enough to see if you've created any articles with the box, but I left this comment just as a precaution. Thanks! :) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmk thanks! By converted, I assume you mean from nrhp2 to nrhp3. If there are any more Chicago Landmark articles that use nrhp2 to display the local designation, I would appreciate it if you could change them over to nrhp3 too. I just asked user:doncram to aid in changing all the articles on user:doncram/Sandbox4 over to nrhp3 and then copy/paste the code. Thanks for your help, and we hope to have all this worked out very soon! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I mean I can, but I would rather just have one infobox. Since there aren't too many articles to change (30 or so?), it shouldn't be that hard just to manually change them over. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The code from nrhp3 has now been copied to nrhp2. You can now begin creating/editing articles to include the nrhp2 infobox with local designations. I haven't yet gotten around to changing all the nrhp3's to nrhp2's because I'm strained on time, but if you'd like to help, the articles are all located here. All that needs to be done is change the number 3 to 2 in the infobox as shown in this diff. Currently Chicago Board of Trade Building is the only article that uses nrhp2 to display a local designation. Thanks for your patience! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Roanoke Building
Sorry, I've been a way for a few days. You've done some good work on digging up info on the architecture. There should still be some more on current occupants; this information is on the Emporis page, so that should be easy. That website also says that Larson & McLaren were the architects, that should be included. Also, have you been able to find out anything about the etymology of the building's name? If not, I understand. LampmanTalk to me! 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I'll just go ahead and promote it then. LampmanTalk to me! 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
DYK
On 5 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BP Pedestrian Bridge, 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.
Hi Tony - I just wanted to leave a note to reassure you that, further to our discussion on the above GAR, it was never my intention to challenge the status of any existing building articles, or to turn it into a general call for a change in GA standards that would impact your articles. I've noticed that you've been notifying your project members of the debate, and I'm slightly concerned that you may be taking my comments more to heart than they deserve. I also don't want to see such a minor discussion degenerate into an unproductive argument; as you know, GAR bases its assessments on GA criteria alone, and editors unfamiliar with those criteria may find it difficult to make helpful contributions. More importantly, it's also all rather academic now, as I'm coming to the view that you are correct, and will be updating my comments very soon ;) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that interest might go further than this one GAR, in which case it's a useful subject to thrash out. Along with Gguy, I believe that this is one area where we can and should be more flexible than FA, and personally I think that failing to recognise articles such as the one under discussion, which is otherwise very good, would be doing both ourselves and the encyclopaedia as a whole a disservice. Now we seem to have pretty much established (barring further argument!) that under-construction buildings are perfectly acceptable at GA, we need to make this very clear so that articles like yours don't get quick-failed again. EyeSerenetalk 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that type of statement might be best written into the criteria (perhaps as an explicit example of what sort of article isn't a quick-fail). It's more likely to head off trouble at the pass, and save having to go through more GARs. However, I don't think there's going to be much opposition to listing your article, the original reviewer hasn't commented, and I doubt that whichever of us closes would object to including something in the closing statement, if you feel it would help in the future (with, of course, the proviso that consensus can change!) EyeSerenetalk 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, all sorted, thank you! I've switched to supporting a GA listing. EyeSerenetalk 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
Sorry, now that I reviewed that, it turned out I completely rolled back the wrong page.
I use VandalProof, so it must be a bug with that program. It wasn't intentional. Arienh4(Talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:List of tallest buildings in Chicago
It looks as though the information on List of tallest buildings in Chicago, and on the Masonic Temple (Chicago) article as well, is incorrect. The reference used to support the claim of world's tallest building is this, which states that the Masonic Temple "was shorter than New York's World Building with its lantern, but boasted the highest occupied floor". The title of tallest building in the world isn't determined by highest occupied floor, it is determined by highest architectural detail, which would include the New York World Building's lantern; otherwise, the Sears Tower would have always been considered taller than the Petronas Twin Towers. I will update the information on the Chicago list and the Masonic Temple page accordingly. Cheers, Rai•me 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a column for community areas is needed. No other U.S. list has such a column, and there has been consensus at WT:SKY to avoid adding another column to any tallest buildings list, whether it be for architects, photo links, or street addresses, due in learge part to "column crunching" and lack of relevance to building height. Such information is best kept for individual building articles, in my opinion. Cheers, Rai•me 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
On 6 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wrigley Square, 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.
Sorry, forget what I said. I hadn't seen a GA template who's article's status wasn't on hold in such a long time, I forgot what they looked like. I thought it was an incomplete nomination. Just forget about it. :) --haha169 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll clarify. Forget what I said - I ramble sometimes. As for the GA template issue, I made a mistake. You want me to strike it? I don't think its necessary, but I could do it. --haha169 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I can clarify better now. I was unfamiliar with the new GAN template, and got confused. I thought you did something wrong - sorry. --haha169 (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it was the template. I thought you hadn't completed the nomination because the new template says: "Click here to begin the [review] process". I hadn't noticed the "review" portion. It was the new GAN template, don't worry about it. I got confused :P --haha169 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Request for your opinion
Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language
You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: The !voting shows 7 votes for no mention of Ayers, 4 for first-choice Option 3 and 6 !votes for the other options. If we're going to get a consensus to overcome those 7 votes (and it's still possible), all the other editors and some who haven't participated yet are going to have to get around one alternative option. I've changed my vote to Option 3, and I hope you will, too, because it's more important to give readers at least a link to the Bill Ayers article and Bill Ayers election controversy article than to allow the Option 1 editors to essentially veto all mention of Ayers. Please consider, and thanks for taking the time. (Incidentally, on June 4, that article got 250,000-plus page hits). Noroton (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I looked over WP:CANVASS before doing this, but it didn't occur to me that this could be a violation. I looked over it again just now and I can see how this could be considered vote stacking. I won't contact you again about this. I certainly don't want to violate WP:CANVASS, and I'll have to think about this more. I was going to ask for advice at the WP:CANVASS talk page, but I see that someone already did on May 20 and was ignored. Thanks for bringing it up. Noroton (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Walter
I will work on the article tonight, this afternoon I have to attend the Hungarian Festival here in New Jersey. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Lurie Garden
On 7 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lurie Garden, 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.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Obama FAR
I will try to provide some clarification on the Obama FAR closure. I was the person that closed the FAR. The main criteria concern for the FAR was stability. I closed the FAR as neither a keep nor a remove because the article had not undergone the standard review process. I believed that closing it as kept was inappropriate since it could be used as an argument that X version of the article was reviewed and deemed/endorsed as meeting the FA criteria. I think Judgesurreal777 made a good statement that summarizes my views on stability for this article: "And instability is when the definition of a planet is changed and the definition of a planet articles needs a massive rewrite. Day to day additions and copyediting for the political season doesn't need rewriting of the whole article but the paragraph in question."
During the process there were some POV concerns raised. However, it is normal to expect cries of POV on a political article and most of the POV pushing was done by a few people bent on edit warring.
As for the paper trail I propose to create a new category (called Incomplete or Inconclusive or something similar) to accommodate for these kinds of cases. Normally, a restart of the FAR could be perfomed and a situation such as the one we are discussing can be avoided but with this article. Joelito (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) restarting would not have achieved anything.
Hi Tony, I consider peer review comments to be suggestions, so they are not really actionable the way GAN or FAC comments are. I do try to point out things that I think would be seen as problems at GAN or FAC. I also tend to try and give only one or two examples of problems in PR and leave it to the nominator to check for other examples. I will take another look at the Crown Fountain article in a day or two. Keep up the good work and congrats on all the recent DYKs! Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I went to take a second look and the word reputed is still used incorrectly in the lead - once all the specifics I raised are addressed, please let me know and I will take a second look and make some more comments, thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
Sure, just give me a while, as I'm pretty busy. Should be done by tonight. Also, apologies if I began to sound uncivil there. Cheers, JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, thanks for the reminder, I forgot about that. I'll get to it as soon as I can. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Whenever I remember, I like to give people a heads-up that their FA is planned for the Main Page so they can make any final tweaks or such. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 12:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: 50 GAs in 50 States
Wow, this is sort of unexpected. Anyway, I'm not strong with states outside of Oklahoma and the ones near the East Coast. I can give it a shot if you want. I've heard of these and saw some kind of interest in them. I'll see what I can do, noting I've never done an article like this before.Mitch32contribs 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it then. Thanks a lot. :D - Mitch32contribs 13:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at ErgoSum88's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at ErgoSum88's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, this discussion, which you were involved in, has been restarted. Please take another look and try and get this wrapped up sooner rather than later. :-) Cheers, giggy(:O) 12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Exelon Pavilions DYK
On 13 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Exelon Pavilions, 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.
They all have to first be in the Chicago category over at Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No they have to appear in each category. I don't really think all Barack Obama news is Chicago news anyways, but that is something to bring up in discussion over at Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Trump Tower requested image
No, sorry, I have never requested permission to use such an image. However, have you thought that the IP may have intended to request a diagram that shows a height comparison betweeen Trump Tower and the other tallest buildings in Chicago? This would be similar to the Chicago diagram on SkyscraperPage. Cheers, Rai•me 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Lakeshore East
I'm terribly sorry. I got called away in the middle of making some edits and I forgot to come back to it! I'll promote the page to GA status right now. Sorry again. -Epicadam (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ferry field derived from Aerial University of Michigan image.JPG listed for deletion
On 17 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boeing Galleries, 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.
I will keep an eye on it - I am sure lots of others will too. The only time I had an article on the Main Page I had limited online access too. I also meant to tell you the PR limits have been tweaked again - now it is 14 days after a PR or failed FAC before listing again on PR. I also looked at Crown Fountain again and made some more PR comments. Take care, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Chase Promenade DYK
On 17 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chase Promenade, 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.
You seem to be one of the main editors at {{Infobox Skyscraper}}. Since its talk page is not a high traffic page, I am asking you to look at a tweak I am requesting. Can you do this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not particularly sure why you want a map in the infobox, especially considering there's a Location section in the article. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Bond's article
Even lately, I added some remarks in Bond's review! I note that, because in the peer-review section it is archivedl; so you may not notice it. I hope they are helpful!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Tiger FP
Consider it a small gift from someone who's amazed by the contributions you've done, and flabbergasted by the fact you're not an admin. - Amog | Talk • contribs 14:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
4 Freedoms
Thanks - keep up the good work! Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
María del Luján Telpuk is a GA almost only thanks to you
Anyway, thanks for recognizing the little work I did there. Gothbag (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thank you!
The Original Barnstar
I hereby award you this original barnstar for the amazing number of DYKs drawn from your contributions. Thank you. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: FT query
I've answered on the FTC page, sorry I missed your message for so long. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Trump International Hotel and Tower
No problem Tony. I am glad to be of assistance. I was next planning on reading through every section to see if there are other things I have issues with (but I cannot guarantee that I will do that since the subject is something that truly does not interest me and I am sure that notifying you of my thoughts and replying over and over again can be daunting). And I know that you will not like to hear this, but I refuse to oppose or support any featured article (or list) candidates. I feel that opposition is somewhat rude, but I also feel that a support would mean that there are no problems whatsoever. And we all know that every article on Wikipedia can be improved in some way. Another reason is because (like you mentioned on the FAC page) I am not an expert at editing and I do not know the Wikipedia policies very well. Whenever I do provide my comments on featured candidacies, I only offer suggestions and things I feel could be improved. That is as far as I go. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony, I understand what you are saying. But I do not think I have enought experience to make a decision on the issue. If it is a great article, I am sure you will receive supports for it to be listed as a featured article. If not, then you will be able to improve it more. I am sorry, but I just do not want to support or oppose. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a few comments. I'm going to watch the end of the Cubs/Sox game right now. Afterwards, I'll add some more suggestions (if I find any more problems). Zagalejo^^^ 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll read it a couple more times, then I'll post a comment (or comments). Zagalejo^^^ 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not actively opposing it. But I still need to re-read it before I offer support. Zagalejo^^^ 07:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. All my issues have been addressed. Good work, especially with fixing the onslaught of comments. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 13:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
In appreciation
Hello! I came across your page, saw your contributions, and felt that you deserved this:
The Special Barnstar
In appreciation of your indefatigable spirit in improving the depth and scope of Wikipedia's content and character. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I am all out of tigers. I am expecting a new shipment next week. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Bank of America Tower (New York)
Well, since it is topped out, the tower can be classified as a building. Once an under construction building has reached its final height, it is ranked among the completed buildings in a city (see List of tallest buildings in New York City), so it is rightly classified as a "building". Cheers, Rai•me 22:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Boomerang throwing
Hi. I responded on my talk page -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Pedant's reply
I've always thrown with the "elbow" oriented so that the free end pointed forwards — whether to point the free end forwards or back depends on the shape of the airfoil on the top surface of the boomerang. -- Boracay Bill
Well, yes, it is possible that the boomerang was intended as a nonfunctional work of art and is just a 'stick'. (sticks don't return when thrown, unless thrown at someone else). But regarding BB's reply above, most, and perhaps all, boomerangs may be thrown with the boomerang's dingle arm or lifting arm towards the direction of the throw. (Lifting arm is actually a gross misnomer caused by people not understanding the physics of what makes a boomerang fly, and return. Both arms are lifting arms.)
What is most important is the direction of the throw relative to the wind and relative to the vertical, and the following are nearly as important:
Whether the airfoil is designed for right-handed throwing or left-handed... it takes appreciable skill to throw a boomerang with the wrong hand, and have it return. (Most say it can't be done, but of course it can, just as much as a right or left hand can deliver a bottom fist blow to the left side of an opponent's skull. One way feels natural and is the 'right way' but both will have similar effect.)
The speed of the spin. The required spin is different depending on the shape of the wing in cross-section and the shape of the airfoil, and the mass, and the distance it is thrown.
The distance it is thrown. (how hard it is thrown as a unit disregarding the spin.)
The mass of the boomerang, relative to its size, and to the wind velocity, and to the two factors mentioned above (spin and throw).
Also, some boomerangs will not fly well in wind that is too strong, others need some wind and don't fly easily in still air.
To determine if a boomerang is lefty or not, lay it flat on a table and look at the front and back edges of the two wings. The leading edged are the fat edges and the trailing edges are thin. If, when spun clockwise --as seen from above -- on the table, the leading edges precede the trailing edges, then it is a left-handed boomerang. If you are throwing a lefty with your right hand, it will have to be 'thrown wrong' to make it fly. And vice versa.
If you could take a couple of pictures of your boomerang, I'd be happy to give you some tips as to how it can be thrown better. It is an acquired knack, but I'm sure a physical guy like you can quickly learn.
There are a wide variety of 'ways to throw' a boomerang, and the throw needs to be the right style for the particular boomerang. A picture showing the cross section of either wing, and the middle angle, and a picture showing the silhouette of the wing as seen from above would be best.
Also, when placed flat-side-down, the wings should have a slight dihedral, or upward angle (really a slight curve rather than an actual angle in most cases.
What does the boomerang do if you throw it? Fly out and then straight up, then crash to earth? Flutter weakly a few feet and fall? Turn to the right (or left for a lefty)a little and hrsd for the ground? Not fly at all? Fly far away and not turn much at all? (this last one might be a stick -- the other problems are typical of a boomerang thrown incorrectly, but in specific incorrect ways. Hope we can work this out for you. User:Pedant (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If it goes straight and then drops, that's actually a good sign. I've thrown some really good returning boomerangs that have flown that way sometimes. I'll wait for the pictures and we'll go from there. Have a safe trip home! User:Pedant (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back. Pics to here: drglenn "at" dr.com -- no spaces, replace the "at" with the at sign. User:Pedant (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, I want to thank you on behalf of Wikiproject Golf for adding several images to Woods's page. His page needed more images, and the ones you provided are fantastic. Keep it up! Supertigerman (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
John Benjamin Murphy
Hi Triple-T. I posted a note at Talk:John Benjamin Murphy. Also, check out Murphy drip, which was on the Main Page today. For the life of me, I could not find anything that indicated when the Murphy drip became invented/associated with J.B. Murphy. I found references mentioning the drip back as far as 1923, but I think it was more around 1902. It's driving me nutz, so if you run across the date, please add it to the article. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:Chicago tagging
Hey there. Note sure if you knew this or not so I thought I'd let you know. CWii, the bot owner who was supposed to do the new tagging for WP:CHICAGO has left Wikipedia. I would be more than happy to set something up to run for you. I just want to make sure I'm clear with what's going on before running around like a headless chicken (really a bloody nasty mess!).
Auto-assess articles based on assessments from other projects.
Do you want the whole set: FL, FA, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, Template, Category, List, ect.?
Running every few days can't happen with my schedule. (Sorry) But weekly, or twice a week should be able to happen.
If you're not interested sorry for taking up all of this space. You can see my bot's userpage at §hepBot. Hope this helps! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
What size of a run are we talking about? 100 articles, 50, 200? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at Stepshep's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The SI Swimsuitissue templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you — Resolute 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Your Ancient and Most Honored Conquering Majesty, well done. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:List of tallest buildings in the United States
Yes, One Museum Park should be listed in the main tallest buildings list, as it is topped out. But I am a little confused; were you asking me to add it? Because you added it a few days ago. Or were you just asking for clarification purposes? Another question: for LOTD candidates, are spaces included in the "500 characters or less" rule? Cheers, Rai•me 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Adminship?
Are you looking to be an admin? If so, i'd be happy to nominate you at RFA.--LAAFan 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Thomas Wilcher
Hi, there is no need to notify me about GA progress. I watch all GA pages. Cheers. GaryKing (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Washington, D.C.
Hi! Thanks for your message re: Washington, D.C. I wish I were on Wikipedia when the article was under GAR! That might have saved some time and effort going through the renomination process!
As for the length of the article, I actually shortened it (I moved more information to each of the individual subtopic articles). I was just going by the guideline to keep the articles of this importance to around the 100k mark... I was thinking about it this way: If New York City, a major commercial capital with 14x the population of D.C., is only around 116k, then D.C. is probably maxing out around 100k! However, if you think the article should be expanded, did you have any particular subject areas in mind?
As for citations, I'll go back through and find citations for every paragraph... at the moment, that only seems to apply to a handful of paragraphs. I can certainly make a reference from the National Park Service that says "The following monuments are located on the National Mall..." but I was sticking pretty close to the WP:PROVEIT "likely to be challenged" guidelines. I'm not sure somebody would actually challenge the fact that the Washington Monument is on the Mall, but they might? Any detailed suggestions you have for making this a feature article candidate would be really helpful! Thanks again for your help. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Re; Rob Pelinka
GAN changed the review format for how articles are reviewed, leading to confusion. The review is located at Talk:Rob Pelinka/GA1. Wizardman 22:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for ur update. NO rush anymore, i have adequate analysis results of photo credits for NHL pics, nation-wide, for what i needed today. Take ur time with the Chicago pics, too. Cheers, doncram (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
, see Talk:A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
