User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 30
 | 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. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
AfD nomination of United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009
An article that you have been involved in editing, United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009. Thank you. —Markles 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for DeShawn Sims
|
On 1 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article DeShawn Sims, 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. |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravecky (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Rockwell
Hey, I'm sorry Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) didn't go well. I thought you were making good progress with the FAC. After I saw it, I realized it's been a while since you tried an RFA. Do you still have any interest in running that other gauntlet? Happy new year, too! Gimmetrow 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- RFA isn't just about vandals. Would any admin tools help you maintain articles or manage WP:Chicago? Gimmetrow 06:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The second and third paragraphs in the Legal issues section are probably about the same case—Hansberry v. Lee. Though I can not read ref [6]. However two other cases that preceded Hansberry v. Lee may deserve attention: Burke v. Kleiman (decided in the Illinois Supreme Court in 1934) and Corrigan v. Buckley (dismissed by the US Supreme Court in 1926 for the want of jurisdiction). The Burke v. Kleiman is the most interesting case, because a plaintiff in it was Olive Ida Burke, who was the wife of Mr. Burke—a defendant in Hansberry. Corrigan is also interesting, because the covenants started to proliferate after the Supreme Court upheld their constitutionality by dismissing this lawsuit (see [1] for details). Ruslik (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Re:Jennifer Brunner GAR
Wow... how is it not apparent that the peeps at GAR do not find any POV? I mean, that's heir #1 problem! In fact, after reading the GAR, I think I was too kind on the review. The peeps said it all, but I will add a little something to it. Leujohn (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you assuming that I have no intent to help the article? I hope you don't. By the way, I don't even live in USA. Leujohn (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Featured topic - articles to be expanded
Hey Tony,
Hope your New Years and Christmas were merry and bright. Taking a look at Washington Park Court District, hmm. We need this, I think its the landmark nomination or documentation, which would have some info on things of an architectural nature most assuredly. Can you get that? From the Landmark Commission maybe? If you can, and then scan it in and email it to me, I could use it to expand the article. I am finding some info, I think, on Google Books. Give me a few minutes to look some of what I am finding over and I will compile some sources on the article's talk page. I will also see what I can do about Schulze Baking Company Plant, I should be able to dig up some good info on that one. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the bot that covers Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Article alerts offline?
It doesn't appear this page is being updated regularly do we know if the bot who maintains it might be offline, not working etc. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ya i wasn't quite sure if that was normal or not, im not much of a bot expert. Anyways thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Did You Know question
Hello! Your submission of Washington Park Court District at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Pam
Thanks for adding the image of Pam, my homegirl, peaceMrShamrock (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Jack Kemp FAC
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Fort Dearborn move
The Fort Dearborn article was moved yesterday without discussion. I've put out a request to have it moved back to its original location. As you've edited the Fort Dearborn article in the passed, please weigh in on the discussion on the current Fort Dearborn talk page. Shsilver (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this edit cram the "edit" button on your computer?
(Here?) On mine, the "edit" button is directly to the left of the column with the two templates. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- How about now? Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:fixBunching says stacking templates causes some browsers to experience "bunched up and dislocated section edit links (normally some of these will be displaced down the page—frequently well down the page— and several will occur on the same line)."(!) So whenever templates are stacked we should remember to avail ourselves of this handy fix. It says its "fixBunching" name and discreet placement "prevents its being overlooked" (compared to the curlybeginningbracket-pipe, pipe-template, pipe-hyphen, pipe-template, pipe-curlyendbracket, going down the line when using instead wikitable markup). Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The offending edit was here. Thx for making note of the problem (and I'll include a hidden note in the edit this time). ↜Just me, here, now … 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Blowout (sports)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Blowout (sports)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Blowout (sports), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Already in wikitionary. I see no need for a separate article for this word.
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. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 07:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Quick question
Hi there, I was wonder what the reason for changing Election Day to election day? Is it being used as a different part of speech? Sorry for what is probably a stupid question but I have no clue. Thanks and Here's the Diff §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Sorry for bugging you. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Washington Park Court
Would you happen to have a photograph of the sign I could draw from? If not, I can estimate it based on the Rush St. one, but I'm not sure how accurate it would be. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The sign you photographed is actually pretty interesting in itself. There are several versions of the FHWA road sign font, designated with a letter; earlier in the alphabet means the letters are thinner, while later in the alphabet the letters are wider. (See FHWA Series fonts for examples.) Turns out your sign seems to have been made with FHWA Series A font, which was pulled from active use decades ago because it was so narrow it was difficult to read. Of course, that means it wasn't in my font set, so I tried to simulate it by using Series B and condensing the space between letters. I hope it is close enough for your liking. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Saxbe fix in the GA list(s)
Originally you've submitted it under politics and government, so I've first added it to that section of the giant GA list after passing it, but constitutional law is perhaps more appropriate, so I've put it there too. I don't know if this is likely to cause any problems (e.g. double counting by bots). Please fix as necessary. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Washington Park Subdivision
|
|
On January 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Washington Park Subdivision, 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. |
--Dravecky (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Michelle
Hey Tony - hope my edit summaries from last night didn't sound snippy - I was just trying to pack info into a too short space, way too late at night. Also hope you saw my comment on the talk page - more than happy to talk about it all. Looking forward to continuing to work with you to improve this article - we're going to have lots of good sources and I am certain a wealth of quality material to add as this next phase begins. Cheers Tvoz/talk 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Julius Franks
The article Julius Franks 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:Julius Franks for things needed to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks a lot better now; I have passed the article. WRT the other two articles, I will look at them tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Washington Park Court District
|
|
On January 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Washington Park Court District, 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. |
Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
GANs...
Hi Tony! Thanks for the note on my talk page :) I don't remember doing any football articles, but I could have just forgotten; I'll have to take a look through my archives! Yes, I tend to bounce around quite a bit - makes things more interesting that way. I stopped reviewing for a while and didn't realize what a large backlog had built up - right now I'm trying to work my way through a bunch of the articles that are still there from November and early December...no matter what the subject... I'm working my way down the Social sciences and society list right now, so I should get to your politics articles in a few days unless someone else grabs them first. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Schulze Baking Company Plant
|
|
On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schulze Baking Company Plant, 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. |
Royalbroil 04:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- We are forced to manually update because the DYK bot is broken. The original programmer left and Nixeagle was nice enough to take the bot. After it was turned over to Nixeagle, it developed bugs which are being worked on. Royalbroil 04:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Barnstar
Thanks. I appreciate your appreciation --Eliyak T·C 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
GA review of Byron Brown
Hello - I have reviewed Byron Brown, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:
- The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article. In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
- In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
- The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Great to hear - there's no hurry from my end, and I'm not one to adhere rigidly to the "seven days" thing. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I actually just had another look at my review, and was surprised by the tone - I think I must have been tired and cranky when I wrote it, for which I apologize. So please do take note of the points I raise, but I'd appreciate it if you'd imagine me raising them in a less dick-like manner. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've finally finished going back through the article—apologies for the delay. It's almost ready, and there are just a few more points that need addressing. As well, you should probably update the senatorial stuff, since he's obviously no longer a potential appointee to replace Clinton; I won't hold up the GA over that, since that would basically amount to penalizing the article for my slowness, but it should be done at some point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I didn't even know that existed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've finally finished going back through the article—apologies for the delay. It's almost ready, and there are just a few more points that need addressing. As well, you should probably update the senatorial stuff, since he's obviously no longer a potential appointee to replace Clinton; I won't hold up the GA over that, since that would basically amount to penalizing the article for my slowness, but it should be done at some point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I actually just had another look at my review, and was surprised by the tone - I think I must have been tired and cranky when I wrote it, for which I apologize. So please do take note of the points I raise, but I'd appreciate it if you'd imagine me raising them in a less dick-like manner. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A-class medal
|
The Milhist A-Class medal | |
|
For prolific work on Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Bob Chappuis and Elmer Gedeon, in December 2008 and January 2009, you are hereby awarded the military history A-Class medal by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations and keep up the hard work! JonCatalán(Talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
License tagging for File:Self-portrait as the black Jimmy Connors in the finals of the New Negro Escapist Social and Athletic Club Summer Tennis Tournament.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Self-portrait as the black Jimmy Connors in the finals of the New Negro Escapist Social and Athletic Club Summer Tennis Tournament.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Jack Kemp infobox
Hello! I have started a discussion about using "1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee" as part of the Jack Kemp infobox. I'm interested in your take. Thanks. Hekerui (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I won't be supporting Jack Kemp for FA status; if the 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee thing, is placed in the Infobox. That'll be my stand on all those biography articles, when they're recommended for FA status. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Community areas tfd
I am just trying to figure out this tfd, and would like to know your views on {{Infobox Settlement}}. According to the nominator there is only 7 instances of this occurring in article space. But there seems to be another infobox showing up in neighborhoods like Clearing that doesn't seem to be either of the two. In fact these occur in roughly half of the neighborhood articles. Is this one of the infoboxes being discussed or something else. Because if this is another infobox then a lot of time would be consumed changing articles over to {{Infobox Settlement}}. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- So in that case if they deleted Community areas, then I am guessing we would have to change these longhand infoboxes to better correspond with the {{Infobox Settlement}} that they want the Community area ones changed to. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Greeting from Dwarf
Please lend me your "ears":
I was very impressed by the achievements you boast - good articles, FA's. I don't think the Jack Kemp FAC is the first time that we have met. I don't know what you think of me, but I am certainly not as much a part of wikipedia as you are. Whatever arbitration powers I have in FAC are insignificant except insofar as my claims are accurate (that's the way it's supposed to work, at least).
I am conflicted about whether I should support the FA Candidature of your article, I find it's writing quality good, with the perhaps final exception of some organizational issues (which are very important by the way) like the way paragraphs are organized. One paragraph that really stood out for example started on one subject and then went on to talk about a country club and possible corruption regarding it.
I like the article. I think it's very good. I feel that the change from "gay rights" to "gay rights including the of openly gay teachers to teach" was beneficial. I feel like a similarly beneficial change could be enacted for the civil rights legislation part. I especially feel that Jack Kemp's effort should not be easily confused as the efforts of anti-segregation speakers, since segregation legislation was a very important part of civil legislation which was defeated before he ever took office. In part the problem could be related to the lack of coverage of civil legislation, especifically in wikipedia, of post-segregation civil rights legislation, as that makes it difficult to relate the events...
Please lend me your thoughts.--Kiyarrlls-talk 06:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- After much deliberation I have decided to support the candidateship of Jack Kemp to FA, only to discover that in that time it had been withdrawn. Please let me know the next time it is nominated. Thank you for your thoughts.--Kiyarrlls-talk 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of an expansion? It is just 19 characters short of meeting the 1500 minimum characters of readable prose criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm using the semi-official prosesize.js script tool to count the characters. That one doesn't count the ref numbers because they are the result from including material inside ref tags (material that is fully discounted in every allowable method). - Mgm|(talk) 19:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see comments there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Kemp
I'll try to give it a look later this week - you want it to be higher or lower priority than looking at the changes you made to Byron Brown? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd hoped to, but the time I'd allocated to do it didn't materialize. I'll resume right away. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Dolekemp1996.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Dolekemp1996.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Jack Kemp & the others
Hiya Tony. My point is this, if we add 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee to Kemp's Infobox. Then we'd have to add Republican congressional nominees, HUD Secretary Nominee etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've got Nav box gripes, there. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:0871516.jpg
File:0871516.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Jack Kemp, Joanne, Judith.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Jack Kemp, Joanne, Judith.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Bizarrely named ref citations
Why do several of the ref citations you added to the Barack Obama inauguration araticle have such opaque names, as indicated here, and here.
Are you using some kind of editor aid that creates random names such as: "AFtsaOi" and "AVGttPIoBO"? Naming refs in this manner impairs the ability of a subsequent editor to have a memorable nmemonic when tracking down the source article citations.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see. My own (nearly unique) convention is something like: ref name = "journal-author_last-yyyy-mm-dd". This way, especially in an article with a lot changing editorial attention, it's easy to track down the specific article cited at a glance, and connect it to (reader visible version of) the references. Useful if the same journalist is repeatedly cited over the course of months on some hot topic.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Blowout (sports)
|
|
On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blowout (sports), 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. |
--Dravecky (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned your awesome work
I mentioned your awesome work here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Deletion_wars:_I_propose_a_novel_solution Please comment if you care too. travb (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)}}
Jack Kemp and the Greatest Game Ever Played
Assuming you're talking about this edit, I removed it because I didn't see how it was worth mentioning in Jack Kemp when the previous sentence indicated that Kemp didn't actually appear on field for the Giants at any point during the season - I'm sure there were lots of interesting things that happened to the Giants that year on the field, but since Kemp wasn't a part of any of them my view is that they don't need to be mentioned in his article. As I noted in this edit, I have no objection to my copyediting being wholly or partially reverted. In my view, the article's more FA criteria-compliant without that bit, but it's not a huge deal either way. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of DuSable Museum of African American History
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article DuSable Museum of African American History 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. – Ms. Sarita Confer 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry that the review is taking so long. I've been going through a personal crisis and it may not be complete until the end of the weekend. I'll keep you posted. Thank you for your patience. – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder: There's still one more thing to take care of in the review. I did respond to you on my talk page but I'm not sure if you saw it. The last thing is listed in the "Prose" section, at the very top. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any more questions. – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have passed the article. Thank you for your patience throughout the review. Keep up the good work. – Ms. Sarita Confer 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Chicago Barnstar needs repair
Just wanted to make sure you knew that the image for the Template:ChicagoBarnstar was removed by a bot and needs fixing. Thanks for your help! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Next Big Sound
|
|
On January 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Next Big Sound, 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. |
Dravecky (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about the AfD. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 14:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it is yet appropriate to nominate this article for good article status, per quick-fail criterion 5, current event with set end date. Don't you think you should at least wait a couple days, especially with unresolved issues such as attendance numbers and Kennedy's illness? -RunningOnBrains 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I personally would wait about a week, but your point about GAs taking forever is valid. Just be ready to defend against an over-eager reviewer questioning the article's stability. Good luck!-RunningOnBrains 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
←Userfied to User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's first 100 days :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
License tagging for File:20080120 Washington Convention Center Inaugural Ball Sign.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:20080120 Washington Convention Center Inaugural Ball Sign.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Rashid Johnson
|
|
On January 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rashid Johnson, 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. |
Dravecky (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
ITN
|
On 20 January, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page. |
Since you are the article creator, highest-edit count editor and nominator, it's hard to choose one of the credits. I guess this one will be ok. Greetings and looking forward for cooperation in the future. --Tone 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama / MLK Day of Service =
You asked: "The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day that President Obama used as a Day of Service was sort of part of the inauguration week activities. Does it belong in the article?"
- I think so. I just created a new section for "Pre-Events" on Obama's inauguration page, so that is a good place to add it. Best wishes. Aaron charles (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
GA: Steve Morrison
Can you provide me a link with the difference of the edits? I can't seem to find the specific time when you started re-expanding the article.--TRUCO 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you understood my comment, I know where to find the history. I checked it and I see a lot of edits, and I'm unsure where you began re-expanding the article after I passed the GAN. So can you provide me the external link to the difference of edits.--TRUCO 21:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I made a general copyedit for prose and MOS issues, if you have any questions about those changes I made, feel free to ask. I read through it and it looked up to standards. When it is available, I would look into finding a free image of him for his infobox. Best, --TRUCO 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Fountain of Time
Hello! Your submission of Fountain of Time at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mgm
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 05:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Sabre fix
Neither Justia nor Findlaw has those opinions. ussc template should not be used. The reason for this is less clear. Probably, those cases are not considered significant. Ruslik (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- They are not important because the Supreme Court did not decide any constitutional question. Those case were among many thousands that SC declines every year in the similar fashion. Ruslik (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. You are preaching to the choir about sources. And that's why I noted it in the discussion. Nice job on the article, BTW. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Stan
Saxbe fix
Tony: I'm not ready to strike my oppose yet, but I was working on the Franklin Knight Lane article and I came across this: go to page 69 which I'm sure you'll fall on with glad cries!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
FA nomination for Saxbe fix
Sorry I haven't been around much lately, I've been busy with other things both on WP and in real life. I will try to add some more stuff to the articles tomorrow. --Eastlaw talk · contribs 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Text of ineligibility clause
I realize that the article does quote the text elsewhere, but, to my mind, it seems incongruous to declare that any analysis begins with the text and then to fail to quote the text, relying on the reader going elsewhere (even elsewhere in the article). While I might agree that it would be overkill if the text was lengthy, we're not talking about reprinting ERISA here. Quoting one clause - a single sentence - hardly distends the article, and I think would greatly aid lay reader comprehension. Simon Dodd (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tony, apologies, I'd meant to hit your talk page to say I'd headed over to the nomination, but time got away from me; that was bad wikiquette on my part. At any rate, as to the points you pose: Bloggingheads isn't a blog. The point for which it was cited is that Jack Balkin thinks Clinton was ineligible, and I posted a link to a video of Jack Balkin saying in as many words, in full context, that he doesn't think she's eligible. That's about as reliable a source as can possibly be imagined. As to lazy reference, I have no idea what you mean. I added two references, one of which was the Balkin link, which required no additional description, and the other of which, the Tushnet reference, is cited normally, with the exception that it seems overkill to follow the bluebook to the point of using smallcaps in this instance. And no, I didn't mean conservative! Are you kidding? Mark Tushnet and Jack Balkin are liberal law professors! That's the point - to demonstrate that it isn't just conservatives who have said she is ineligible. You'll understand if I change that back immediately per WP:BLP. Simon Dodd (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cutting the mustard was my own phrasing; it seems a concise and vivid way to put the point that the argument fails. I don't think that there is any wikipedia policy that bans the use of idiom, is there? Simon Dodd (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Literalism
Also, when you have a moment, could we address the issue I raised on the talk page following your revert? Simon Dodd (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Will do.Simon Dodd (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to your improvements and comments I've passed DeShawn Sims. I hope you'll continue to contribute by improving more articles and take the time to review a couple dozen of the backlog ;)--Crossmr (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Byron
Table looks much better, I've supported now jimfbleak (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you answer my question at DYK. - Mgm|(talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced articles
To promote my discussion WP:IRE, I'm trying to get people to reference unreferenced articles. To that end, I've put up a reward on the Wikipedia:Reward board for anyone who references a fully unreferenced article from the Category:All articles lacking sources (or three articles that meet the DYK criterion of 1500 readable prose characters). Since you write a lot of DYK entries, you know as no other how important references are. Could I convince you to take a shot at this and earn a shiny barnstar? - Mgm|(talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Mayoral election results
How could they not be in the public record? No Buffalo media reported the results? That seems extraordinary to me. Anyway, do they mail these out to anybody who asks (or, failing that, anybody who asks and pays the required fee)? If so, I'd call that publication of a sort, and I think it should clear WP:PRIMARY. I'd say source it as something like Results of the 2005 Buffalo mayoral election, Buffalo Board of Elections, 2005. The might just be my view, though; worst case scenario you can leave it out, though I can see why you wouldn't want to do that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Theoretically, you don't need to reference unless it's something that might be challenged, but at FAC that's not the real world. I agree that it's strange that election results are not on the state or media websites. The choices are
- leave out the ref and hope no-one notices
- put personal communication from... which is what a proper journal would do
- add to above email available fro forwarding if required
- Personally I'd opt for plan 1 (that's how my FAs get through!) but 3 might be more sensible - it's not WP:OR to get info via email, as I did with Pamela C. Rasmussen - some of the bio nitty gritty was sent to me by her jimfbleak (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Fountain of Time
|
|
On January 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fountain of Time, 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. |
Dravecky (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|
|
On 30 January, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Rod Blagojevich corruption charges, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 11:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats. It is extremely rare that an article makes it to both DYK and ITN. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Jennifer Brunner
Hi Tony -
That's fine - I'll just wait a couple of days. It actually works out fine; my laptop died last night so I now have limited access to a desktop until it's fixed (or I buy a new one, oh joy). Thanks for the note, though. Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Blago
Hi,
I was surprised you reverted my Blago modification where I shoved the crazily-long intro into a "Summary" section. The new lead already abides by WP:LEAD, whereas after your revert, the lead is again 15 times as long as it ought to be, full of detail. Tempshill (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's supposed to have "no more than four paragraphs" - a single paragraph is fine. In this case it would be far better than the current page-long intro. Tempshill (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Got it. As it says, that's a general guideline, and I think when "they" (meaning, whoever wrote that table) was trying to generalize, they assumed a long article was about a large and expansive topic, like World War 2. This article is about a criminal investigation and there's no need at all for a page-long introduction. Tempshill (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're arguing that we should be slaves to a number that was proposed as a "general guideline", instead of our using any actual judgment here. On an article about a single criminal investigation, the lead can be a single paragraph and convey to the user 100% of what they expect to read in a lead. Tempshill (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Jack Kemp
Hi Tony. I read at the Jack Kemp Peer Review that the pre-1981 NYT archive is not accessable for you. Well I have great news, I have discovered a way to access the entire NYT archive for free! Each article's url contains what I call a res code. For example, the url for the preview of "Dahomey Transfers Power Peacefully"' is (res code in bold):
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0712F9355A137B93CAA9178ED85F468785F9
You can access the entire artcle by simply plugging the res code after http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=. For example, the Dahomey Transfers full article is at (res code again in bold)
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=FA0712F9355A137B93CAA9178ED85F468785F9
Hope this helps. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)