text:
User talk:Howcheng/Archive9
- 1 Re: Submarine Escape Immersion Suit
- 2 Thanks for rewriting the blurb
- 3 Kuppalli DYK
- 4 Characters of Final Fantasy VIII
- 5 Hook
- 7 Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers
- 10 Flickr licensing
- 11 NRHP collaboration
- 12 DYK Bodawpaya
- 13 AfD
- 14 Thank you...
- 15 FPC reshooting
- 16 Riverside Hotel (Reno)
- 17 U.S. Roads Inactivity notification
- 18 Updating DYKs
- 20 Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg
- 21 POTD notification
- 22 Dipute settlement in the WTO
- 23 2007 Transaviaexport Cargo Airline Ilyushin Il-76 airplane crash DYK nom
- 24 Re: DYK
- 25 For all you've put into DYK
- 26 Haters DYK
- 27 Killer whale FPC
- 28 Hey Titanic Wreckage FP
- 29 Missa Papae Marcelli
- 30 Asahi Shimbun controversy
- 31 DYK:Cebeci Asri Cemetery
- 32 DYK Polish Armed Forces in the East
- 33 Re: Pic Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff
- 34 Tillamook Cheddar (dog)
- 35 Flocabulary in DYK
- 38 Vandalism Warning
- 39 Sarathambal
- 40 Mexican Wolf POTD
- 41 Kupa Synagogue
- 43 Requesting License Info
- 44 Milton Balkany
- 45 Template:POTD/2007-05-07
- 46 Re:Meat Eater Ant
- 47 Expired noms on DYK template
- 48 Random Smiley Award
- 49 DYK John Billings
- 50 Wikification of Sphere Project
- 51 Lucjan Dobroszycki
- 52 Plenty of DYK nominations
- 53 DYK Ballad (music)
- 54 Mind Dynamics
- 55 Rats In The Grain
- 56 Holiday Magic
- 57 DYK Error
- 58 Did you know x 3
- 59 GA on hold
- 60 Generic antecedents
- 61 re: POTD
- 62 Mind Dynamics DYK
- 63 Thanks
- 64 Polyglot (webzine)
- 65 David Lewis DYK
- 66 Timestamp
- 68 Kosigrim-Eighteen Songs of a Nomad Flute
- 69 Thanks
- 70 The Contenders (band) cleanup?
- 71 Curious
- 73 Image delete javascript tools
- 74 Cover picture
- 75 The Mather School DYK
- 76 Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.
- 77 Double DYK
- 78 Vilpatti DYK
- 79 Światło pic
- 80 Translational motion animation
- 81 Interested in hosting a bot?
- 82 Triple crown
- 83 Update
- 84 DYK x 2
- 85 For your Skills
- 86 Image
- 87 Template:POTD/2007-05-06
- 88 Jacqui Oatley - Thank You!
- 89 Av. Diagonal
- 90 Collegium Novum
- 91 Beale's Cut
- 92 Image of Naseem Ashraf
- 93 Thank your for the DYK
- 95 delete
- 97 Unspecified Images
- 98 DYK, de Orto
- 100 Image:Gromovb.jpg
- 101 Otto Natzler
- 102 Image - Linda Bement
- 103 Jeff Fox
- 104 So how to get rid of a useless article?
- 106 Wikipedia and Censorship: One and the same
- 107 Eviscerated Zombie Tampon
- 108 The Bronze Horseman
- 109 Erg (landform)
- 110 Image:SewardHwy MooseXing.jpg
- 111 Union Stock Yards GA
- 112 Your DYK nomination for On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis was successful
- 113 Limburger cheese FP
- 115 Reindeer
- 116 deletion of an image
- 117 Just to bring your attention to something...
- 119 DYK questions
- 120 Better source request for Image:Calship_Burner_By_Edna_Reindel.jpg
- 121 Ygnacio
- 123 DYK Monument of Liberty, Istanbul
- 124 DYK Duraiappah stadium mass grave
- 125 An image you uploaded
- 127 Edward F. Boyd
- 128 A DYK issue
- 129 Pileated Woodpecker at Indian Grinding Stone State Historical Park
- 130 MainPage balance
- 131 The Daily Advertiser
- 132 Vandalism at Japanese American internment
Re: Submarine Escape Immersion Suit[edit]
Thanks for the notice about the "Did you know" article for the Submarine Escape Immersion Equipment. You might want to change the wording slightly, referring to the U.S. Navy. The SEIS is actually used by several Western navies, not just the U.S. Navy. In fact I need to update the article to explain that. ●DanMS • Talk 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for rewriting the blurb[edit]
Your revision of the Eurosia DYK got the blurb on the front page, which wouldn't have happened otherwise. Thank you for the effort and generosity in helping to correct my work. I'm still kind of new around here and am grateful for all you and the other people at the DYK have done to help he along. Thanks again. John Carter 14:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Kuppalli DYK[edit]
Can you please look into this? Thanks. - KNM Talk 04:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there were any objections to this DYK nom in particular; it's just that we had too many from 12 March that we couldn't use all of them, that's all. Also, it doesn't help that this excess happened on a weekend when there were fewer people to do updates. Really, there were only three updates in the last 24 hours, when there should be four (I happened to do them all too, and I gotta sleep sometime). Sorry yours just didn't get picked. howcheng {chat} 05:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. But is it too late to be still considered for the next-update? I believe, not. Can you please put into next-update? - KNM Talk 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- According to the rules, it's too late now. Your expansion on the 13th was not five-fold. If it had originally been a stub and you expanded it a lot, I would say yes, but ... I feel bad because two of the ones that are on the Main Page now were my own noms (please note I didn't move them into the Next Update page myself), but if I put it up now, others will complain that it's too old and that it's taking the place of another nom that should be getting its chance. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. But is it too late to be still considered for the next-update? I believe, not. Can you please put into next-update? - KNM Talk 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Characters of Final Fantasy VIII[edit]
Replied on the template talk page. — Deckiller 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind, I fixed my "hook" on DYK and consolidated the comments, but left a note that I was using your alternate one. Thanks again! Yours, Smee 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
I think it was wrong of you to change today's picture slot of WP:DYK because of copyright concerns regardíng Image:Муромцев.jpg. The photo was taken more than 100 years ago, and has been in the public domain for many, many, years. I'd like to ask you to revert your change. Camptown 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but per WP:IUP all images require a source and a license. Without a source, there is no way for us to verify that the picture is what it says it is and that the license is valid. How do I know that this image isn't from the 1950s for example? I'm not about to put an image on the Main Page where the source and/or licensing is uncertain. howcheng {chat}
Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers[edit]
Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not a photographer. Do I have any images at User:TonyTheTiger/Photographs that may be WP:FP worthy? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- If my question was a little unruly I could limit my request to Image:IMG 0837.JPG, an early construction photo of Trump Tower Chicago and Image:20061022 Cornell Stone Hyde Park.JPG, a photo of the Paul Cornell (Chicago) stone. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think any of your photos has FP written on it. The Trump Tower shows the windowsill of where you are standing in the lower left, and the stone is kind of boring (besides having a distracting background). FPs are not easy to do, unless you are an accomplished photographer or very very lucky. I think out of all the photos I've ever taken, only a few are even possible FP candidates (and even then, they're all on film so I'm not nominating them here). howcheng {chat} 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I presume you mean the black triangle in the lower right. Couldn't that be cropped out without much loss? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think any of your photos has FP written on it. The Trump Tower shows the windowsill of where you are standing in the lower left, and the stone is kind of boring (besides having a distracting background). FPs are not easy to do, unless you are an accomplished photographer or very very lucky. I think out of all the photos I've ever taken, only a few are even possible FP candidates (and even then, they're all on film so I'm not nominating them here). howcheng {chat} 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
--Smee 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know, I had written the initial nom, but you helped fix it, so thank you! Yours, Smee 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Flickr licensing[edit]
I have become increasingly uncomfortable with my personal photos being available under a free license, thus I have changed the Flickr default. I will license pretty much any Flickr photo of mine under any free license someone wishes, the exception being photos of people I personally know. If it is a photo of a non-human subject, you can assume that it is available under GFDL and CC-By-SA without having to ask. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
NRHP collaboration[edit]
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places current collaboration}} IvoShandor 06:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
DYK Bodawpaya[edit]
Thanks Howard. Is Bodawpaya in the Guinness Book of Records , I don't know? I just wondered. Wagaung 08:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I searched the Guinness World Records site for Bodawpaya but didn't find anything, so I'm guessing probably not. howcheng {chat} 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I was in the midst of adding Catalina cruz to the AfD for Catalina Cruz when you closed the latter. Is there an easy way to either add it to the existing AfD or should I speedy it? Thanks! --Mhking 15:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can't G4 it because it's somewhat expanded from the first time I speedied it (it was a one-sentence article at the time: "Catalina Cruz is a porn star"), and I don't know if it's A7-able either. The way it's listed now as a 2nd nomination AFD works just fine. howcheng {chat} 16:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I finally figured it out. (rolling eyes) Thanks for the heads up.... --Mhking 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you...[edit]
... for your nom suggestion. I hope you don't mind, I incorporated your suggestions directly into the nom, and credited you for your helpful advice. Thanks again for your time! Yours, Smee 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
- Not at all. We've been lamenting the lack of really interesting hooks lately, so I've been making an effort to spice them up where I can. Glad to have been of service. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
FPC reshooting[edit]
Please revisit Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Timothy Blackstone Bronze Plaque and reconsider your vote. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Riverside Hotel (Reno)[edit]
Just to let you know I have tagged Riverside Hotel (Reno) for speedy deletion as a copy of http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/nevada/riv.htm. Pan Dan 17:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tag removed as it has been explained the source material is in the public domain. Pan Dan 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
U.S. Roads Inactivity notification[edit]
You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Updating DYKs[edit]
Thank you for the help with that. Don't forget to leave messages on article's talk as well as notify the creators/nominators to spread good feelings all around :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know, I sometimes can't get to it right when do the Main Page updates. For instance tonight, I was getting my kids up to bed and I planned to do the notifications afterwards, which isn't until now. howcheng {chat} 06:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
--Carabinieri 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Agassiz statue Mwc00715.jpg[edit]
Hey Howcheng, I noticed that the Agassiz picture is up for PotD next week, so I cleaned it up, something I wanted to do but never got around to during the FPC. If that's a problem feel free to revert. Btw, good choice for April 1, I hope it comes with an appropriately trumped-up caption... ~ trialsanderrors 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
POTD notification[edit]
Thanks for telling me. I'll look into the caption soon. · AO Talk 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay thank you, I'll do that one too. Is there another for me to check? ;) · AO Talk 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think this sentence sounds a bit awkward, or is it just me? The scene is of a busy street, but because the exposure time was over ten minutes, the city traffic was moving too much to appear.
- Maybe "The scene is of a busy street, but the city traffic does not appear due to the ten-minute long exposure time."
Dipute settlement in the WTO[edit]
Hello Howcheng,
Is there any reason why the DYK nom on Dispute settlement in the WTO is not getting selected for the next update? I had nominated this several days back (22nd March, to be specific), and just before it was about to get moved to next update, Bondkaka had commented on that hook, for which I responded back the moment I saw that comment. The article was still within 5 days of its creation, and certainly deserves DYK featuring. Can you please look into it? - KNM Talk 16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the time I did the next update, this was already in the expired section (in fact, that was done immediately after your response). Seems like an important article to have on DYK, so I'll move it into the next update. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2007 Transaviaexport Cargo Airline Ilyushin Il-76 airplane crash DYK nom[edit]
I have responded to your comments regarding this DYK nom at the suggestions page. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looking over the comments I wrote there, they seem a little.. well, rude and uncivil. So sorry about that. And thanks for this! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: DYK[edit]
Thanks. Aditya Kabir 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
For all you've put into DYK[edit]
- Moved to user page
Haters DYK[edit]
- (DYK)...that the Hilary Duff song "Haters" is rumored to be directed at actress Lindsay Lohan?
No big deal, and maybe you're just the person who puts these up and not the person(s) who select them, but reporting a rumor as a highlight of supposedly encyclopedic content might not be such a great idea in the future. 22.214.171.124 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the rumor was adequately cited in the article. The whole idea of the "fact" (or "hook" as we call it) is to try and get people to read the article. As long as we're not making stuff up ourselves, it works for me. howcheng {chat} 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Killer whale FPC[edit]
Hello. A Featured Picture Candidate you commented on, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf, is now in the section for "Older nominations requiring additional input from voters." Contributors have tried to improve it after you commented, and your opinion is welcome as to which, if any, of the available versions deserves promotion. I am sending this message to everyone who participated in the FPC. Thanks! Kla'quot 06:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Titanic Wreckage FP[edit]
I was wondering if we could reschedule the Titanic featured pic, for april 14, rather than May 2nd. It seems more logical to put it on a date that has significance to the subject
Missa Papae Marcelli[edit]
Hi...I was wondering whether or not this article was actually chosen for DYK?...it was deleted from the pages for consideration but is not listed on Recent Additions. If it hasn't, I'd like to relist it since it is still eligible for another day. Thanks. Chubbles 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Chubbles 17:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Asahi Shimbun controversy[edit]
Hi - I'm looking for an administrator that can read Japanese, which you seem to be. Can you weigh in on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Asahi_Shimbun ? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
DYK:Cebeci Asri Cemetery[edit]
Hi Howcheng! Thanks so much for your contribution. Happy wikiDYKediting! CeeGee 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
DYK Polish Armed Forces in the East[edit]
I replied at DYK page; I believe the article should be featured. Most of the content is new, and in my two years of DYK creations I have expanded various articles to DYK status, with and without splits, and never heards such an objection. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Pic Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff[edit]
Dear Howcheng, For further verification of copyrights, weather existing or not, I wrote the following letter to the Memorial to the German Resistance [1]:
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, in der englischen Version der Internet- Enzyklopädie "Wikipedia" habe ich mir erlaubt, einen Beitrag über Rudolf Christoph von Gersdorff zu schreiben. Dabei habe ich in Unkenntnis der Rechtslage die auf Ihrer Website verwendete Photographie desselbigen verwendet. Ich bin nun von so genannten Administratoren dieser Enzyklopädie darauf hingewiesen worden, dass es unbedingt erforderlich ist, einen zweifelsfreien Beleg dafür zu liefern, dass die Photographie rechtlich einwandfrei dort platziert werden darf. Ich denke, dass Sie mir prinzipiell zustimmen, dass von Gersdorff dort seinen Niederschlag finden sollte und dass zum Abrunden eine bildliche Darstellung nicht fehlen sollte. Da Sie diese Photographie in Ihrem Internet-Auftritt nutzen, können Sie mir sicherlich Auskunft darüber erteilen, wie ich mich richtig zu verhalten habe. Um eine derartige Auskunft möchte ich Sie hiermit freundlichst bitten. Hochachtungsvoll und mit freundlichen Grüßen signed Montréal, Qc, Canada 1-Apr-07
As soon as I receive any reply I shall inform you. Best regards --Dionysos 09:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Tillamook Cheddar (dog)[edit]
Hi, I wonder if you'd consider Tillamook Cheddar (dog) for a DYK article--or should I wait until I get a photo or two in there? Badagnani 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, but it can't be marked as a stub. Add it to the list of candidates at T:TDYK so that others can get a look too. howcheng {chat} 22:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for putting my article up for the next update! Her owner is excited. It will be up on the main page, I presume, early on Friday morning, for all to see. I'm very appreciative. Badagnani 06:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Flocabulary in DYK[edit]
An image which is freely licensed (for Wikipedia only; third party usage is still fair use) is now available for Flocabulary. I just wanted to let you know that this can be used if it is needed for the DYK, although you may not need it, or may object to it because it is still fair use for third parties. Either way, just an FYI. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia-only use is still fair use as far as we are concerned, but thanks for the note. howcheng {chat} 06:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
--ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
--ALoan (Talk) 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism Warning[edit]
Please don't delete discrete and applicable links to article Jesus within WikiProject:Christianity. Thank you. ClaudeReigns 07:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but are you actually calling this edit "vandalism"? Funny, how it hasn't been reverted yet, even though there have been nine edits since then (including one by you). And then you have the temerity to ask me that? Let me cite some relevant policies: WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, and WP:OWN. If you want to accuse someone of vandalism, be sure it actually IS vandalism before you do so. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for reverting with link to Jesus. ClaudeReigns 20:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my talk page and the nomination has given me future direction in Wikipedia. Thanks againRaveenS 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Mexican Wolf POTD[edit]
Hi Howcheng,
I just happened to be browsing Noclip's talk page and noticed the POTD notification for this image. I'd really appreciate it if in future you'd make sure that the creator of the promoted edit (in this case, me) is also notified of the promotion and POTD date - it's always nice to see your work on the main page (even if just an edit) and I almost missed this one. Please don't take this as a complaint; it's meant as a friendly request of a favour more than anything else. You do sterling work on POTD which is very much appreciated :-) All the best, --YFB ¿ 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- It hasn't been my policy to notify people are responsible for edits, but I suppose I can add that step. howcheng {chat} 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I wasn't sure if it was something you routinely did already; I had a 'your edit was promoted' notice from Veledan a while back, but for 2 subsequent ones (the Mexican Wolf and the Ypres 1917 image) only the nominator was informed. In some cases, though (I'm not suggesting this is one of them, particularly) an editor may have contributed more actual 'work' to a nomination than the nominator, especially where the original image isn't Wikipedian-created. I appreciate that this creates yet another task for the already over-burdened nomination-closer/POTD-compiler, so I'll leave it up to you. Thanks for considering it. --YFB ¿ 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Kupa Synagogue[edit]
Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out the Next Updates and updating the Main Page template recently, but, um, did you forget to do the user page notifications for this update? I'll do it now. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah you're right, I did forget. I got the article talk page updates, but not the user talk pages. Thanks for picking up my slack. howcheng {chat} 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Requesting License Info[edit]
Hi I saw your message on my talk page about licenses needing to meet a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA requirement. Before anything is done, I have looked at http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/, which does not say wikipedia is limited to these restrictions.
Before I upload anymore images, can you let me know where or how that is interpreted. The reason why I am asking is because I can easily fix the tag syntax. Otherwise, this is a cryptic info that no wikipedian would have guessed. A "hangon" sign has been put up on the images talk page for the time being. Thanks.
Benjwong 22:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Milton Balkany[edit]
Thank you Howcheng! But I dont see it on the main page - where should I be looking? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 08:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I also looked through the template history and the archives and I think it may have been accidentally not posted in the list of hooks, but put in the "credits" section so the notices were sent to the user pages and the talk page. Rigadoun (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! It's on the main page now. howcheng {chat} 16:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Good work! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone blatantly advertised on the above POTD. I blanked the page and just wanted to make sure if it had to be deleted. I decided not since its likely to be replaced with something soon anyway. 126.96.36.199 05:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up! I've left a note at the user's page. howcheng {chat} 06:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Re:Meat Eater Ant[edit]
Hi Howcheng,
I guess a more common name appears to be Meat Ant, we just call them meat eater ants where I come from. --Fir0002 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Expired noms on DYK template[edit]
I see you prepared the next template. Two noms from April 3 (Plaza Mayor, Trinidad, Cuba and The Century (building)) are up for the next update. Earliest time is 12.20 UTC, 9 April. Surely their nomination period has expired (6 days ago?). Including them isn't fair on other newer articles in the queue waiting to get a shot at being chosen. 126.96.36.199 09:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just for your information, I put this on the Main Page DYK error report area. "Actually an error in the DYK template. Two noms from April 3 (Plaza Mayor, Trinidad, Cuba and The Century (building)) are up for the next update. Earliest time is 12.20 UTC, 9 April. According to DYK rules, and I quote: "DYK is only for articles that have been created within the last 5 days." They were both created 6 days ago. Including them isn't fair on other newer articles in the queue waiting to get a shot at being chosen. What's the point in having rules if some admins decide not to apply them?" I shouldn't have to point you, as an admin, at the rules. 184.108.40.206 09:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern. The rules aren't binding, however. These two were from the April 3 group. In my estimation, there weren't going to be enough from the April 4 group to last the whole day, so I picked out two that had technically expired to make sure we didn't start siphoning off from future dates. howcheng {chat} 15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Random Smiley Award[edit]
- Moved to user page
DYK John Billings[edit]
Thanks for your help in getting the John Billings DYK up and running. Recurring dreams 06:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikification of Sphere Project[edit]
I am a bit puzzled why you tagged this for wikification as I thought that I carefully followed procedures. Could you please indicate what I need to do to correct it.Joel Mc 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I am posting the following query for a second time: I am a bit puzzled why you tagged this for wikification as I thought that I carefully followed procedures. Could you please indicate what I need to do to correct it.Joel Mc 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikification usually means the placement of internal links and the following of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For example, you shouldn't have external links right in the body of the text (like in the intro paragraph), you might want to link to more articles, and you probably shouldn't have footnotes in section headers. A request for wikification is not a knock on the article and will not qualify it for deletion. You can leave it there and someone on the wikification squad will come by and clean it up, or you can attempt to do it yourself. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is helpful.Joel Mc 07:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Lucjan Dobroszycki[edit]
Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of DYK nominations[edit]
Hi, thanks for informing me that when there are so many nominations, we can be more discriminating in picking articles. And good job with keeping up with the DYK updated. :) --Parker007 03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
DYK Ballad (music)[edit]
Hi! Got your message about Ballad (music) being blurbed on the main page's "Did you know?" section, which was an extremely pleasant surprise. Hopefully that will also attract a few editors to organizing/reconciling/improving/optimizing the various ballad articles. Thanks so much. —Turangalila talk 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- PS: I see you also help admin the whole DYK page (kudos); I didn't see my article on the nom page except in the bot-compiled list at the bottom, but if somebody else actually nominated the article or wrote the blurb, please let me know so I can give 'em a shout. Thanks again —Turangalila talk
- Actually, that was me. I saw it on the bot list and said to myself, "How did we not have an article about ballads???" Then I looked through the page histories and figured it out. Given that, this was certainly an article deserving of DYK status. howcheng {chat} 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I actually figured out later I could dig it up in the hist of the template talkpage...thanks again, that made my day, plus the visitors you generated ended up fixing my spelling errors! Go Arsenal...—Turangalila talk 07:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that was me. I saw it on the bot list and said to myself, "How did we not have an article about ballads???" Then I looked through the page histories and figured it out. Given that, this was certainly an article deserving of DYK status. howcheng {chat} 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Mind Dynamics[edit]
In the process of expanding the article from stub to its current state, I added citations from 26 sources, mostly books and scholarly articles from academic journals. Perhaps you could read through and see if you can think up a more interesting hook for DYK? As always, thank you for your time. Smee 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
- Any ideas? Smee 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- Suggestion added to T:TDYK. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I replaced it with your suggestion, and credited you as nom so there is no confusion there. You may also wish to check out hook for Holiday Magic, nom on 4/12. I added some more citations to the article and expanded it from a stub. Smee 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- Suggestion added to T:TDYK. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- User:Justanother, who has never before contributed or commented at DYK, is now being disruptive and violating WP:NPA, commenting on the contributor as opposed to content. Please note that in both the article Mind Dynamics and the article Holiday Magic I have worked painstakingly to back up every single fact and indeed virtually every single sentence with very reputable secondary sourced citations. Can you help out with this disturbing situation? Smee 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- Claiming WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL does not make it so. Claiming it repeatedly, without filing formal/official complaints and obtaining official/formal findings of WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL, in my opinion, becomes in itself a violation of WP:NPA, as it calls into question the integrity of the person being accused, without facts and without a formal determination or finding, and is thus an attack. Lsi john 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that is a relatively liberal reading of the NPA policy, although I will agree with you that Smee is claiming NPA when no personal attacks have been made. howcheng {chat} 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- My implication was, based on the criteria she uses to cry WP:NPA, her repeated cries, without formal reprimands, would also then conform to WP:NPA using similar logic. Lsi john 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- And, to explain some of my frustration by illustration, if I were Smee, (based on several of her posts) I would now say something like this :
I will agree with you that Smee is claiming NPA when no personal attacks have been made. -- Thank you very much for your neutral third party nom senior-editor opinion.
- Whereas, I prefer to say, thank you sir. Lsi john 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that is a relatively liberal reading of the NPA policy, although I will agree with you that Smee is claiming NPA when no personal attacks have been made. howcheng {chat} 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- another view
Howchen, thank you for your input, again, on the Mind Dynamics article. If you have the time and are willing, would you please go back into the history for that article. Please look at the lead after my last edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mind_Dynamics&diff=123639355&oldid=123638934 , before Smee's dozen reverts. I am interested in feedback on the version of the lead that was there before she reverted all the work that I did. Lsi john 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see the difference. Your lead is good, although a little bare, and I can see the influence on the current intro.
- Thank you. I agree that dry applies to my version, however imo dry is better than sensationalized. I believe her choice of wording helps lead the reader to form a conclusion about Mind Dynamics. The reader should be able to come to their own conclusions, without being helped by a choice of colorful words. Lsi john 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that, even though I personally objected to embroiled I left it in as a compromise. Lsi john 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Also note that she ignored the request in the comment to use TALK, and instead unilaterally made a rapid series of edits to revert the changes that had been made. Lsi john 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically, I believe that it is unnecessary to locate an author who used the word 'embroiled' and than also include his book title Self Realization: The Est and Forum Phenomena in American Society.
- I don't think "embroiled" has any negative connotations. It just means "involved in". howcheng {chat}
- Is it necessary? Does it add significant value to the article?
- Embroiled sensationalizes and combined with phenomenon in the title, adds to the sensationalizing. It isn't one word here or one word there that is at issue. The problem is a consistent undercurrent in these articles which seems to be designed to leave the unsuspecting reader with a bad taste for LGAT. It is only when taken as a whole that the psychological impact can be seen. Lsi john 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Her edit history documents that she only adds verbiage and terminology which put LGAT in a bad light.
- I don't think "embroiled" has any negative connotations. It just means "involved in". howcheng {chat}
- If Mind Dynamics was involved in pyramid schemes, then that information should be included. I'm not sure that its relevant to the article that some author said they were embroiled in pyramid schemes, and more irrelevant that the title of his book includes phenomena (which is unrelated to his usage of embroiled and also unrelated to this citation regarding Mind Dynamics. This seems to me to be an attempt to inject bias and and prejudice into the article, using WP:RS material.
- The fact that they were investigated is a matter of record and is a valid inclusion. By locating an author who used phenomena in his book title, and embroiled in his book, it adds an undue bias to the article. I do not know the specific facts or conclusion, but it may very well be that no charges were actually filed. In this possible case, overemphasizing with words like phenomena and embroiled leave the reader with an undue prejudice. The part I believe is sinister, is that such inclusions are in a multitude of articles which include the LGAT label, like a trail of bread crumbs leading the reader to conclude that LGAT is phenomena , embroiled in pyramid and thus the LGAT label becomes a label of evil and bad.
- "Phenomenon" can be used as a synonym. Repeated use of it can lead to bias you describe, but the word can also indicate something that has increased in popularity in a short span of time.
- Is it necessary, or constructive, to include something in an article, just because we are able to include it under the rules of WP:RS? Lsi john 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, Mind Dynamics is a fraudulent enterprise. Complaining that an article portrays them negatively is like saying that the Charles Manson article focuses too much on the Sharon Tate murders. If those same sources that Smee cites have more positive things to say about the company but s/he is ignoring them, then we have an NPOV violation. The other possible way to violate NPOV, and I believe this is what you're accusing Smee of (assuming I've understood this correctly), is to present the facts but using biased wording. In this case, you should be bold and simply rewrite Smee's entries, making sure to keep the facts (especially if they're sourced) and cleaning up the language. howcheng {chat}
- Mind Dynamics may very well have been fraudulent. That is not something I dispute. But the fact that Mind Dymanics was fraudulent has nothing specifically to do with LGAT. It is the fact that Smee is tying LGAT and bad together in every article she can. And then she ties LGAT to every company she can. She is WP:SPA using wiki to attack legitimate companies and bad companies together as one. Two articles have already been deleted, by not meeting wiki standards. The only thing in those articles were uncited LGAT propaganda in a subtle attempt to attack the companies. Lsi john 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The argument that Mind Dynamics is a forerunner of LGAT organizations is sourced and seems noteworthy to me, although I do note that the fraudulent activities the company allegedly engaged in is never really detailed. howcheng {chat} 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it then, appropriate, to include that information, especially in the header of the article? This speaks to my concerns that there is a subconscious psychological undercurrent at work, which adds a general bias to each article. The repeated inclusion of LGAT, making it significant simply by its repeated sourced references and the fact that LGAT plays such an overly important role in each of the separate articles. LGAT, if acknowledged, is merely a label for a type of training, with each author adding specific requirement for inclusion in the LGAT grouping. Making LGAT so predominant in each and every article, overshadows the significance of the companies themselves and is why I believe that the reader is unsuspectingly being 'led' to a desired conclusion. Lsi john 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The argument that Mind Dynamics is a forerunner of LGAT organizations is sourced and seems noteworthy to me, although I do note that the fraudulent activities the company allegedly engaged in is never really detailed. howcheng {chat} 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am bold, and she reverts. I ask for discussion and she reverts and posts in discussion 'stop removing sourced material'. She and I are in mediation now. She has been in mediation with a number of other editors. She refuses to allow anything neutral into an article until forced by third-opinion. She reverts rhetoric and colorful wording, until forced to remove it by third-opinion. I can be Bold, and then she reverts and claims 3RR and WP:NPA. Lsi john 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Her edit history shows that she only researches and only posts things which document LGAT negatively. This is why it is so easy to see the bad about Mind Dynamics. Did they do bad things? Certainly. Did they also accomplish good works and help individuals who took their courses? If so, you'd never hear that from Smee no matter how much documentation were to exist and she has resisted any attempt to add anything positive to the entire series of articles, even if documented and properly cited. Lsi john 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mind Dynamics may very well have been fraudulent. That is not something I dispute. But the fact that Mind Dymanics was fraudulent has nothing specifically to do with LGAT. It is the fact that Smee is tying LGAT and bad together in every article she can. And then she ties LGAT to every company she can. She is WP:SPA using wiki to attack legitimate companies and bad companies together as one. Two articles have already been deleted, by not meeting wiki standards. The only thing in those articles were uncited LGAT propaganda in a subtle attempt to attack the companies. Lsi john 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, Mind Dynamics is a fraudulent enterprise. Complaining that an article portrays them negatively is like saying that the Charles Manson article focuses too much on the Sharon Tate murders. If those same sources that Smee cites have more positive things to say about the company but s/he is ignoring them, then we have an NPOV violation. The other possible way to violate NPOV, and I believe this is what you're accusing Smee of (assuming I've understood this correctly), is to present the facts but using biased wording. In this case, you should be bold and simply rewrite Smee's entries, making sure to keep the facts (especially if they're sourced) and cleaning up the language. howcheng {chat}
I see now that Smee has pulled in another resource (DYK) to help push her pov. This is a pattern which is well documented and about which we are currently in mediation. Please do not allow DYK to be inappropriately used as a tool. Please take time to fully review her edits/contributions and methodology and uncover any patterns for yourself. I do not believe this can be resolved by looking at any single individual edit, as she can legally justify almost every edit she makes. The problem that I see is at a deeper level involving WP:SPA and pushing a POV using technically legal references. A single drop of water is a drop and is not noteworthy. A dripping faucet can waste thousands of gallons of water in a year and should be addressed. Lsi john 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- DYK is about focusing on new articles. You are free to challenge the DYK nominations by pointing out things like NPOV violations or factual inaccuracies, issues that if not resolved will prevent the article from getting a DYK appearance. SPA is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Smee may be a psychologist or a grad student in psychology whose focus of study is LGAT, in which case it's expected that his/her edits are on articles of this nature. You are also free to counter her edits by adding sourced material that challenges her POV. howcheng {chat} 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Therein lies the dilemma. The term LGAT was coined by and primarily used by the anti-cult community. There is no standard scientific definition. The term is not defined by the APA. Each author uses the term and either defines it themselves, references another author, or fails to define it entirely. It is a vague term, which imo makes it POV by definition. It is the POV of each author who uses the term. Without a rigid standard, any company can be cited as LGAT by any author. And, not being officially and universally defined, there is very little reason for authors to publish books which say LGAT is being used by anti-cult watchers with an agenda. Therefore, the term is self-fulfilling. Anti-cult community invented it to avoid using the word cult, then they publish about it and legitimize it, without formally defining it. And that gives Smee all the references she needs as well as the ability to legally resist any effort to document that the term is not properly defined.
- In once article, I attempted to inject that the term was defined by each author, and Smee (probably correctly) removed my edit saying that was WP:OR. In another article, I added that the term was loosely defined, and she also reverted that edit.
- The term is primarily used today on the Rick Ross forum, which is unusable, even as an illustration due to violation of WP:OR.
- The term isn't properly defined, but we cannot say that because nobody has said it in a book. Yet, unless an author specifically wanted to address this issue, there would be no reason to write a book just to say that LGAT isn't well defined.
- One way to get around this is if you can find varying definitions of LGAT, to put them in the article. "Users of the term do not always agree on the definition. Joe Schmoe of the University of Foo defines it as blah blah blah, whereas Joe Bloggs of Bar State University has a broader sense." howcheng {chat} 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is it appropriate to say "Ms ABC used the term without defining it" ? I have tried this and it gets reverted. I have tried saying the term is defined differently by different people, and referencing the material, without quoting it, and that too gets reverted. Lsi john 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- One way to get around this is if you can find varying definitions of LGAT, to put them in the article. "Users of the term do not always agree on the definition. Joe Schmoe of the University of Foo defines it as blah blah blah, whereas Joe Bloggs of Bar State University has a broader sense." howcheng {chat} 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- An anti-cult leader makes up a term and uses it in a rejected report APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (check history for LGAT inclusion and subsequent removal), and then wiki articles are written which cite the use/birth of the LGAT term in that report. When enough documentation is unearthed about the report and its rejection, they finally relent and stop reverting text and switch to contributing the source of LGAT to someone else.
- The term isn't properly defined, but we cannot say that because nobody has said it in a book. Yet, unless an author specifically wanted to address this issue, there would be no reason to write a book just to say that LGAT isn't well defined.
- Its like fighting a ghost. There is nothing solid to hit. Its circular. Its wrong. And, quite honestly, its damned frustrating. Lsi john 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Besides mediation, I think a Request for comment here may be appropriate. You may also want to notify other administrators at the Administrators' noticeboard where you will find admins who are more experienced at handling user disputes and weaselly POV editing than me. Not that I'm trying to dump you off on someone else -- it's just a little out of my expertise (I'm an image policy guy mostly). howcheng {chat} 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Any suggstions on who might be willing to help? I'm not even sure how to find an administrator. I only found you because you posted a reply as 3rd party. I'm already in mediation and she has outright declared (in contrast to WP:FAITH) that she doubts I will ever compromise. Lsi john 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its like fighting a ghost. There is nothing solid to hit. Its circular. Its wrong. And, quite honestly, its damned frustrating. Lsi john 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Rats In The Grain[edit]
I understand fully as you have much more experience than I. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the article instead of deleting it? I can learn from your suggestions. It has several references. Or do you think it is better to delete it? I will follow your lead on this. Thanks for your suggestions.ReadQ 13:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Like I stated on the article page, what you should be doing is expanding the "Price fixing investigation" section of the Archer Daniels Midland article, using information from the book, which you seem to own or at least have read. Unless Rats in the Grain is a noteworthy book in and of itself (e.g., All the President's Men, which is also a good example about how an article about book should be written), it doesn't need its own article. When you are expanding the ADM article, be sure to cite individual pages within the book. Change the current "References" section in the ADM article to "Footnotes" and list the book under "References". See Ballad (music) for an example of what I mean. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I agree with you and it is probably better to delete the current article on the book, and I will look at ways to expand the ADM article with information from the book. Thanks again for your input. ReadQ 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Holiday Magic[edit]
- Please help out at DYK and comment at the hook for Holiday Magic. I worked painstakingly to back up every single fact in that article with multiple sourced citations from very reputable secondary sources. Smee 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- At present, (24) citations from highly reputable sourced material. Smee 07:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
DYK Error[edit]
We have a problem with a frontpage DYK-hook see: [2]. Camptown 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you know x 3[edit]
Thanks for nominating de Bernales. I didn't even know you had. Cheers. —Moondyne 11:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good work! :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold[edit]
Rancho Camulos GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. IvoShandor 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope this thread isn't too stale. Nice map! btw. I made some final comments on the article's talk page and found the designation date for the National Historic Landmark status, the source is linked somewhere in that discussion. IvoShandor 07:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Rancho Camulos passed. Congrats and good work, I just love seeing a National Historic Landmark article reach this status. : ) Keep it up. IvoShandor 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Generic antecedents[edit]
Thanks for the DYK placement. First time I've received that encouragement. Much appreciated. Thanks to Alex and his NewArtBot for starting the process; also to those who wrote the pages that guided me to submission. Most of all thanks to the team that makes the DYK section work. Go Wiki! Alastair Haines 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
re: POTD[edit]
The reason why I try to protect the rotating main page templates for FA, SA, and POTD manually is based on the discussion at Talk:Main Page/Tomorrow#Cascading protection incorrectly applied to featured articles. The short story is that a vandal can transclude various articles on unprotected templates at 23:59 UTC, seconds before it falls under the main page. Once the clock strikes 0:00 UTC, these various articles will also automatically be cascade protected. See [3] for one example, and [4] and this page I had to delete for another. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Man, some people really have nothing better to do with their day. Thanks for the explanation! howcheng {chat} 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Mind Dynamics DYK[edit]
Hi. I removed the Mind Dynamics from the next update. I was quite surprised to see that you had elevated it over my objection and with no input from other editors than Smee. I objected to this as not neutral and another editor has tagged the article as unbalanced - IMO, this is NOT DYK material. And I object to the DYK, a nice little fun feature, being used for POV-pushing. Smee is a relentless and WP:SPA POV-pusher. (See SPA discussion). I do not object to her work being featured in DYK, I just have not yet seen any work from her that is not blatant and one-sided POV-pushing. Certainly not that piece. --Justanother 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Every single fact and virtually every single sentence within that article has been backed up and clearly sourced to (33) highly reputable secondary sourced citations. Please keep it as a DYK entry. Thank you. Smee 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
Just because something is a fact does not mean it is relevant or necessary to include it in an article. And extraneous facts should be embedded in the article proper, not included in the opening Lead. And it should not be used as prejudicial material in order to wiki-legally push an authors POV.
Additionally, I submit that 99%+ of your facts are WP:SPA related to LGAT and the abusive, illegal, and bad practices of companies which have been labeled LGAT. Personally, I have found no evidence that you have ever found or added a single fact which said anything good about any companies who's articles you contribute to and you have ignored my requests to show me any such contributions. Lsi john 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- see Mind Dynamics (above) Lsi john 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You probably get a million of these, but quickimgdelete is invaluable. Thanks for doing it, and continuing to improve it! - cohesion 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Polyglot (webzine)[edit]
Thank you for placing the deletion proposal tag onto the article's page, it has compelled me to modify the article so as to emphasize the topic's notability. This has been explained in the article's talk page. A lizard 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
David Lewis DYK[edit]
Thank you for approving David Lewis (politician) for the April 15, 2007 DYK. Abebenjoe 10:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Howcheng,
After you updated the DYK template, the timestamp in Suggestions page was not updated. I went ahead and updated that one. Just FYI. Thank you, - KNM Talk 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work Howcheng. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your hard work Howcheng. Much appreciated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Kosigrim-Eighteen Songs of a Nomad Flute[edit]
Howard, glad you recognize the 'Eighteen Songs'.
- I corrected two of the PD images.
- The first on top, is my creation, but that is not important.
- The 18 images are from a CD stock collection I had to resize and make identical as dimensions.
- Every image from the stock has an attached text in Chinese, sometime meaningful some time not.
- I will have a person who is helping with translation.
- As soon as I have something on the artist will add it.
- Let me know if you have further comments,
- best, kosi
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosigrim (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks for your effort to intoduce our china culture to wikipedia. But I have to say that copyrights of the images incorporated in the gallery of this article havn't expired yet.These pictures are composed in the modern art style(of the latest 20years). As to image:18songs2.jpg,I don't think you create the images yourself.Even I feel difficult to understand these chinese character of the font Small Seal Script in this picture without context. leave your message @ zh:user:lastman--Lastman cn 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the POTD notification; I made a few minor changes to the text. · AO Talk 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The Contenders (band) cleanup?[edit]
What exaxctly needs to be done?Shodobe 07:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- A few things I can identify off the top of my head. First, there are unnecessary line breaks in the lead paragraph. Second, the images are too large (and in my opinion, a violation of our Wikipedia:non-free content policy). Some of the section headings are also not neutral ("Here comes success" for example). Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. And understand some. I am a journalist and a newcomer to Wikipedia. Will look into your comments asap. 188.8.131.52 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings and thank you for your comment on the Holiday Magic talk page. From your comment, I'm curious to know how familiar you are with the subject matter. I don't generally see an 'outsider' reference LGAT as a phenomenon, and that reference was not in the talk page that I could see. (you may reply here, I'll watch). Thank you. Lsi john 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll reply here, if thats alright. Its actually a very controversial subject on wiki, with at least two, and probably three, distinct camps. I've posted my POV in numerous talk pages and user pages. I'll try not to rant too long here on yours as well ;) (You're welcome in advance!)
The term LGAT originated among anti-cult watchers and has no universally accepted scientific definition. It seems to have initially been used as a label, in place of cult in order to avoid the legal ramifications of improperly (libel) calling an organization a 'cult'. It has been used by both sides of the isle, however it is a banner for some of the more radical anti-cult activists.
Without reading the actual text of that book, I suspect that the 'phenomenon' being discussed was 'an explosion of many new personal growth and development training and seminar companies' and the quantity of people who were becomming interested in self improvement and behavor awareness. I believe that 'phenomenon' is being used out of context in order to sensationalize the LGAT label and give it more 'value'.
Several of these training companies have had legal issues for a variety of reasons. Many of the companies are operating well within the law and are doing many good things both for individuals who take their courses as well as using their profits for global projects (such as sponsoring orphanages and hospitals in Africa).
There seems to be a small group of contributors here who have spilled over from the rickross.com anti-cult forum. The forum attracts 'birds of a feather' where they all post negative messages about companies, which just feeds the frenzy (so to speak). When anyone with opposing views posts on the forum, they are immediately labeled as an 'apologist' for the company they appear to be supporting. If they make too much sense, they are banned from the forum.
This small, yet persistent, group, is writing wiki articles about these companies, even when the company does not qualify to be a wiki article Klemmer & Associates Psi World (both now deleted). They use LGAT as a pejorative label and shift the primary focus of the articles away from the company and its works toward LGAT. By this, they lead the reader in a desired direction/conclusion.
Because its very subtle, and the average reader is not aware of the scope of the issue, they often get away with it by asking for third-opinion on a very limited question and then use that as a launching pad for more.
I've been trying to get the series of articles cleaned up and more balanced, but its been a very uphill struggle.
Not sure if I answered your question, but i'm out of letters on my keyboard.
If you're intereste in more, just ask.
Peace. Lsi john 00:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my support for the awarding of this, er..., award. Keep up the good work! :) GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Image delete javascript tools[edit]
They seem to have vanished. What happened to them? --Selket Talk 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, I'm just an idiot today. I had a ' at the end of the url. --Selket Talk 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Cover picture[edit]
Thanks for your note regarding Image:Panjika 1.jpg. It shows the cover of a Bengali almanac. I have taken the picture but am not the original creator. Please note that Bengali almanacs and their covers do not carry any copyright notice. They are freely usable. I have acordingly revised the notings. Please see if it is in order. If not, please advise me what more I can do. With regards. -- P.K.Niyogi 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The Mather School DYK[edit]
I've changed an important "element" of the article The Mather School for which you nominated for "Did you know." I forgot to add it's the oldest ELEMENTARY school (1639) while Boston Latin School is actually the oldest public junior/high school (1636). The difference is Latin is an exam school and has strict requirements before students can be admitted for grades 7-12, unlike the Mather were any child living in the district could attend the grade (elementary) school. You may want to feature Boston Latin instead, as it is more prestigious. Many historical people (Presidents, etc) attended Boston Latin before going off to Harvard.
I changed the "hook" page by adding "elementary" because it's more accurate, and if the Boston Latin folk saw it they'd have a fit. More importantly I would not want to mis-lead readers into thinking it is the oldest school of the New World, but the Mather is the oldest free public elementary school of the new world (America). Sorry for the confusion. Jeeny 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Boston Latin School doesn't qualify for DYK, which features only new and newly expanded articles ("new" meaning within the last 5 days). Thanks also for your commitment in keeping the article accurate. howcheng {chat} 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for all your hard work, and nominating an article close to my heart. Jeeny 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.[edit]
Thanks for the nomination! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemonsawdust (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
Double DYK[edit]
- KNM Talk 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again Howcheng! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Vilpatti DYK[edit]
Wow! Thanks for the nomination. Thats a first for me.Marcus 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Światło pic[edit]
Fixed. Some time ago IPN changed their website structure and they never created redirects - its a giant mess now... Btw, in the future, you may want to check Internet Archive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Translational motion animation[edit]
Howcheng, I revised the caption as I saw appropriate on the Translational motion animation template. Since the kinetic energy is proportional not to any old temperature scale, but only to thermodynamic (absolute) temperature scales, I changed the link in the caption to the Thermodynamic temperature article. Can you see to it that the article is semi-protected on May 14th (and for a few days afterwards)? Greg L (my talk) 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating the caption. Having worked at WP:RFP, I can tell you right off the bat that it won't be semi-protected. For one thing, we don't pre-emptively protect pages. Secondly, pages that are linked to from the Main Page are almost never protected because it goes against the "anyone can edit" ethos of the site and these are highly visible pages. If vandalism becomes too much of a problem then protection may be considered, but not until then. Regards, howcheng {chat} 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. You may be interested to know that I've nominated Image:Zmachine.jpg for Featured Picture status. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Zmachine.jpg.
Thank you for notifying me about this POTD. Looking forward to see an animation I nominated on the Main Page! →EdGl 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Interested in hosting a bot?[edit]
Since you're an admin on both Wikipedia and Commons, I wonder if you might be interested in hosting a MainPage image protection bot. As I see it, the bot would only need to put mprotected on MainPage images and then set a 24 hour protection at Commons. I'm not a programming person, so I couldn't do this myself, but I believe that this is something that could be done with relative ease. What do you think? Would you be interested in hosting a bot if we could get someone to write it? Should we put up something at Wikipedia:Bot requests? Thanks.--Pharos 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would do it, except that I don't leave my home computer on all the time, and it's not a good idea for me to host something like that on my work computer (for one thing, it reboots on its own sometimes because of automatic Windows updates). Sorry. Let's see... User:Zzyzx11 and User:Fir0002 are also Commons admins, so you might try them. howcheng {chat} 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've contacted them.--Pharos 07:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Triple crown[edit]
- Moved to user page
Your Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these three crowns in recognition of your generous and diligent efforts to improve Wikipedia. May you wear them well. DurovaCharge! 04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again for the time you have spent on the LGAT series and disputes and third-party opinions.
I wanted to update you that the mediation between Smee and myself is done.
I have disengaged and stepped back.
It took a while for me to recognize that I was unproductively choosing to stay in the situation and I have now re-chosen.
I also want to apologize for any disruption caused by the squabbling.
-Peace in God Lsi john 15:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
DYK x 2[edit]
--ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't think we haven't noticed how much of the load you have been bearing at DYK over the last couple of weeks. The number of nominations you have made and updates you have done are phenomenal. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Luckily I'm in a slow period at work so I've got to kill the time somehow before my next project starts up! :) howcheng {chat} 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again Howcheng. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
For your Skills[edit]
- Moved to user page.
I suppose this seems rather unexpected? No, you deserve this for all of the hard work you put in, especially on DYK - always looking for better and new hooks, investigating probably every article, and reading them through, not to mention constantly messaging people about DYK as well. You already have two DYK medals, so I thought I'd give you this instead. Keep up your good work Howcheng! —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So, are you saying, in a nutshell, that if I simply put the image on an article, then theres no longer an issue? If you are, then no problem. Thanks for letting me know. —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 07:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. So, all I have to do is explain the bookcover, or discuss it? —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 07:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. What I mean is, that in order to satisfy WP:EDP the image must be illustrate specific points in the text, and by "illustrate" I don't mean "decorate" -- it means that the text needs to specifically discuss the image itself and what's significant about it. The only place where you can get away without doing that would be an article on the book itself. Here's an example: Billy Ripken includes a non-free baseball card image, but the image is necessary to understanding the text. By including the picture, it makes the article more easily understood. It's a very subtle point and the vast majority of Wikipedia editors don't get this. If you can omit the image and still understand what points the article is trying to make (you may want to get someone else's opinion), then you don't need the image. I hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 07:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, and your point, but I feel the image actually does do that. Look at it this way: it is useful because it 1. clearly defines what the Lancers uniform looks like and 2.because it provides the article with credibility - if a book, which is visible, has been written on the subject, then it must be true/not a hoax/an existent thing/something with some note/etc. It also does decorate the article, it makes it look better, and it improves the formatting substantially. So what? Plus, doesnt it count that I did technically describe the image, in its caption? —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 07:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wait! How can that possibly be? Are you trying to say that if a piece of text is understandable without an image, the image should not be implanted. That cant be true: if it is, then the article on say birds should not have an image because the text is understandable without it. If this rulke were true, then almost no articles would contain any images. Please, explain, I really dont get this. —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- What I'm saying only applies to non-free images. You can do anything you want with free (i.e., public domain, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc) images. The thing is, you are going to find a whole lot of violations of our non-free use policy because until recently, it's been laxly enforced. Non-free (formerly known as "fair use") images can only be used in a limited set of circumstances. Look at it this way: You have a painting in Black Brunswickers by John Everett Millais (who died in 1896 so the image is in the public domain). Let's say that he died in 1996 instead of 1896 -- in this case, the image would still be copyrighted and we would only be able to use it in an article about the painting itself (see Guernica or The Falling Man for similar examples). Does this make more sense? howcheng {chat} 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I get it now. Thanks alot for your patient explanation. Oh well, I guess the article is still ok without the image. I'll try and bear these things in mind from now on. You should proabaly delete the image now if you want, because, by the sounds of things, theres no room for it except in an article about the book, and I can pretty much guarentee that thats not going to happen. —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 22:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- What I'm saying only applies to non-free images. You can do anything you want with free (i.e., public domain, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc) images. The thing is, you are going to find a whole lot of violations of our non-free use policy because until recently, it's been laxly enforced. Non-free (formerly known as "fair use") images can only be used in a limited set of circumstances. Look at it this way: You have a painting in Black Brunswickers by John Everett Millais (who died in 1896 so the image is in the public domain). Let's say that he died in 1996 instead of 1896 -- in this case, the image would still be copyrighted and we would only be able to use it in an article about the painting itself (see Guernica or The Falling Man for similar examples). Does this make more sense? howcheng {chat} 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wait! How can that possibly be? Are you trying to say that if a piece of text is understandable without an image, the image should not be implanted. That cant be true: if it is, then the article on say birds should not have an image because the text is understandable without it. If this rulke were true, then almost no articles would contain any images. Please, explain, I really dont get this. —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, and your point, but I feel the image actually does do that. Look at it this way: it is useful because it 1. clearly defines what the Lancers uniform looks like and 2.because it provides the article with credibility - if a book, which is visible, has been written on the subject, then it must be true/not a hoax/an existent thing/something with some note/etc. It also does decorate the article, it makes it look better, and it improves the formatting substantially. So what? Plus, doesnt it count that I did technically describe the image, in its caption? —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 07:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. What I mean is, that in order to satisfy WP:EDP the image must be illustrate specific points in the text, and by "illustrate" I don't mean "decorate" -- it means that the text needs to specifically discuss the image itself and what's significant about it. The only place where you can get away without doing that would be an article on the book itself. Here's an example: Billy Ripken includes a non-free baseball card image, but the image is necessary to understanding the text. By including the picture, it makes the article more easily understood. It's a very subtle point and the vast majority of Wikipedia editors don't get this. If you can omit the image and still understand what points the article is trying to make (you may want to get someone else's opinion), then you don't need the image. I hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 07:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks for you message. I made some changes. feel free to remove them if you do not like it. Preetikapoor0 11:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Jacqui Oatley - Thank You![edit]
Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Jacqui Oatley, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 19 where you can improve it if you see fit. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! Fully supported - just wish I could find a photo. Rgds, - Trident13 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Av. Diagonal[edit]
どうもありがとうございます ;) Kitten86 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Collegium Novum[edit]
Thank you. Your generosity is much appreciated. --Poeticbent talk 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Beale's Cut[edit]
I reverted your replacement of Image:Beale's Cut 1872.jpg with Image:Beale's cut 1937.jpg. While it may seem like an 1872 photo is public domain, that is not necessarily true. If it was not published, it is only in the public domain if the photographer died before 1937. Since we don't know the photographer, we cannot know its copyright status. (See [5].) It probably cannot be used under fair use either, since we need to give credit to claim fair use. --NE2 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I point you to the last row in the top table of the Cornell web page: "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known - 120 years from date of creation". This photo comes from the A.B. Perkins collection of Santa Clarita Valley photographs. Perkins was born in 1891, so he is not the photographer. Since the photographer is unknown, the 120 year rule applies, and ergo it's public domain. howcheng {chat} 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK - please cite that on the image description on Commons. --NE2 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Image of Naseem Ashraf[edit]
You tagged the image Image:Naseem-Ashraf.jpg I uploaded for deletion, saying I have misunderstood the ©2004 statement on the originall image source, can you please explain what the ©2004 would mean, if it didn't meant what I took it to mean, i.e. its copyright expired at the end of the year 2004. Thanks. --Zainub 10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The ©2004 notice means that copyright was asserted (declared) in 2004. See the chart at [6]. Assuming this is published outside the U.S., then copyright expires 95 years after publication, which in this case is the year 2089. howcheng {chat} 16:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see, I see. Fair point then. Guess this would have to be deleted then. As would another picture I uploaded using the same rational, I'll go change the image rights status of that too and then drop you another message. Thanks for the "education". --Zainub 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done. You can now remove that other image (Image:Omar Kureishi.jpg) I talked about too. Thanks. -Zainub 03:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see, I see. Fair point then. Guess this would have to be deleted then. As would another picture I uploaded using the same rational, I'll go change the image rights status of that too and then drop you another message. Thanks for the "education". --Zainub 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank your for the DYK[edit]
Thank you for the DYK on Kerry Lynch. I greatly appreciated it. Chris 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
--ALoan (Talk) 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Where would a user go, if they had posted their email address on their talk page, before they realized it was a bad idea.. and then wanted to delete it (and remove it from history) ? Lsi john 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Oversight. If they reject your request, let me know and I'll delete it from the revision history. howcheng {chat} 00:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- thanks. I'll let him know. Lsi john 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
--ALoan (Talk) 13:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unspecified Images[edit]
In regards to the two images which you noted as not giving the creator, I did note that the creator was unknown. In looking at the original source for the images (http://www.orthodoxwiki.com), I noted that they do not specify the creator either but rather list the images as PD. What are your suggestions for resolving this issue since they apparently don't know who the creator is and thus we might have no way of finding out? jackturner3 14:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The only resolution is deletion, unfortunately. Please see our image use policy. For every image, we need to know the creator and the date of creation and/or publication. Without this information, we can't ascertain the status. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 15:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, so much for making it to GA status...
- jackturner3 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
DYK, de Orto[edit]
Hi Howcheng! Thank you very much for that ... the "hook" is perfect, by the way: it's probably the same one I would have used. Appreciate it! Antandrus (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
--Carabinieri 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Howcheng, Thank you for nominating articles I have written for the Did You Know ? section. It is nice to know my efforts are appreciated. Djln --Djln 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You tagged this image for deletion, I have given a rationale on the talk page, can you please review it and remove the deletion template. Just a question why is that, by default, every image uploaded under fair use has to violate the number one criterion, I might be skeptical here, but that is the terrible and a disruptive trend that I see these days. Also I fail to see how does criterion #1 justify its deletion. Ok if a free use does come available then yes, I suppose it is the responsibility of the uploader to replace the fair use image and then notify the admin to purge it. But what if it is not easy to find? Is it not the point of fair use so that we temporarily use that media until it can be replaced? So why should we have such a ruthless approach to all images because of #1 criterion? In that case why allow fair use at all? Shouldn't a rationale that there is none in the commons or flickr or no party is willing to give a free use license be sufficient? Do you not trust the uploader of making that query to determine if there are not any (and believe my I did not come into wikipedia yesterday, I DID make that query)? Shouldn't the enforcement of #1 violation come into play if and only if there is a certain alternative already, and NOT before. --Kuban Cossack 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I understand your frustration at this, but the powers that be (i.e., the Wikimedia Foundation) have decided to more strictly enforce the freedom of use of our content (see Wikipedia:Non-free content and [7]). One of the reasons for criterion #1 is that when we have a nonfree image, it actually discourages people from creating a free image. Whereas having no image encourages the creation of one. We are not going to completely disallow non-free images, just limit their use. For example, Guernica (painting) and The Falling Man both require their non-free images, otherwise a reader won't really understand the article. For this image, whether or not you can see what Mr. Gromov looks like has little bearing on the article itself. If my explanation doesn't quite make sense to you, I suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content where other admins who are better at explaining this can help you out. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I still fail to see the reasoning behind this. I mean one of the images I uploaded Image:Truda5.jpg was thought of as a violation of first rationale, nobody even bothered to read the article that it was in which essentially showed the sign name changed as part of the Ukrainization programme in Ukraine. Why is it that some admin (and I do not mean all) are completely arrogant about this? That image was tagged for same violation of first point rationale and (luckily) was kept in the end. Now wrt Gromov per WP:N I think it would be unnecessary to write an him alone. However wrt the large organisation that he heads, would an image like so make that article better? Is it up to one user to decide on that? (Unless of course that user happens to be Jimbo Wales I suppose) In any case, if there is a clear situation when there is no free use media that can be within reasonable grasp found, what is wrong with that image? I once again strongly encourage you to reconsider its deletion. --Kuban Cossack 12:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Otto Natzler[edit]
Thanks Howcheng, I appreciate it! I think the hook is great as well! Sorry about your cat by the way, mine died last year too, so I sympathize. Canadian Paul 06:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Image - Linda Bement[edit]
Thanks for nominating my article on Edward R. Bradley. I note your interest in images and if you don't mind, would you look at the one I inserted into Linda Bement yesterday re her marriage to the subject of my new article on jockey Manuel Ycaza. I inserted the photo as a "Fair Use" item after seeing that used as the basis for inserting images by others in some Miss Universe bios. However, I wasn't really certain if I did the required Wikipedia documentation correctly as the "plate" seems to be missing some information. In fact, I'm not even sure if my usage of the image is proper. Thanx for your help. Handicapper 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- As it stands right now, this image cannot be used in the article because it fails the policy portion of WP:EDP, specifically criteria #1 and #8. One might argue that a free picture taken today would not serve the same purpose since it wouldn't show what she looked like in 1960 when she was crowned Miss Universe. That might satisfy criterion #1, but still not criterion #8 -- you have to be able to argue that without this specific image (as opposed to other pictures of her from the 1960 Miss Universe competition), the reader wouldn't be able to understand the article as well. For example, Guernica (painting) and The Falling Man both require those exact non-free images because their respective articles require them. This one of Ms Bement makes the article nice to look at, but it's not critical to a reader's understanding. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff Fox[edit]
"Asserts notability"? Just for my future reference, what did you see that qualified? I'll look for it in the future. Coren 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article claims he was a guitarist for a time in Ween. To me, that asserts notability. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except he's not actually listed in either current of past members of Ween. :-) Missed that one? Coren 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
So how to get rid of a useless article?[edit]
OK, so List of equine topics doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. However, it is a list that is far from complete, nothing but links, is seldom linked to, and seems to fit the "no content" category. It's really pretty useless. So what is the process I need to follow to propose it for deletion? There seem to be multiple and contradictory wikipedia pages on this topic. Can you point me to the correct procedure? Thanks. Montanabw 06:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think there are a number of articles that fit into this category: lists of links to a bunch of topics in the same "field". In fact, if you go to Special:Allpages/List of you can see a bunch of them. But if you're intent on having this deleted, I would go straight to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and see the instructions there. Regards, howcheng {chat} 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
DYK × 2[edit]
--ALoan (Talk) 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Censorship: One and the same[edit]
I received notice that a band article that I submitted is being deleted. You stated that it was due to a lack of references, which is petty, at the very least. Wikipedia is filled with partial, incomplete entries, devoid of anything even close to a reference, and completely biased. Why not actually have the decency to be honest. You found the band distasteful, thus you decided to exercise your "power" to have it removed. Feel free to delete it, and any other entry I have made. I had signed up and participated in this because I mistakenly believed this was an open forum based on the exchange of information. Instead it's simply a forum based on your personal likes and dislikes, and anything you don't like, gets flagged for deletion, etc while other poorly written pages are left as they are. It is actions such as yours which undermines the supposed credibility of your site. It is no wonder that so many schools, libraries, etc are no longer allowing/accepting information mined from Wikipedia. This was a great concept..but if someone is going to be "in charge" they need to know how to remove their personal opinions and simply monitor for grammatical errors, etc.. I am sure that the reply will be a form response, citing this and that per Wikipedia's standards, yada yada yada, but I will be more than happy to submit as many links/entries as you would like, showing less informative, disorganized entries, devoid of references, which have existed on your site for months, or even years longer than my entry. This will cement the fact that you are putting your personal beliefs and agenda ahead of the supposed philosophy of this site. Freedom of speech? Sure, just watch what you say...and never ever submit anything that is not 100% supportive of religion, etc. You should change the byline of this site as it is EXTREMELY misleading... "The Free Encyclopedia"? No, for it is not an encyclopedia and it ids not free. An encyclopedia is unbiased, based solely on fact. As for free... Well, perhaps you are talking about free admittance to this site, but certainly not any other type of freedom. Yo may wish to edit the entry for "hypocrisy" to include your name and that of Wikipedia. After all, it is "honesty" we're after, correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catharsiss322 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC). Catharsiss322 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, if you're throwing around words like "censorship" then you don't know me at all. First, let me point you to relevant policies Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability (music). I have absolutely zero opinion on a band called "Eviscerated Zombie Tampon" (in fact, one of my favorite band names was "Shining Orgasm Revival" (not a real band -- name was in a science fiction story)). The fact that there are other articles of equal or lesser quality on Wikipedia doesn't mean that this one should be kept -- it means that they should be deleted too. I just don't know where they are (with nearly 2 million articles, one person can't keep track of all of them); this one caught my eye not because of the name, but because I was simply browsing new articles to feature on Wikipedia:Did you know. If you want to have the article kept, I challenge you to demonstrate that it meets the criteria set at WP:MUSIC. Do that and you're set. howcheng {chat} 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just have to comment on this, I can't hold back. First of all, Catharsiss322, going by what you are stating, everything, real or not, notable or not, should be in Wiki, and we should only be looking for spelling/grammar errors. If that was the case, there would be 100 billion pages of crap on Wiki. Why in the world should a low-brow, un-signed, un-talented band with absolutely no notability want to read about them? They just threw together a band of random people, burned their music to a CD-r, and randomly gave instruments to their members to randomly play. I doubt anyone outside of 30 miles of where they live have any idea this band exists. There is no reason for them to be in Wiki. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
sumnjim, Ok, let's see if I understand you correctly.. If you have never heard of a band, they do not exist or do not qualify as worthy. Just because you lack a sense of humor, doesn't mean the band is devoid of talent nor do I believe that you speak for every potential reader on whether they would be interested in reading about them or not. I for one have absolutely no use for religion or politics nor the idiot sheep that subscribe to it, but that doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't want to read about it. It is self righteous people like yourself that are responsible for people like Mike Diana being arrested for drawing a comic book. As for EZT being unsigned, you once again show your ignorance. The band IS signed to 2 indie labels, (Splattergod Records and Fuck the Scene Productions), has played a number of shows, including opening for national acts such as Hallows Eve and Paths of Possession (formerly signed to that so called nonexistent label, Splattergod Records, now signed with Metal Blade). It is obvious that the band offends you so you feel the need to call them "low brow" etc. It really doesn't matter. The page has been quickly deleted because I dared to challenge the almighty Wikipedia. So feel free to crow your inane, uninformed opinion, but before making FALSE accusations (unsigned, etc) get your facts straight. Catharsiss322
- Your band article got deleted for a very simple reason: The band is not notable. Maybe they will be one day, but not they're now. Like I said above, if you can prove that they meet the criteria set at WP:MUSIC, then the article can stay. There is no other reason. howcheng {chat} 06:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Eviscerated Zombie Tampon[edit]
It'd probably be quicker to speedy this as A7. It appears to be a joke, evidently by someone with a lot of time on his hands. --Rrburke(talk) 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly, but it claims some significance when it says the band appeared at "Splattergod Metalfest" which appears to be real, so A7 is out. howcheng {chat} 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've tended to interpret A7 fairly liberally: if the claim were true and still wouldn't satisfy WP:MUSIC, then I interpret that to mean it's not an assertion of a claim of notability. If there's no assertion of notability, it's A7. Like this: if a group claims it performed at a festival, that claim, even if true, would not satisfy WP:MUSIC. I conclude from this they're not trying to satisfy WP:MUSIC, and so the article lacks an assertion of notability. You kind of have to squint to see this. Your mileage may differ. At any rate, I'll gladly vote delete.
- As for this -- I'd go with WP:DNFT. Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 16:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know A7 is controversial (especially as I was the one who originally got it expanded beyond just single individuals) so I always try to err more on the conservative side for that. As for the above rant, I'll AGF that the article is a sincere attempt at educating EZT to the world for whatever reason, so it doesn't hurt to be nice, at least for the time being. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and tagged this A7 before I saw your talk page, but I did search for "Splattergod Metalfest" but couldn't find anything on this at all. I believe it meets CSD A7. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Really? The very first result from Google makes it look legit to me. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok well when I searched, I saw that link, and couldn't get into it, as it's blocked at work, and since there was another word in between Splattergod and Metalfest, it slipped by my eyes. However, I looked at the page, and it appears to just be a page of pictures. Doesn't sound like any type of a notable venue at all. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a moot point now anyway. :) howcheng {chat} 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- True, I was typing this and got an edit conflict. My first attempt at tagging an article for speedy, and it's already been done. I feel as though I accomplished something, lol. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a moot point now anyway. :) howcheng {chat} 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok well when I searched, I saw that link, and couldn't get into it, as it's blocked at work, and since there was another word in between Splattergod and Metalfest, it slipped by my eyes. However, I looked at the page, and it appears to just be a page of pictures. Doesn't sound like any type of a notable venue at all. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Really? The very first result from Google makes it look legit to me. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and tagged this A7 before I saw your talk page, but I did search for "Splattergod Metalfest" but couldn't find anything on this at all. I believe it meets CSD A7. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know A7 is controversial (especially as I was the one who originally got it expanded beyond just single individuals) so I always try to err more on the conservative side for that. As for the above rant, I'll AGF that the article is a sincere attempt at educating EZT to the world for whatever reason, so it doesn't hurt to be nice, at least for the time being. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The Bronze Horseman[edit]
Quick question: how come it didn't make DYK? --Oreo Priest 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's slated for the next one. See Template:Did you know/Next update. howcheng {chat} 20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Erg (landform)[edit]
Hello, I've given the article you nominated a review and I felt it met the criteria. I'm not an experienced reviewer but I guess you felt it was worthy of GA status as well, and I can't find anything else on the web that goes into anywhere near as much depth. I've left a couple of brief comments on the talk page. It looks as though you were the main contributor to the article so congratulations on your good work.
If you feel like it, feel free to take a look at Plant defence against herbivory, an article I nominated the other day. It's not one I've worked on a much, just something I noticed while looking at the much smaller article on herbivore. Richard001 03:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link - it gives a more thorough guide, which is what I was looking for. I'll take another look at it in a day or two. I can't promise to fail you, but I'll try :) Richard001 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:SewardHwy MooseXing.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:SewardHwy MooseXing.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Union Stock Yards GA[edit]
You were a contributing editor to Union Stock Yards during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved this Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Contributing editors:AKeen, ChicagoPimp, Howcheng, SmackBot, Speciate, TonyTheTiger, VirtualSteve.
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Your DYK nomination for On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis was successful[edit]
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Limburger cheese FP[edit]
Hi! Thanks for the heads up about the POTD. I would be happy to re-license it under PD, multi-licensing is something of a habit for me, but I really don't care all that much about the license. I'm going to change the license today. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 11:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
DYK × 3[edit]
--ALoan (Talk) 14:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the notifications on the status of (formerly) "my" Reindeer hunting in Greenland article at DYK. -- Fyslee/talk 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deletion of an image[edit]
Hey there... I wonder if you would have a look at the following image, Image:Picture015.jpg. It is of a newborn infant in medical distress. This image is the uploader's only contribution (at least remaining). I do not think it qualifies as a speedy, but it seems kinda private and personal such that I do not really want to post it out for the whole world to easily see. It is an orphan and I really do not think it serves any purpose here. What are your thoughts about a deletion under WP:IAR. Thanks for your consideration.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... the uploader is the one who wrote all that stuff on the image description page, so if there were any privacy concerns, I'd say he knowingly waived any such rights. However, I think the image could be useful. We don't have a Vader's syndrome article, but maybe if we get rid of most of that text, it could be useful for NICU or Medical ventilator. howcheng {chat} 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to bring your attention to something...[edit]
Hi there Howcheng, my understanding is that you do quite a lot of work with respect to patrolling Wiki images, and tagging those which are possible copyright violations/not free, so I thought you might be able to help me out. I'm relatively new at Wikipedia editing and I'm still very much in the process of learning what kind of images are allowed and what aren't. Re-writing and improving the article Anwer Maqsood is currently high on my agenda, a few minutes ago, I visted the page after a long time and saw that some one had placed a picture of him along with an info box, which was great to see. But as soon as I saw the picture, I knew I had seen it before some where else, and a quick Google search confirmed my suspicions. The image Image:Anwar Maqsood.jpg has been uploaded on Wikipedia and the up-loader has claimed it is his own work which he/she has released into the public domain, however, the image is exactly identical to the image GetPakistan.com has on its Anwar Maqsoon profile page [8]. That image is obviously fully copyright protected, and unless the uploader was the one who took that image too, I'm afraid it might have been a case of Googling Anwer Maqsood and thereafter saving the image on their hard drive and uploading on Wikipedia with a false license. Also worth noticing is that the said image from GetPakistan.com which mirrors the one on Wikipedia article, is the first result that shows up when you search for "anwer maqsood" in Google Images (see this). Having a look at the up-loaders talk page also gives us a bit of an idea of the user's past image uploading history. Can you please tag the image accordingly? I'm not sure what to tag it as. Thanks. --Zainub 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've tagged it with {{db-copyvio}} and another administrator will come by to delete it (this is just to make sure we have another pair of eyes look at it). howcheng {chat} 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
DYK questions[edit]
Hi, i'd like to clarify the process of choosing DYK articles. It seems to me that when you "moved 5 to next update" from Template talk:Did you know on 21:16, 3 May 2007, you also deleted some nominations (or at least my nomination). i'm not offended or anything, just wanted to know what happened to my nomination, whether it was deemed unsatisfactory and removed, or accidentally removed, or something else. Cheers! --Plastictv 23:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yours is scheduled to on the Main Page in the next update. I moved it to Template:Did you know/Next update in preparation. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- i see. i wasn't aware that such page exists. Thanks for your reply! :) --Plastictv 03:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Better source request for Image:Calship_Burner_By_Edna_Reindel.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Calship_Burner_By_Edna_Reindel.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not understand how it is difficult for yourself (and others) to examine the copyright status. This image and the link provided on the image http://www.army.mil/cmh/art/A&I/0307-3.jpg clearly shows that it is on the U.S. Army Center of Military History website and according to the Wikipedia copyright policy in: "Images on our web site that are in the public domain may be used without permission. If you use images from our web site, we ask that you credit us as the source. Please note that some images on our site have been obtained from other organizations. Permission to use these images should be obtained directly from those organizations. This image or document is from the collection of the US Army Military History Instute, most of which was produced by a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." It further states " Anyone who intends to use these materials commercially should contact the individuals depicted or their representatives. We cannot confirm copyright status for any item. We recommend that you contact the United States Copyright Office at The Library of Congress to search currently copyrighted materials." I already have a description of the image and a proper URL to the source of the image. If you have a concern or issue with this, I suggest you please contact the U.S. Army Center of Military History for further assistance. My regards -Signaleer 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- You need to supply the URL of the web page that displays the image, not the link to the image directly. Why? I quote: Please note that some images on our site have been obtained from other organizations. Permission to use these images should be obtained directly from those organizations. The page holding the image will likely contain copyright information should there be any. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the Army doesn't own that picture. Just a basic Google search can show you that the artist never worked for the federal government. The Army's website and the Wikipedia tags all make it pretty clear that there are some things that aren't public domain; this is probably one of those. Kafziel Talk 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Although the Army does not "own" the image, the image is on the Army.mil website and therefore becomes public domain. -Signaleer 14:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- You think everything the Army touches automatically becomes public domain? Wow. You are absolutely, indefensibly wrong about that. The Army itself even says you're wrong about that. I think you may have misread the quote: "Images on our web site that are in the public domain may be used without permission." It does not say "Images on our web site are in the public domain and may be used without permission." Big, big difference. Kafziel Talk 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- You need to supply the URL of the web page that displays the image, not the link to the image directly. Why? I quote: Please note that some images on our site have been obtained from other organizations. Permission to use these images should be obtained directly from those organizations. The page holding the image will likely contain copyright information should there be any. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not understand how it is difficult for yourself (and others) to examine the copyright status. This image and the link provided on the image http://www.army.mil/cmh/art/A&I/0307-3.jpg clearly shows that it is on the U.S. Army Center of Military History website and according to the Wikipedia copyright policy in: "Images on our web site that are in the public domain may be used without permission. If you use images from our web site, we ask that you credit us as the source. Please note that some images on our site have been obtained from other organizations. Permission to use these images should be obtained directly from those organizations. This image or document is from the collection of the US Army Military History Instute, most of which was produced by a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." It further states " Anyone who intends to use these materials commercially should contact the individuals depicted or their representatives. We cannot confirm copyright status for any item. We recommend that you contact the United States Copyright Office at The Library of Congress to search currently copyrighted materials." I already have a description of the image and a proper URL to the source of the image. If you have a concern or issue with this, I suggest you please contact the U.S. Army Center of Military History for further assistance. My regards -Signaleer 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I was coming by to follow up but it seems that Kafziel has already explained most of it to you. If Edna Reindel worked for the Army, or was commissioned by the Army to do this painting, then it would be public domain. The request I made to you was to give us the URL of the web page, which would give us more information than just the URL to the image. I tried to search for the image on Google using "calship burner site:www.army.mil" which turns up nothing, suggesting it's not even being displayed on the site. Regards, howcheng {chat} 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel that you need to delete this image because it is a violation of the Wiki policy, then by all means, please do so. I've spent enough of my personal time and energy on a moot subject. -Signaleer 08:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Howard,
Thank you for your message. As a matter of fact, I was just reviewing your changes to the article at that very moment I received it. I intend to react to them on the article's talk page, I would be most grateful though if you'd allow me to have my dinner before :D Just now, I would like to state that the quality of your edits and your very serious treatment of the GA process (and, leaving fake humility aside, my review) really impressed me - I was less than surprised to later find out you are an admin. OK, I am off now for refuelling and I am back in a moment with the cake trolley! PrinceGloria 19:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Just dropping you a line to thank you both for the line of thanks you dropped me a month ago and for making my requested DYK change yesterday even though a refresh was imminent. Cheers, Doops | talk 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
DYK Monument of Liberty, Istanbul[edit]
Thanks so much indeed for your contribution. CeeGee 20:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
DYK Duraiappah stadium mass grave[edit]
Please look into it. Thanks Taprobanus 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
An image you uploaded[edit]
I was wondering how you came up with the license presented on Image:Lake Calhoun MN.jpg. The copyright page on http://library.byways.org/ seems to indicate that an email is required and so is attribution [9]. I am wondering because the image may be used for Minnesota on the front page. -Ravedave 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Byways.org isn't the most intuitive site. What happens is that if the image is unavailable for download, it will tell you when you try to download it. For example, see [10] and click the download link. For an example of when there are terms of use, see [11] instead. The terms/conditions link you provide covers items "for which www.byways.org and www.bywaysonline.org do not provide a download option" (emphasis mine). Thus, if no popup is shown when you try to download it, it's good to go. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 06:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your favorable consideration of my "DYK" item. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Edward F. Boyd[edit]
Nice job, and I hope the DYK happens. Whenever I read about something or someone, I usually start an article if there isn't one. I especially try to do biographies, and the best time to write one is usually (unfortunately) at the time of death. Gotta grab the citations before they revert to premium archived content. See you around! Jokestress 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A DYK issue[edit]
Hi, and thanks for the message. I don't know where I should address this, but I believe you can react to the problem: the current main page section of the DYK has an error in its first entry - a portion of the signature was copied along with the entry itself. It reads: "...that PZL-106 Kruk (pictured) is a Polish agricultural aircraft designed and built by WSK-Okęcie? -- article by User:Pibwl, nom by". It just happened to catch my eye. Dahn 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that! It's late for me and I'm a little tired. Luckily I'm still online working on the next update otherwise you wouldn't have caught me. Next time, try WP:ERRORS for faster service. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- No prob. And thanks for the link (I was actually not aware of it). Dahn 07:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Pileated Woodpecker at Indian Grinding Stone State Historical Park[edit]
"woodpeckers are already mentioned in the paragraph... what's so special about this pair?"
"Hairy Woodpeckers" are mentioned and not just woodpeckers.
The Pileated Woodpeckers are rare for this area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
- OK, feel free to add it back to the article, but make it clear why this is important, because other readers will probably have the same reaction I did. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
MainPage balance[edit]
Hi, you were wondering why DYK gets so long sometimes. I kind of outlined this at WT:DYK#Column balance on Main Page. Basically, at the screen resolution I was editing at when I did the update, it looked fine -- the columns were balanced. At a different resolution, the columns look off (I've noticed this difference between my work and home computers, for instance). Alternatively, ITN gets shortened and the left column ends up being too long (such as happened today in this edit, which happened after I added in an extra DYK tidbit to balance out the layout. I just wanted you to know so that you wouldn't think we DYK people were trying to put in more than our fair share. :) howcheng {chat} 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, howcheng. I understand the problem. It's not just the screen. Font size and how texts wrap at the end of each line also vary a lot, making it very hard to keep MainPage balanced. I have to say right now DYK indeed looks a bit too long with 8 wordy hooks. However, it's not too bad. The blank space next to DYK is small.
- The (bad) ITN edit you mentioned was made by a drive-by contributor, and the oldest item was probably removed without considering the layout on MainPage. However, we are supposed to have only 3 to 5 items at one time, according to ITN guidelines. So, I'd ask, next time you consider adding an extra DYK item for MainPage balance, please check if there is a 6th (or 7th) item on ITN. Such old news is probably left there, instead of being displaced when a new item was added, because TFA & DYK were long at the time. It may not be needed to fill up the space after midnight UTC if the current TFA is shorter than the previous. It may be better to remove an old ITN item rather than adding extras to DYK. Less work for you, anyway. :-)
- TFA & SA/OTD are preset. It's up to us editors at DYK & ITN to maintain the left-right balance on MainPage. And it's a moment-to-moment balancing act. Happy editing. --PFHLai 07:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The Daily Advertiser[edit]
Sorry just noticed your comment on my May 3rd DYK nomination. Not being Australian you can not be expected to know about Wagga Wagga or probably Australia's general history - not to mention the history of newspapers. Briefly, Wagga Wagga is the largest city in the Riverina - Australia is only just on 219 years old and one of it's oldest newspapers The Daily Advertiser is a regional one and therefore almost 150 years old. This makes the paper older than many, many other main city newspapers and the DYK is meant to interest people certainly in Australia and hopefully to some extent in the world as to the history of the newspaper. Personally I thought that was very interesting - my guess is that many others would too.--VS talk 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your further comment. I have adjusted the article to reflect comparison of history of Australia and start of newspaper as well as broad comparison of it in relation to other newspapers.--VS talk 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism at Japanese American internment[edit]
Just asking: You'd noted that 3 weeks of semiprotection was enough. The page is back to daily vandalism. I'm not sure whether that's "a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses." I'll leave it up to you. --Ishu 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- In my book, that's not that much, but I prefer not to protect unless absolutely necessary. You can try at WP:RFP for a second opinion if you like. howcheng {chat} 06:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. FWIW, I see that you're still reverting vandalism yourself, although it's noteworthy that the first edit after you unprotected was vandalism. Thanks for the reply. --Ishu 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)