User talk:LurkingInChicago/Archive 1
Hello there. You seem like someone who is seriously interested in saltwater aquarium. I just want to let you know that there's this WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. The project is quite young and we haven't had any expert in marine aquarium yet. So I hope you might be interested. Have a look at our project page. Thank you !!
The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: December 2006
edit
 Issue I - December 2006 | |
|
|
|
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to add news to the next issue, please see here. | |
The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: January 2007
edit|
Issue II - January 2007 | |
|
|
|
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to to add news to the next issue, please see here. | |
CHICOTW
editI see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: Febuary 2007
edit|
Issue III - February 2007 | |
|
|
|
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to to add news to the next issue, please see here. | |
CHICOTW work
editYou have done some great work this week on the [[Chicago Board of Trade Building}]. I see you are fairly new to WP, but you have done good work on many Chicago related articles. Two past CHICOTW articles that are week on Chicago architecture details are Hull House and Merle Reskin Theatre. Hull House recently failed its WP:GA nomination in part due to weakness on architectural details. Merle Reskin will be nominate 8 days from today. If either of these is up you alley, feel free to help. We hope you stay with us in coming weeks. TonyTheTiger 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know why the one reference in the reference section is not linked to any particular subject? I am refering to Kamin, Blair. "DECO RESURRECTION", Chicago Tribune, 2006-08-06. Retrieved on 2007-02-25. TonyTheTiger 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Chicago Theatre has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
CHICOTW Policy Notice
editIn general, it is a good idea to refrain from editting articles while they are nominees for CHICOTW. That way everyone is voting on the same version of pages. Furthermore, if you save your edits until something is actually the CHICOTW we will look more productive as a group by making bigger improvements. TonyTheTiger 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Chicago Board of Trade Building, was selected for DYK!
edit
|
On February 28, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicago Board of Trade Building, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: March 2007
edit|
Issue IV - March 2007 | |
|
|
|
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to to add news to the next issue, please see here. | |
Chicago Theater on DYK
edit|
|
On 5 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicago Theater, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Thank you for your contributions in expanding the article! — ERcheck (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW nomination
editPlease rephrase your nomination in 25 words or less for posterity. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Union Stock Yards has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
New NRHP Collaboration Division
editHey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW vote
editPlease reassess your CHICOTW vote. An article for the redlinked candidate you voted for has been found. It is likely you may perceive lending our assistance to this article less important compared to other possibilities given its good start already. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Burnham Park (Chicago) has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
CPD
editHow did you add the Burnham Park page link for the citation. I have not been able to do so for any of the parks at Washington Park, Chicago. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I found Dinah Washington Park and Washington Square Park, Chicago pages using google. I still can't find Harold Washington Park. Do you know how to find this page?
Balbo Monument
editI presume the monument still exists. I can get a picture during the summer, but it might be nice to have one before we go up for GAC in 5.5 weeks. In fact, a picture would probably entice me to submit this instead of the UN for DYK. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Beaches in Chicago has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week The Second City has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
Fishes
editThere is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of a project whose naming conventions would be affected (WikiProject Aquarium Fishes), your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Neil916 (Talk) 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week AT&T Corporate Center has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: April 2007
edit|
Issue V - April 2007 | |
|
|
|
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to to add news to the next issue, please see here. | |
Chicago Spire
editThanks for going through and editing the article. I know I've made a few grammar mistakes and others have come in and changed the wording around as well. I'm just leaving this message because I'm not sure whether you inserted the cite request for the location of the Spire or whether it was for the comment "as a welcoming symbol to the City of Chicago". If it was the former, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll find a reference. If it was for the latter - I've removed that comment. It looks like it was added by User:LKLIII [1] back in 2005. The only reason I've left it in up until now is because it was in there for so long. Thanks again. Chupper 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
edit
Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
- The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
- Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
- We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
- We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Chicago Landmark has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
CBOTB GA
edit|
|
| |
|
You were a contributing editor to Chicago Board of Trade Building 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 built this page from scratch. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
| ||
|
Contributing editors:AKeen, ChicagoPimp, Drinibot, Elkman, ILike2BeAnonymous, Shsilver, SmackBot, TheQuandry, TonyTheTiger. | ||
 |
| |
Importance
editI greatly appreciate your enthusiasm. You are being too liberal with your ratings. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. We want to be as strict as they are. In short, less than 1 in 1000 article should be rated as top. I believe that the 5 I have chosen are our top 5. I am open for debate, however. We probably should delete a top for everyone we add until we have 6000 articles tagged in our project. Shedd is either Mid or High, not top. I will have to work on a page similar to theirs for our project. However, I am open for debate. I have to talk to their assessment guy Ozgod about what percentages should be used for other articles.
Until I create a page explaining the approximate guidelines, it would be more helpful if you would just add the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} to as many pages as you can and encourage others to do so as well. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since I grew up in Buffalo and was fairly well educated I can tell you that from the international perspective Lincoln Park is not a Top class article. I never heard of it before moving here. I also believe that I could justly invite a foreign visitor to Chicago for a 5-7 day trip without telling them they should go see it. While discussing things with non-Chicagoans it became apparent to me that being named the official U.S. selection is not as important to others as it is to us. I could not get the story on to the main page In the news section. There are two reasons why other projects may have extremely high top proportions.
- They are wrong and classifying too many things as top.
- They are right, which could be caused by the fact that their mid and low importance articles are not getting the attention they deserve.
- Consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and look at the redlinks on the Chicago Landmark page.
- Consider whether they are aggressively tagging their low importance articles.
- I personally believe that all groups should be capped at .1%. This would force them to go out and create stubs and tag all low importance articles. Keep in mind that since most FAs have multiple tags the fact that .075% of article are FAs means would imply that fewer than .075% all articles should be top if top meant should be FA. Suppose the average FA had 3 tags. Then .025% of all articles should be top. If the average had 5 tags then .015% of all articles should be top. However this is not clean since top in one tag does not imply anything for other articles. Look at Talk:Andy Warhol. He has about 10 tags including Cats because he wrote some cat books. Zoologists who study felines do not consider Warhol of top importance for some reason however. Talk:Barack Obama shows that although he was born in Hawaii, he is not a top importance article to them. Similarly, Talk:Michael Jordan shows that MJs baseball career was not too important.
- I will get back to you when I get some information back from certain queries. However, I have left directions on how to contribute until further notice at talk on WP:WPChi. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Don't misread my sarcasm. I appreciate the debate. We need open exchange to pursue proper development of WP:WPChi. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:OWN
editI would have to say of all the oppose votes yours is the most disconcerting because we have worked so well together over the last 2 months to improve the Chicago related articles. Your complaint about my ownership is a problem that I need to address. I thought that I had been accomodative of the efforts by all WP:CHICOTW and now WP:WPChi participants. Most troubling is your complaint about a policy that is under development and currently still a vision. Here are the two sides of my experience with assessment tagging (mostly for quality) User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_7#Helping_out_with_the_Unassessed_Wikipedia_Biographies, User_talk:Ozgod/Archive_Old_Talk_-_2007#Assessment_Guidelines. Nonetheless, as will all policy on either page I will tend to follow the consensus on the talk pages. Can you point to an example where I was not willing to resolve the correct direction to take through discourse with open communication. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Chicago 2016 Olympic bid has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. | ||
| |
| |
Tagging
editI am working on getting a bot to tag our articles for us. You don't have to contribute your time doing that for now. Thanks for your efforts however. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
edit|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Douglas Park (Chicago) has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles. | ||
| |
| |
SISS
editAs for references in the article, There are likely tens of thousands of WP articles that have not yet adopted the "new" format, which is a fine format, but obviously not standard in all articles yet. I would also be wary of tagging an article as having "no references" as a remedy for these older articles, many of which have "Reference" sections. I - or you, or anyone else - can create the <ref> tags within the article. - Nhprman 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)