User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

hmm

User_talk:Chzz#intersection. Words fail me right now; will respond later.  Chzz  ►  07:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To prove I'm not bullshitting

I e-mailed you proof. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Media

• Ohio State signed a 10-year media-rights agreement with IMG College and RadiOhio, worth nearly $128 million, the largest such agreement in college sports.[1] Ucla90024 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of time

Thank you for your kind words. I have enjoyed working with you in the past, with some success I believe, and the Fountain of time article looks very interesting. I'm sorry that my intervention on the "intersection" quibble was late and not too much help to you, but I honestly think it's too small a point to waste further time on. I would be interested in copyediting the article, but I have just agreed to do a full copyedit on a long, tough article (Martin Bucer), which will take me a few days. What with that and other commitments, I wouldn't be able to start on Fountain of time before about Tuesday (7th). If this is OK with you I'll do it, so let me know if you're happy with that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have Fountain of Time as my next main copyedit job and I still hope to start it when I have finished Martin Bucer. Unfortunately a situation has arisen on one of my old FAs, Robert Falcon Scott, where I am trying to avoid an edit war. Perhaps that problem will soon be sorted out – anyway, I'll get to Fountain as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle FAC

Thanks Tony - I'll take a look. Tvoz/talk 05:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup of the article - hadn't looked in on it in a few weeks. Will take a look at references and other likely FAC hangups too. Separate from the FAC discussions, I think we will need an improved "role as First Lady" section soon, as she makes her mark. There is a great deal of press about her already, well beyond the fashion stuff - the organic garden, her impact abroad, etc. May be too early still, but I think we'll want to bring that in balance very soon, as there is perhaps too much emphasis on small details of her role in the campaign, for example, and not enough about her as FL. Tvoz/talk 06:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My last bunch of edits are not from the FAC - I'm going through the article itself and making corrections to the refs - many are inconsistent or using the wrong cite template. I will look at the FAC again and try to indicate where I've made fixes if I can, when I finish the edit I'm in the middle of. Also will look at the template. Tvoz/talk 06:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The "cite web" is the right one for a few of the citations - like IMDB, Treehouse, a few others that are not at all news sites. Some others can go either way - I'll double check that I did it consistently when I'm done. Generally I think that when we can reasonably use "news" it's the better choice because of the automatic italicization and the layout, but sometimes it just doesn't work. I've also been going through and fixing the "dates" so they are all in the same format (Month day, year) and the "accessdates" are all in yyyy-mm-dd. And trying to catch all the author names to be last, first, and removing unnecessary "publisher" fields as per earlier discussions we had on the Inauguration article. Also - I put the 02138 article back in because it was a legitimate print piece (I had a copy in fact, but haven't been able to put my hands on it) -and we are not required to have a URL for print pblications. The link was dead because the pub went out of business, bt I saw the article with my own eyes - it is real. More cleanup coming. Tvoz/talk 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I don't agree with the changing of all "Michelles" to "Obama" - as per the comment I left last night on the FAC. I think it adds to confusion and is now much more awkwardly worded. We don't have to do each and every thing that is suggested in order to pass. This one I think should be reconsidered. Take a look at Nancy Reagan which is a FA and dealt with the same thing. Tvoz/talk 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok will do (may not be until this evening as I have to go out for a while). Also I don't think the caption is appropriate for the lead infobox photo - the part about sleeveless attire - that could work on a different photo in the body of the article in conjunction with that section, but I don't think it's good for the lead. I'd go for no caption there at all - see most of the other FLs, like Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan(FA), Betty Ford, etc. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's fair. A lead-box reference to sleeves may be a little too much. But it should certainly be somewhere, because her arms are too well-toned not to mention. Al1encas1no (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

← Sorry for delay in getting back to you about the speech section - I've been sick the past few days and couldn't focus on it. Will try to soon if no one else has stepped in - I agree that it may be too long now, especially the multiple National Review comments. Tvoz/talk 20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Over redirect

Ha, I think I remember trying to do one myself and it went through and I didn't think about it twice. Grsz¹¹ 01:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sleeves!

I enjoy the caption, actually. I just wanted to NOT stomp on your hard work. Al1encas1no (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankie Rayder

Congratulations! I passed the article as a Good Article because I believe that it meets the GA standards. Thanks for all of the work that you had to do to reach this goal, and the length of time spent under review. Royalbroil 02:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup reviewing

Well frankly, it couldn't get any worse at FAR really...I can't see how a WikiCup would mess anything up there, as there is basically no checks except to see that there are references at all. If a guy adds in most of the refs or even cosmetically, the reviewers will usually let it drop. Definitely a lower bar than GA.... Some unsourced articles have FARs that sit there for four weeks even though it is obviously unsourced, it would otherwsie get quick failed at FAC in about 3 days usually by a margin of 0-5 or whatever. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ariel Meredith

Thank you for your less than courteous message. If you look closely at the [[[WP:GAN]] page you will see that this is optional. " You may also want to update the "recently listed good articles" and/or any WikiProject templates on the article talk page, but this is optional." Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NYRepresentatives

Template:NYRepresentatives has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Frankie Rayder/GA1

Congratulations on the GA. I am glad that Royalbroil (talk · contribs) stepped in with additional points and that you were able to respond to the points brought up in the review. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:20080810 d-1024-627v.jpg

File:20080810 d-1024-627v.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Kobe Bryant Beijing Olympics 20080810 d-1024-627v.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Kobe Bryant Beijing Olympics 20080810 d-1024-627v.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File:47441085 Z9gP8-L.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Bush signs Rosa Parks statue bill.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi TonyTheTiger, I noticed when I went through FAC today that you have begun reviewing articles. Thank you very much! I was especially impressed with your detailed and insightful comments at Cyathus. You are definitely helping to reduce the FAC backlog, and I hope I continue to see your name as a reviewer as well as a nominator. Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of time copyedit

I have copyedited the lead, leaving the references in place. When I start on the main body of the article I will use an "inuse" banner while I am actively copyediting. The process will extend over several days, but the edit history will enable you to keep track of what I've done. If you have any problem. please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Planning and the Installation sections have been copyedited. In the Planning section I had to shift some of the material around, to make sense of the chronology - it took me a long while to make sense of it, but I think it's OK now. All the refs are in place. I am suggesting that the Installation section be renamed "Location and installation", since the text deals with more than installation. I believe that the last sentence of the third paragraph of Installation needs a citation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Finished: I've finished the copyedit – no quid pro quo required, consider it a tribute for all the work you've done over the years. I had a few problems with the Restoration section, perhaps you can clarify.

• It isn't clear who actually funded the various restoration stages:-

• You say the Chicago Park District, the University of Chicago and the Arts Foundation of Chicago "sponsored" repair work. Later you say the Park District allocated $150,000. Much later the University coughs up $100,000. No contribution recorded from the Arts Foundation.
• You also refer to "the agency" having collected $320,000. What agency is this ?
• You also say "the city" spent $450,000 on repairs in 1997. What agency of the city spent this money?
• An estimate of $520,000 is mentioned at one stage. Then, without explanation, we are told that a $1.6 million phase 2 restoration began. Where did this money come from?

• You have crowded out the page with present day dollar value conversions. It really isn't necessary to convert, say, 2007 amounts to 2009 equivalents; the same is true for all these relatively recent conversions. They clutter the page and are even misleading, in that rounded figures and estimates are given spuriously accurate equivalents (for example, $520,000 becomes $822,569). I strongly advise getting rid of all these except, perhaps, one token: you could given an updated value for £520,000 in terms of (over £800,000). Otherwise, as it is you will have loads of figures that you will continually have to update as present values change.

• A couple of points unrelated to my copyedit. The article is somewhat overcrowded with images (and has a gallery as well!). The lead looks particularly top-heavy with the map squeezed in. Personally I don't think you need Image: Midway larger map.gif and Image:Fountain of Time map.gif. I would place the latter in the text, and get rid of the other. Finally, I got rid of some overlinking (false teeth) but there is probably more.

• I am going to move your comments to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Fountain of Time‎ and reply there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to revert anything if it doesn't say what you want to say. Brianboulton (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your questions

Might as well answer both of your questions at the same time...:

1. As far as Southtowns: that's a region, not a specific hamlet, CDP, town, village, city, or Indian reservation, so it doesn't belong on the template.
2. As far as Snyder: I don't claim that it's not a real place, or that it doesn't deserve an article; I'm simply saying that it doesn't belong on the template. This is simply because there's no article on it: it's simply a redirect. Write an article on it and the template will be deficient without a link, but as long as there's no article on it there shouldn't be a link on the template. You have enough GAs that you should know how to write a decent quality article :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the ATM :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks nice! Just concerned, though: do GA reviewers generally like that many pictures? Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, since you seem to enjoy taking pictures: do you know if you could supply pictures for any of Erie County's approximately 130 sites on the National Register of Historic Places? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; the only article that I've written that went for GA (which passed :-) was Southworth House (Cleveland, Ohio), and (having only walked past the place) I only had one picture, so having too many pictures definitely wasn't a concern for it. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Nominations

Hi - no i am not using a report,the bot is apparently broken. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the prompt to source my addition to the Midway Pond and Pond connection. I've corrected my error. Many thanks. --Iowaway (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:March 2009 Obama Vogue cover.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:March 2009 Obama Vogue cover.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Happyme22 (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note: your claim on the image description page that the file adheres to Wikipedia:FU#Images #8 is not correct. The iconic image contention is only for the image itself, not the subject of the image or how the subject is being portrayed. In other words, saying Mrs. Obama is a rising icon in the fashion industy and this magazine cover just goes to prove it won't cut it. For example: this file is a truly iconic photograph that has gone down in history as one of the most famous ever. Those are the types of photos that are allowed under contention 8. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

MARepresentatives

{{MARepresentatives}} is now ready for use.—Markles 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing the Obama inauguration article...

I decluttered the Ceremony section by removing images and the chart, based on the review in the second feature article nomination. Here's the information that I picked up:

Image review - Before I check all of the images in this article, let's begin by removing some of them. This article is overillustrated. Please be more selective. Many sections are illustrated by two pictures when one would do. The "Ceremony" section, in particular, is poorly laid out. Awadewit (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC) →Lwalt ^♦ talk 05:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the Obama inauguation article

OK...I've added back the JumboTron image that shows the captioning of the oath. Not sure about the placement, though.

Here are the other changes that I'm considering to the article to tighten up things:

Luncheon - The article does not mention anything about the Lenox bowl traditionally given to presidents after the inauguration. There's an image of the one that Obama (and separately, Biden) received at the luncheon. Done. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 10:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Parade section - Remove the image of the presidential limo. Leave the one showing the Obamas walking the parade route.

Inaugural Balls - Remove the front and back images of the Obama Home State Ball tickets (if you want to leave one for historical purposes, do the one for the front of the ticket). The images for the convention center, along with the ones for the Obamas and Bidens dancing and entertainers at the ball may need to be enlarged for better visibility of details.

I'm running these by you to see what you think about these changes. I'm out for now (its 3:30 a.m. ET where I am). →Lwalt ^♦ talk 07:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Snyder

Did you just drive around taking pictures specifically for Wikipedia? Nice work. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

IIRC it was the 1990 PO reconfiguration; Getzville, Eggertsville, Snyder(ville), and "Amherst" were merged into 14068 (Officially "Getzville"), 14226 (officially "Buffalo", in practical usage, "Snyder"), and 14228 (offically "Buffalo", in practical usage "Amherst"). USPS has Eggertsville and Snyder listed as acceptable for 14226, and searching for "Eggertsville" gives you 14226 and nothing else. A quick Lexis-Nexis search for info about the switch turns up...nothing, as does a google search, and a look through my T of A history book. But the National Zip Code Map shows that Eggertsville is defiantly all 14226 in 2009.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Right...that's what I was trying to do, and I came up pretty much empty. I can find sources that there used to be an Eggertsville PO, sources that their isn't now, and sources that Eggertsville is 14226. The lack of sources for the in between part is why I left the rest of the info in the edit summary and not in the article. Nice job with the article.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits to the JumboTron image caption

I saw your edits to the JumboTron image caption where you added that the oath did not match what was actually said by Obama during the live broadcast. However, this information would be obvious from the snippet of the oath to the left of the image. Sorry...After I took a later look at the article history, I realized that left this message for you in error (a different editor made the changes that I mentioned here). I'll take care of the revision that I mentioned earlier based on my comments below. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I know about closed captioning for live events (familiar with it, since my deaf daughter has used one since childhood), the caption sometimes shows what's expected of the speaker if known in advance. In other cases, the caption presents what's actually said if it's not known in advance. In the case of the oath, it's in the Constitution, not to mention that the text of the oath is widely available in advance. That's probably why the correct words are shown in the caption for what the Obama was expected to recite as the oath (and likely why the words didn't match what was actually said in the live broadcast). That one even surprised me as I witnessed the ceremony in the ticketed section at the Capitol, saying to myself, that doesn't sound right...which later turned out to the case.

For clarity and to prevent confusion to the reader, if another image is not available that shows the live captioning of what Obama actually said, rather than what he was expected to say, you may either want to remove the image or edit the caption so that it does not mention the error. I still say that another reviewer might comment on the need for the image and what the image is supposed to support in the article, since the words in the caption were not actually said in the live broadcast of the oath ceremony. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Saxbe fix.

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Chicago Board of Trade Building.

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on South Side (Chicago).

Wow! :) Sorry for the delay (internet connection problems). As for the five award per TFA also, I'll be working on your idea :) (I'll let you know when done so you can request if you want) ♠TomasBat 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent message on FA board for the Obama inauguration article

I saw your message about the PIC logo in the infobox. However, the PIC logo is not PD. It's copyrighted, as I've found after reading the PIC terms and services page. I emailed PIC to ask permission to use the logo for the inauguration article (including links to the both the article and image page). If you want to see a copy of what I've sent, let me know. I do not want to post it publicly here at Wikipedia. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Snyder, NY map

I'll look into it. Lexicon (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a chance I'd have it done by then. Sorry. Lexicon (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama

Sorry for not responding to you earlier, I was without Internet for several days. Took a quick look and see it is definately getting better. Would have to look at it more closely to know if I would have removed my oppose, but I bet a couple more weeks of work at the most and it could pass a second round. Good luck. Indrian (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at Template talk:Did you know/Queue/3.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Southtowns

On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Southtowns, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

re Four Award

Hey, thanks for thinking of me and giving me a notice about this! ;) Cirt (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Snyder, New York

On April 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Snyder, New York, 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.

thx ttt Victuallers (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard

Hello! Your submission of Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1968 Illinois earthquake

You reviewed it for GA a while ago. I've exhausted my available resources. Being that you live in Illinois, would you mind searching around to see if you can find anything worth using? I'm trying to prepare this article for FA, so I'd appreciate any help. Ceranllama chat post 22:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

{{modelref}}

template got nominated for deletion. I'll leave a comment on the deletion page, but it's really your idea, so you'd do a better job defending it.

p.s. please fix the CSS formatting at the top of your page, or I may take it on myself to do it for you. sorry, but it's really unpleasant. --Ludwigs2 14:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

ok, a first draft - I had to modify some of your subpages as well (which I'm sure you can see). at least now all the overlaps are gone, though there's still some tweaks that could be done. I'll look at those later. --Ludwigs2 16:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

I have reviewed this article's GA nomination here, and have placed it on hold pending the resolution of some concerns. Please let me know when these concerns have been addressed, and I will happily re-review the article. Thanks! Resolute 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost there. I have one remaining concern, which has almost literally popped up between my first review and today. I've left notes at the GA talk page. Incidentally, I just realized that I am sitting here reviewing an article that promotes how great a sports city Chicago is right as the Blackhawks are embroiled in a nasty playoff series with my team.  ;) Resolute 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have now passed the article. Good luck to Chicago on the bid! Resolute 16:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

re FOUR nominating

I'm not sure, I was just nominating folks as I noticed their eligibility for stuff. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Steve Driehaus

Steve Driehaus#Committtee assignments

Good enough for you? Nevermore | Talk 19:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think committee assignments can be easily confirmed by going to the page on said committees. Or to the Congressperson's web page that is already linked from the article. Is it that necessary? Nevermore | Talk 06:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was they're already verified via the official websites of the Congressperson and the committee article and the sources cited from the committee article.. It just seems a little excessive. Nevermore | Talk 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

followup about Allentown Historic District (Buffalo, New York)

I was supposed to email you the documents for Allentown Historic District (Buffalo, New York). But, i think you may have the docs already. If you still want them, please send me a note by email, so that i have your email address handy to send them. I would send by some web-based file transfer system that would let you know by email that they're available to download. Regards, doncram (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard

On April 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard, 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.

Orlady (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive

On April 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive, 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.

Orlady (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is an edit war going on with the Inauguration of Barack Obama article?

During the course of editing the article, I noticed what looks like a tic-for-tac disagreement going on regarding wikilinks for captions with you another editor. Although wikilinks in captions are framed as as a guideline and not a hard and fast rule, take a look at "Tips for describing pictures" under WP:Captions and work with out a consensus with the other person so that we don't get into WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 14:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Tony. I am not in an edit war with you. We have not gone beyond the 3 revert rule; and it is not my intention. I am happy to discuss with you. I removed the redundant wikilinks in the captions per Wikipedia:CAPTION#Clear_identification_of_the_subject: "If the image depicts the subject of the article, it need not be wikilinked." I do not think it is necessary to have the word "Barack Obama" linked in nearly every caption. At the time of my edit, some terms had redundant links and other did not, so not only was I following the advice under "clear identification" but also trying to make the article consistent. I have nothing but respect for all the work that Lwalt and you have contributed to the article and appreciate all your help doubling checking mine with fresh eyes. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw both replies...thanks. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 15:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles etc

Thank you Tony for your kind words. TFA is something of a lottery, and I've recently got lucky a few times. As to featured articles generally, I may be ahead in simple WP:WBFAN terms (if that counter ever gets started again), but I reckon you're way ahead in overall Wikipedia contributions, so keep up the work and don't hesitate to ask for my assistance if you need it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to say thank you very much for the award, and to let you know I have not forgotten the bridge (oh and I left a "tiger" above ;-) Keep up the good work and your awesome output Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it - I was thinking of leaving you the airplane version, but all your tigers are alive, and I liked the orange and black moth picture. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ILRepresentatives

Template:ILRepresentatives has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Better link: I have combined two templates in one nomination, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 24#Two_US_representatives_templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

re WP:FOUR

Thanks for the note, of course if you are already aware of those people, feel free to nom them yourself. :) Cirt (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay no worries. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was I sent a message stating that I have done an nonconstructive edit on Campbell's Soup Cans? I've never even looked at that page until you sent me the message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.20.15 (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate the Saxbe bling. I can't stand to see a law article go bad, thus why I am helping out on the Harlan article as well ... All of my DYK/GA or /FA are expansions, I've never taken an article from nil to GA or FA, though Franklin Knight Lane consisted entirely of a copyvio text. If you get a chance, could you look at the Lane article? It has two supports at FAC, and more reviewers will obviously help.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demi's Birthday Suit

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Demi's Birthday Suit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demi's Birthday Suit

The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit for eventual comments about the article. Well done! The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion of three FLs you have significantly contributed to

See Talk:Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No because FLRC is not meant to be a substitute for a merge discussion. I decided to start the discussion first, then head to FLRC if there is a merge consensus. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration

I'll work on it tomorrow. Too blipping tired tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)