User talk:Pknkly/Archive 1

Category page

Feel free to use it, but it gets tough keeping two lists organized and WP:CHIBOTCATS is the important one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My votes here and rationale for your further consideration

Hello Pknkly. I have cast my votes at the above-named location - scroll down to my name at the end of the list. I would not normally come to your page to tell you of such an edit but in this case I have used a particular rationale and method which I think is deserving of your further consideration; and so I ask you to re-visit and make further comment if you wish. If there is some other way that I can assist or if you have any further questions please come to my talk page at any time. With thanks --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice and participation. I hope we can rewrite the criteria for all the Importance Assessment values in the near future (please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment#Importance rating process improvement. Pknkly (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO voting for Top-importance Chicago articles

Feel free to come vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates for our next Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Voting continues until September 10 and nominations/discussions are ongoing for future ballot candidates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The suspense of your votes is killing me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago tagging

• FYI I've replied at User talk:Xeno#auto-assess. –xeno^talk 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• There's some de-tagging work that you might want to look into at User talk:Xeno#Out of scope?. –xeno^talk 15:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Top Importance quota

I hope we can get away from the importance of an article being set on some quota. The subject, standing on its own merit and not on external factors, is either important or it is not. By setting the Importance parameter I feel I am saying to a reader of the article that this article is either important or it would be a waist of their time to read the article which is not important relative to the criteria established by the project. If the subject of the article passes all the Top Importance criteria it should be rated as such as soon as possible and not let it linger until a rating period or some quota is raised. I want to let readers know the subject is important as soon as possible. For all I know there are people out there who have an interest in Chicago and use the Top Importance listing in hopes of getting the project members' perspective of which articles should be read. If we wait for a voting period or have a quota we would be misleading that person. Articles that should be Top Importance linger and wait as High Importance until the voting period is upon us or the quota is raised. Using a quota also compels editors to make Top Importance articles out of articles that do not meet the Top Importance criteria. They interpretation of the criteria is softened so the quota can be met. I hope we can rework the whole meaning of the Importance parameter and the processes that use it. Pknkly (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This system has not been a problem. It just sort of gives us an impetus to get together every so often and bring our collective minds together to assess the projects articles. Sure we could just slap top on everything elected and have 50. This is just the system that I decided after seeing WP:WPBIO use 200 for their top and thinking it is good to have a specific number. However, as our project grows and we find things this gives us a chance to recognize them. You clearly spend time thinking about our process, but if at all possible I would like to maintain a quota like some other projects. I would just like ours to be dynamic. I don't like the way BIO has to remove one for every newly important person.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this be wp:linkspam

Tony,

I wanted to put the following under "External links" in the article on Chicago blues:

• http://www.cod.edu/wdcb/wdcb_online.htm - Free with no commercials streaming blues from College of DuPage, Illinois on Saturdays from 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 pm Central Time

Do you think that would be wp:linkspam driving traffic to College of DuPage? Pknkly (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would guess probably not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

John Benjamin Murphy

The reference says "Early in his career, his flamboyant display of surgical genius evoked such calumny that he was refused membership in the Chicago Medical Society and the American Surgical Association."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks

Thank you for helping me learn how to use citations. I'm not a whiz at computers or the technical details of Wikipedia, but I try to contribute to Wikipedia anyway. So, thank you again.71.194.114.35 (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S., I can't find the book right now, but when I do, I'll give you the page number or I'll add it myself.71.194.114.35 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles

You are the first to receive the following notice:

For the rest of this month we are looking for more candidates to be promoted to Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. We are hoping to bring the list of category members to a total of 50. Either you have participated in past votes and discussions or you have recently signed up to be a part of WP:CHICAGO. In either case, please come visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment where we are determining who to add to the September 1st ballot. Some candidate debates have lingered, but there are many new ones from the project's top 50 according to the Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. Help us determine which pages to add to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, you seem to be taking the guidelines far too literally. Many articles already approved as top importance do or did not literally affect the world. E.G., The Pullman Strike is probably nearly as important as the Haymarket Affair. This is not like an article review where each particular criteria needs to be checked explicitly. I don't think the Chicago River or Lake Shore Drive have global importance, but agree with them as Top-Importance. You might want to look at the candidates more generally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please weigh in on the Rumsfeld demotion debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I have replied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you holding to your oppose at Black Sox Scandal?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there issues not addressed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment/Voting#Votes. I have put instructions there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. you can see what the prior ballots have looked like at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment/archives#Promotion_debates.2Fvotes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. My goal has been to keep the number of top-importance articles at 0.2% of the articles for the project. As the project grows we promote articles. This ballot should take us out at least another year and give us time to stumble across other important articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews

Some time ago, User:Madcoverboy had agreed to be the WP:CHICAGO peer review coordinator. He has not undertaken the responsibility. Thus, if you want peer reviews for these articles you must do so at WP:PR in the project wide peer review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply (Chicago River)

I figured that since the river flow was reversed in 1900 and the Eastland sank in 1915, the river reversal should logically (and chronologically) come first. Shsilver (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply (Chicago Second City)

I got that from a recent architectural tour I took. I'll look around for references to put on the page. It just did not make sense that the city will adopt a nickname that is so second place! (haha) Laolu (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Grazi. Just another day on the job, kid;-)--Orestek (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

African American

Hi. Thanks for your note. I look forward to your contributions to the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Chicago

Hello,Recently you removed an edit I added to History of Chicago. Please let me know the specific reason why you removed my edit.Thank you. Mimiken (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the bad reversion to my attention. I did not see that you had shifted the statement starting with "In 1983, Harold Washington became the first black mayor...". I erroneously thought you had deleted that statement. I replaced your good edit which would be better if you added a citation to it. Again, thanks for your edit and bringing my bad reversion to my attention. See you around the articles. 03:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

reply

Thanks for greeting!Harryhw (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: your message about Talk: Balki Bartokomous

Thanks for both your message to me about this, and the info on the talk page. The link to the guide on writing about fiction will be useful, as I (like many, I think) have trouble avoiding in-universe writing. Hopefully I can fix it, to avoid any merging or other actions, it might turn out to be a bigger undertaking than I think, so we'll see. Thanks again for your help. --Susan118 ^talk 03:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chicago gang numbers for 1920s

Ah, I see it now. Thanks for catching my gaffe. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cadherin further reading

Cadherins are essentially omnipresent. They appear very early during embryogenesis and are continuously expressed afterward. There are some 20-odd varieties of cadherin that are correlated with specific cells, like N cadherin, which was first discovered in Neurons. Cells do switch the type of cadherin they express as embryos develop, but it's not clear whether cadherin is related to cell differentiation or merely a consequence of it. Also, cells expressing different types of cadherin do not normally associate with each other (E and N cadherin do not adhere to each other when on the surface of cells) At the very least, though, we know many other types of signals must also be playing a role, because if cadherins are mixed in a test tube without cells present, then they do mix and adhere to each other just fine.

Embryogenesis is a high-level article and it would be reasonable for it to say how things happen, as cadherin is only one of many thousands of factors that play a role. I would think that only people interested in mechanistic levels of detail, like someone taking a college class, would be interested at protein-level details, like the Cadherin article provides. It's unfortunate that the Cell Adhesion article is so underdeveloped right now.

One good source of non-technical information is Alberts' Molecular Biology of the Cell, which is free for reading on the NIH's PubMed website, and linked in the 'external links' section of the cadherin article.

Very greatful for your suggestions and feedback. Pknkly (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Architecture of Chicago

Looks fine. Architecture of Chicago article is about more than just the Chicago school buildings which distinguishes it from the Chicago School of Architecture article. Would be nice to have more sources. There is much more to write about in Chicago.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Barrington article

Thanks for the feedback I didn't notice the links in the other places in the article you pointed out. I also wrote the fulton river district article and put the official page in the external links, but it's a smaller simpler article and doesn't have those other places to put the muni link. I backed out my change as per your suggestion. Sblument (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Top Importance

I will contact you the next time the project takes a vote for future Top-Importance articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss candidates for Top importance go to Wikipedia_talk:CHIASSESS. I will be sending out notices this week for candidate discussions and hopefully, we can have a vote by September 1.

Tagging Activity 06Apr2009

Hi Pknkly. Some of your article tagging today seems to be a little off. For example, on the Vanessa Hudgens article, you selected 17 different parameters, but not a single one seems to apply to that particular article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 1:41 am, 6 April 2009, Monday (5 months, 25 days ago) (UTC−5)

   I have to chime in on that one too, please don't tag articles without putting an explanation in the discussion page. For example if you use the fan-site tag then you should be able find a concrete example such as 'Sentences like "..." make this sound like a fan-site.' I noticed you've been tagging a lot of articles and many of these have simply been reverted.--RDBury (talk) 9:40 am, 6 April 2009, Monday (5 months, 25 days ago) (UTC−5)

Chicago

Thanks. I am having trouble finding the exact date Chi was passed by LA, which is really the one we want there. Jd2718 (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Second City" claim: the Encyclopedia of Chicago seems to credit Liebling with coining the phrase in the 20th century, although I suppose it's possible that the term was in use earlier. Do you have any useful sources about the history of the nickname? Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go to the library to look at the book by Liebling - * Chicago: The Second City; 1952, Knopf: New York (2004 Univ of Nebraska Press ed: ISBN 0-8032-8035-1). Thanks for the additional reference to Chicagohistory. Pknkly (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Monuments

Glad to be of service to our fair city. I haven't contributed in a while since I've been working on my next book, but I always try to get some good stuff in.--Orestek (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)