User:Zzyzx11/Archive25

Season param on hockey box.
I thought you might like to know the reason why we didn't have the current season param on the pro hockey team infobox. It's because we generally delete any season article below the NHL level or redirect the team seasons to the league seasons. -DJSasso (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although now that I look at a couple of your changes I see you linked them to league season pages so it doesn't matter. Ignore me lol. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm one of those users who is not in favor of the layout that is generated when both an infobox and current sport-related are used (as what the baseball and basketball articles and WikiProjects do, unfortunately). So in essence, I merged whatever link was previously being used on current sport-related, and ignored those articles that didn't currently have it. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SA
I am trying to understand why you
 * 1) Put Trump Tower Chicago on the date of the party
 * 2) Removed Chicago Board of Trade Building (Dates of completion or premiere of major works of art and architecture recognized on a global scale, such as the Golden Gate Bridge)
 * 3) Did not respond to my other query about additional articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response. WP:OTD has been recently modified due to the fact that WP:DOY recently became an official content guideline a few days ago. This is because one of the long-standing criterion on WP:OTD reads that "The event and the selected article (bolded item) needs to be listed in the Events section of its corresponding day-of-the-year article". This in essence also means that each listing on OTD should also comply with WP:DOY as well.


 * Therefore, I'm now currently trying to comply and cleanup all the existing events listed. The moving of the Trump Tower and the Chicago Board of Trade Building may have been an error on my part, as I am still getting use to the new guidelines.


 * Any comments I would have had about your additional articles may be outdated, and I'll look into them when my time permits it, since I'm going back though all the previous additions that mat not comply. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's a suggestion to save you some time instead of waiting for me and my busy schedule: Now that WP:DOY is an official guideline, if you want to test if an event is significant enough, just add it to the corresponding day-of-the month article. Since they are watched by more users than the OTD templates (since IPs and vandals usually try to add nonsense and insignificant entries), those users will give you better feedback on whether they are significant enough by either reverting or not. That way, you can quickly check off the "majorness" and "well-written" criteria.


 * And I'll give you another secret: I'll admit that is hard to accurately judge the "the mix of items already listed" criteria until just before it goes on that Main Page, because it all depends on which articles also pass or fail the "well-written" before it goes on that Main Page. That is the reason why most of my previous responses to you have used "may" or "might" instead of "will" or "is" – I don't know in advance which articles will be eliminated first by the "well-written" criterion when its time for their respective OTD template to be shown on the Main Page. Given the nature of Wikipedia, an article that was a GA or better last year might end up having article issues this year, and vice versa. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked through your edits and see you have added all the relevant articles to Date articles. However, is it the case that the date articles don't have any quality hurdle.  I have only been looking at my GA and FAs, but I probably have a ton of other anniversaries of lower quality articles.  Also, you mentioned in your edit summaries 3rd party requests.  Where do I watch for these?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there is really no quality requirement for the date-of-the-month pages. They're really just list pages with a guideline, WP:DOY, describing their criteria for inclusion.


 * As for your second question: Quite frankly, the only thing I'm looking for is if someone either reverts those edits, or makes a complaint on the relative talk page. If it stays posted for a week or two, it is probably safe to add it the OTD template for the time being. But again, I cannot really give you a guarantee of anything until one or two days before a specific OTD template rotates onto the Main Page. Because somebody might disagree and revert those edits a few months later, the consensus on WP:DOY may change, various articles will shift up and down the assessment ratings scale, and there will always be the ideal goal to try to have a mix of topics than span the centuries. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion where this was approved, on the talk page or at the WikiProject. Lake Burley Griffin was a very large lake and the centrepiece of Canberra a planned city. It might as well be Canberra's equivalent of the Sydney Harbour Bridge  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just the messenger. I do not plan on reverting any of your additions at this time (although somebody might in the future). But if it is the case that it, like Sydney Harbour Bridge, is "major works of art and architecture recognized on a global scale", then you have nothing to worry about that one. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I'm not upset with/blaming you. But if the definition of "global power" = "exclude anything not involving US" maybe we should get rid of the criteria that it has to be on the article page first. Do you know if there was a discussion of the guideline somewhere?  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which guideline? The one on WP:OTD that's been there like practically forever?. Or WP:DOY?


 * If it's WP:DOY, according to the archived discussion pages of Wikipedia talk:Days of the year, previously debates there appear to have constantly died out. Then the current proposal was drafted in 2008. I assume they properly advertised the proposal as per WP:PROPOSAL, and went through all the steps. It was eventually marked as a guideline and notified as such on WP:VPP. The problem is that there seems to be only a handful of users who are currently active on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year (I'm not one of them, as my attention has been focused elsewhere), so the "consensus of the WikiProject" is more likely a consensus of one or two. Therefore, you may have sufficient grounds under WP:PG to tag the page with disputedtag and claim that it "was recently assigned guideline or policy status without proper or sufficient consensus being established", especially if you want to argue that consensus for that guideline should be made by the entire community instead of the WikiProject in charge of that subset of pages in the main article space. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

On This Day - Kent State

 * Discussion moved to WP:ERRORS. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/May 4. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion
You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong image
Hi, can you fix the image of Today's featured article/May 12, 2010 to File:Summer 2009 in winnipeg canada (9).JPG? It was somehow carried over from the day before. Hekerui (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

May 15
Any chance of Ton That Dinh the FA sneaking in ahead of the three undersourced start class articles per the rules and extra space??  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  03:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any requests for Selected anniversaries/May 15 will be considered, pending what will be finally selected for both Today's featured article/May 15, 2010 and Template:POTD/2010-05-15. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, that OTD template is still not really finalized because I am still waiting for both the TFA and the POTD to be selected. I prefer not to have duplicate topics (see also the last paragraph of WP:OTD). In addition, the length of the TFA also affects how long DYK, ITN and OTD will be in terms of "main page balance", so it may end up being either the standard 5 OTD events, 6, or even the rare occasion where it is limited to only 4. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And coincidentally, that is the primary reason why the Ton That Dinh article is currently in hidden backup section. This is yet another one of the numerous examples where I'm extremely hesitant to make visible an FA that hasn't been on the Main Page yet, until it is absolutely positively clear that Raul654, our ratified featured article director, will not select it for the TFA. Because it then may wind up being one of those scenarios where he makes his selection at the very last minute, I am unable to login in time before 00:00 UTC, then me or another admin doesn't remove the duplicate event off until several hours later, and then people complain about us yanking it off OTD. Or others complain that we did not properly follow the procedure to not have such duplicates in the first place.


 * No. It looks better if we add such an event onto the Main Page after 00:00 if there is no duplicate. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case that both don't fit, could you remove the cricket one instead then? There is another date it could be used, without forcing one FA to idle.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandals on Selected anniversaries/June 2
Hi, I was wondering if the article on the Vandals could be included on the selected anniversaries for 2 June. Presumably the reason it's not currently there is because, as you noted when you commented it out, it currently has a "refimprove" tag; I assume this ties in with the quality aspect of "events listed... are chosen based more on relative article quality and to maintain a mix of topics". However, it is worth noting the substantial improvements – reorganising, referencing, and pruning dubious material – that have taken place on the article since it was featured in selected anniversaries last year. It seems odd that an article could vastly improve and be considered to have declined in relative standing compared to the likes of Mars Express or Mrkonjić Grad incident which have undergone little more than cosmetic changes in the same period. This may be a failing of previous years, as the article on the Vandals was in a much worse state and by all rights should have been tagged back then. However, in when looking at the quality of the Mrkonjić Grad incident, Fort Michilimackinac, or Prague Slavic Congress, 1848, the first two have one two or three inline citations and completely unreferenced sections (meaning they may as well have reimprove tags) while the third article has no inline citations, only a bibliography at the end. Despite a refimprove tag, the Vandals article has a host of references elsewhere, and although it has been requested that more sources be provided in one section, the information there is not particularly controversial and seems to be supported by sources I was reading that are tangentially related to the section, but were not quite sufficient to act as sources. Article quality is about more than what tags are on an article, for example although the Fort Michilimackinac lacks inline citations (the two all come from the infobox) it seems to be decently written and a short article is to be expected for a pretty inconsequential fort. I think the Vandals are of a good enough standard to feature. Moreover, at the moment three out of the five events are from the last 50 years, creating something of an imbalance which the inclusion of the Vandals might help towards. Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What bad timing: Unfortunately, I was unable to login to Wikipedia for the past couple of days due to personal matters in real life. That said, overall, the June 2 articles were not in the greatest shape for this year, which is one reason why I wrote "preliminary update " in the edit summary, fully intending to revisit it before it went live on the Main Page. The reason why the Vandals event was hidden was that, at the time, Vandals was tagged with Refimprovesect, while the other bolded articles I left visible lacked any 'orange'- or 'red'-level article issue tags. Keep in mind that it is much easier and more objective to hide an article that is already tagged with a orange or red level issue tag than trying to count the number of citations. Counting citations is definitely more subjective, especially when one may not know a whole lot about the subject; or is unfamiliar with the related talk pages, wikiproject discussions, deletion discussions, WP:RFC, etc. So it therefore becomes more tedious, more subjective, and more time-consuming going over all the checklists at WP:CITE, because the main thing is that not every single sentence or paragraph needs to be cited.


 * Of course, you are not the first one (and most definitely not the last one either), to complain that my very first step in selecting which events to show on OTD is to eliminate all bolded articles with 'orange'- or 'red'-level article issue tags. But since, as WP:OTD says, it is "rather subjective due to the fact that any given day of the year can have a great many historical events worthy of listing" (emphasis added), you gotta start somewhere that is more on the objective side. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, poor timing is to blame here all round. I didn't bother checking if the article had been selected until 1 June, and by then I didn't have the time or sources to justify removing the refimprove tag. As I could see your reasoning for not including the article, I didn't want to tread on toes unnecessarily so wasn't going to seek out another admin to edit the template. As a rule of thumb, I can't disagree too much with your system of relegating articles with red or orange tags as it sets an objective standard, but had hoped an exception might be made for the Vandals. The problem is the inconsistency with the use of red and orange templates; I feel though that even without specialist knowledge a brief glance at the articles concerned highlight some obvious issues such as lacking inline citations which may as well have been flagged with a template but for whatever reason weren't. It's disappointing the Vandals weren't included, but there's always next year and the article still has a long way to go. Hopefully I'll get round to it at some point. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2005 NBA All-Star Game.png
 Thanks for uploading File:2005 NBA All-Star Game.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Non free image
Hey, in this edit you removed a flag because it was tagged as a non-free image. Here there is a non free image added to a template, is this allowed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, per Non-free content criteria rule #9 - non-free content is allowed only in articles. They cannot be included directly on templates. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bill and Woodentop
Hi

Just to let you know I've left replies at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/August 16 and Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 16 --5 albert square (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that you pick either one date or the other for The Bill. Other admins are starting to have a "tighter leash" on pop culture-related articles on the Main Page, due to frequent complaints, and the general perception, that there is too much of a systemic bias here on Wikipedia towards those types of articles rather than the core topics. Therefore, if there is only a handful of, and a variety of, significant TV programmes spread around the OTD templates, there is a less of a chance they'll all get removed. Listing two events for the same programme would really not help matters. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Orleans Saints helmet rightface.png
 Thanks for uploading File:New Orleans Saints helmet rightface.png. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 17:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noticed that you are replacing PNG with SVG files. I'd prefer that you NOT give me warning tags for every single image even though you may find it easier to use Twinkle. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Concow
The statement "of those who returned their census" is a fact not opinion. If the census is not returned then they are not counted. There are no POV or soapbox intents associated with this. Without providing this distinction the reader may be lead to believe the census count is complete. I am not going to change the edit but your removal of this statement is technically incorrect. You also placed the population in the summary, this is redundant since the population is clearly indicated in the box to the right. If you have the time, maybe add a section on the 2008 "Camp Fire" http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_9884754?source=pkg. The region also has a very interesting geology since it is decomposed granite while the surrounding area is red clay, this could have an entire section from the published literature by itself. Just my observations, I'd rather have help editing the page than discourage edits (so I am not going to change your edits), so edit on fellow Concow aficionado!Granite07 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While "of those who returned their census" is "technically correct", you're starting to put undue weight on a criticism/problem/negative aspect of the United States Census. It is better to leave that cited and detailed on the U.S. census articles than on each of the city and community articles.
 * Yes, the purpose of the infobox summary table on the right is to give a quick list of important points in the article, but is not intended to replace the text prose in the lead introduction section, which is suppose to define the topic and summarize the body of the article.

Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * good points (Granite07 not logged-in, new OS so passwords not stored) 171.66.250.133 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

County topics templates
Seeing your creation of Honolulu and comparison of it to County of Los Angeles, I was curious — have you ever seen any other county topic templates? I can only think of Dakota County, Minnesota topics and Gibson County, Indiana topics. Please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I only saw the Dakota County, Minnesota topics-style maybe once or twice. But that was a few months ago and I totally forgot about it. The reason I quoted County of Los Angeles is that I strongly remember being in a dispute on Template talk:County of Los Angeles two years ago, where its creator was very adamant on having that template only focus on the County of Los Angeles Government. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. What would you think about renaming Honolulu and Los Angeles to "Honolulu County, Hawaii topics" and "Los Angeles County, California topics" so that we would have a consistent name format?  Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to rename them. The user who I had the dispute with hasn't edited since February. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; templates have been moved. What would you think of transcluding the standard county navboxes into the topics templates, just as have been done with Gibson, IN and Dakota, MN?  Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Again, the user who I had the dispute with hasn't edited since February, so I don't think it will be a problem. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fix the county templates?
Rather than changing all the county templates to settlement templates to allow for more parameters, why don't you just fix the county template? Killiondude (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I though of that, but then recent politics over at TFD and elsewhere have left me going in this different direction, primarily to preempt what appears to be future disputes. There has been recent movements, such as heated discussions like Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6, in which users want to get rid of similar "redundant" templates and basically use infobox settlement as the standard. Furthermore, there is another group of users who are converting several county and city articles, particular IL, NY, and the eastern states to ). In fact I allude to a potential Geobox vs. infobox settlement war on Template talk:Geobox. And I have already had an encounter at Talk:Los Angeles County, California with one of those users who prefer geobox (as a I noted there, the California articles primarily use (infobox settlement-style). So, modifying Infobox U.S. County to feature the same parameters as infobox settlement would not be a preferred option in the long run, IMO. Cheers Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I can make changes, but they'll all resemble that of infobox settlement anyway. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Emmy Awards
Hello, I see that you continue to remove legitimate "Category" links that I place onto the pages I have created which associate the regional Emmys with the Emmys? I am not sure if you realize that just because the regionals are held outside of the national broadcast, they are still very much a part of NATAS and should be linked to the Emmy category. I agree they should also be linked to the regional emmy awards category, but also to nationals. Even on their websites they reveal that they are governed and participate in national competitions. (Please click on the history link when you go to this link) I also put the category in for "American television awards" and you removed that one as well? These awards are seen on television and can be viewed from any part of the country through various television outlets. So, I am unsure as to why you continue to remove legitimate categories? Please advise..Canyouhearmenow 11:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The removal of these categories were based on the guidelines listed on Categorization. My intention was primarily to diffuse large categories such as Category:American television awards and Category:Emmy Awards into separate subcategories. These two categories have historically become large in the past, where users have put almost every single article in them.


 * The whole point of the category system is to provide a tree or directory system similar to the Yahoo! Directory. Even Yahoo does not list every single ceremony and article on its Emmy Awards Category page and instead puts them into subcategories. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can totally respect that, however, in these cases the regional are also involved on national levels as well. Some of the winners are entered in as national projects and vice versa. The national will sometimes submit things to the regional levels. As seen here in their clauses it states under the 50% rule that they are involved in national issues as well as regional> One must also point out that each regional chapter must have representatives participating on a national level as seen here listed under "committees".> . I have served on three of these committees and can assure you that even though they are all separate and listed as regional emmys, they are still very much a part of the national scenery and the nationals do not look at regional winners any less than a national winner. An Emmy Award winner is an Emmy award winner period. So for that reason I think we should use the "Emmy Awards Category" when referring to these articles. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In all of your responses so far, it seems you are trying to convince me that the regional Emmys have equal importance or significance as the national Emmys. I do not need to be convinced. I am well aware that "an Emmy Award winner is an Emmy award winner period", regardless of what ceremony they receive the award.


 * However, the categorization system is not based on which subjects have more importance or significance. It is about readers being able to find and navigate sets of related articles. And not having to deal with categories with a large amount of articles. Here, I tried to model the categorization after the organization of the The official web site of the NATAS. A reader who is unfamiliar with the Emmys would see that link near the top of a Google search. Then in researching that site, they would probably see http://www.emmyonline.tv/chapters.html, which gives basic information on the regional Emmys and the regional chapters. All the regional emmys are not listed directly on http://www.emmyonline.tv/ Thus, Category:Regional Emmy Awards is a subcategory of Category:Emmy Awards, which is a subcategory of Category:American television awards.


 * Furthermore, your admission about serving on some of these regional Emmy committees now raises a concern that you may have conflict of interest. If you are still associated with these Emmy ceremonies, or will be in near future, I strongly suggest that you cease and desist editing these articles. Attempts to influence Wikipedia are routinely exposed in the media. Notable examples include congressional staffers editing articles about their congressman, deleting unflattering information or inflating content that is more favorable. It would be hypocritical if a member of the media was also actually trying to prop up their associated academy and their industry award. And that is now what seems you are doing by trying to increase the importance of the regional Emmys than what is currently organized and stated here on Wikipedia. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict of interest here. I have been retired for more than 15 years now and have had no affiliation in more than 18 years. I am just writing the articles to get them started so that other editors can carry them on. I noticed they were not set up and so I stepped in. As far as having anything to do with them on a professional level or any association that would give me inward information, that is not the case. Even when I had association, I was not in a position to have inside information as to awards or the nomination process. Thank you for your observation though. Canyouhearmenow 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I just reread your remarks about me trying to push the fact of the regionals being as important. I just want you to know that I am very passionate about anything that I write or contribute to. The fact of how important it is in the big scheme of things has more to do with my history as an historian and working in various parts of the entertainment industry. If I see that something feels or seems that it is being played down when it shouldn't be, then I will say something about it. I can assure you it has nothing to do with pushing an agenda. I was just as passionate about ridding Wikipedia of porn stars being able to post websites that under age readers could access. I still feel that we should not be allowing stuff like that to be placed on an open forum such as this! So, this is just the area I have moved onto. I do sincerely appreciate your remarks though. It makes me a more alert editor! Canyouhearmenow 01:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. As long as you are no longer associated with them, then I will accept your reasons in good faith, and not trying to push an agenda. Please also accept my apology for my accusation, and my reasons regarding the categories, as I'll admit that I'm also passionate about having things easier to navigate through that directory system.


 * That said, you also reminded me that I should start adding links for the regional Emmy articles onto Template:Emmy Awards. Navigation templates, another navigation system here on Wikipedia, have a whole different set of rules than categories (See Categories, lists, and navigation templates for the major differences between the systems). I was the one who first added the links to the International Emmys, the Bob Hope Humanitarian Award, and the original link to the Tech and Engineering Emmys to the very bottom row of that template, and I should be consistent in adding the rest. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understanding and ability to work with me. Its so nice to be involved with someone who is equally as passionate as myself. Please let me know if there are any projects on here that you might need some help with and I would be glad to jump in. Again, thanks for your help. Canyouhearmenow 03:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, if you want to start the rest of the regional Emmy articles, you should probably first expand these two:
 * The Los Angeles one is a short two paragraph stub; the original version had to be deleted because someone just basically pasted and copied a page from the Academy's web site (a copyright violation). The New England one was created as a redirect page, but probably should also be changed to an article. Since you're enthusiastic, I'll give you first choice on editing those two articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Los Angeles one is a short two paragraph stub; the original version had to be deleted because someone just basically pasted and copied a page from the Academy's web site (a copyright violation). The New England one was created as a redirect page, but probably should also be changed to an article. Since you're enthusiastic, I'll give you first choice on editing those two articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Los Angeles one is a short two paragraph stub; the original version had to be deleted because someone just basically pasted and copied a page from the Academy's web site (a copyright violation). The New England one was created as a redirect page, but probably should also be changed to an article. Since you're enthusiastic, I'll give you first choice on editing those two articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have created the New England Emmy Awards article and redirected it as well as expanding the Los Angeles Emmy Awards article. They both have been started on a good foot for other editors to now come in and start contributing. I will continue to expand them as time allows. Thanks Canyouhearmenow 13:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pushpin map
Thanks for adding those pushpin maps, they're a big improvement. However the map seems to be quite large, encompassing Orange County and the mostly uninhabited northern Los Angeles County. Might a smaller map be more helpful? Central L.A., with its many neighborhoods, is so small in that map that it's hard to tell exactly where the districts are located. Anyway, that's just a quibble I thought I'd mention since you're still in "test" mode.  Will Beback   talk    22:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm using Template:Location map Los Angeles, that someone else already created. And I'm not familiar with how to create these location maps in general. However, looking through Category:United States location map templates, there seems to be three other smaller LA maps: Template:Location map United States Los Angeles Central, Template:Location map United States Los Angeles Downtown, and Template:Location map United States Los Angeles Western.


 * If you would like to go ahead and change them yourself, just change the pushpin_map parameter to either,  , or   (i.e. the name of the map template without the "Template:Location map" in front. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I might test those maps anyway. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no one right answer, especially given the elongated shape of L.A. city. But I think the close-up map, like the one you've used here, may provide more information.   Will Beback    talk    23:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple vandalism at Spain
So they won? And I found out because some anons were calling them homos on the Spain article... Please tell me to go and get on with the stuff I've got to do but have been putting off all day.... --  role player 21:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I canna hold it, Cap'n! She's crackin' oop!


 * In other words they're vandalising quicker than I can undo. Is it worth raising the level of protection temporarily? --  role player 21:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have raised it too semi, as the vandalism is increasing faster than reviewing pending changes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also added a brief note about the FIFA world cup in the sports section, partially to placate those who'll complain about lack of updates, and partially IMO that it seems to contrast the sentence saying that it is a significant football power. Feel free to modify it. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 FIFA World Cup Final
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on Selected anniversaries/July 18
The grade of the article Diptendu Pramanick may have been start-class on June22 when mentioned by you (and also in Talk page on June 15) - however as on date I feel it qualifies for a GA grade as defined in Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. SP 07:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you feel that it is a GA-Class article, you need to post a nomination on Good article nominations. A GA-Class article must attain good article status. In other words, it must comply with everything listed on Good article criteria, and then pass the nomination process that is voted on by a panel. The creator and/or main contributor of an article cannot officially declare a page as a GA-Class article by himself/herself. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, another criterion of the Selected anniversaries/On this day reads, "the event needs to be of moderate to great historical significance". We cannot have everybody who has their 100th birthday on there, especially if no claims have been made to show that he is internationally significant or interesting. And he doesn't appear to be that significant, especially when an article like Eastern India Motion Pictures Association has not been created yet to explain the importance or significance of that organisation too. You might want to address these concerns or someone other than me might remove it. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at the article again, and it is definitely not a GA-Class article. A GA-Class article must also comply with the criteria on Manual of Style (lead section). A one-sentence introduction section does not comply. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

el cerrito
there seems to have been one person opposed and three for, how is that no consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

yes that's what i did, since the oppose really didn't have an opinion against and andrea seemed to support the change shouldn't a decision have been made, there really didn't seem to be much opposition.Hemanetwork (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

what if no one opposes or the opposition is clearly wrong, does it have to be at least four opinions? is there a way to request commentary? extend the comment period? appeal a decision?Hemanetwork (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the helpfulness —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) i contacted the old discussion people is that all right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 02:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

french indochina
i made a mistake at this article while i was trying to add a 4th previous empire, what can i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed your typo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC) unfortuntely it is still wrong, there should be 4 flags and 4 left arrows like the ones on the right hand side.76.254.48.109 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not if there is value for "p5" and "flag_p5". Then, as it does now, the row at the top shows an arrow pointing to the flags at the bottom of the table box. See the example at Template:Infobox former country. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BuffaloBillsOldLogo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BuffaloBillsOldLogo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking all my emails to wiki for privacy
Hey I have a question for you. “O” —Preceding unsigned comment added by DmC738p (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DmC738p (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your question. Does it have to do with the email users feature (E-mailing users)? Or are you interested in having the MediaWiki web software act as some sort of email client, OTRS, or internet forum. If it is the latter, I don't think MediaWiki is designed to do that. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OTD
That's true, thanks for the detailed explanation! :-) Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

/user:anowlin/Template:Csd-blanked
It looks like you moved this page to a more appropriate place, however the page is still listed in Special:Newpages as an unpatrolled page. I can't seem to mark it as patrolled. Is there any way you can fix that? Thanks! Snotty Wong  verbalize 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

godesburg
I already added it a few months ago  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  04:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed it because I was scanning for the article being in bold, which you forgot to do. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for sorting out Ishee_Pardeshi. I couldn't see how to do it properly with being able to delete articles, or leaving duff ones around. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
Hi Zzyzx11, I would like to invite you to a discussion on setting up good guidelines for tennis player notability. Please feel free to give comments and suggestions there. Thank you.  Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Anniversaries
I didn't quite follow your reasoning in this edit. Why remove Mary Rose from the entry for July 19 for 2011 when it's only a hidden suggestion for October 11 2010? Is someone going to feature it?

Peter Isotalo 10:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a more detailed explanation: As per WP:OTD, "Ideally, any particular selected article should only be listed (be an emboldened entry) once". So in any calendar year, the Mary Rose article can only be featured on either July 19 or October 11, not both. As you saw, it was not featured on July 19, 2010 because it was the featured article for that day. Therefore, it is eligible to be featured on October 11, 2010 if someone wants to do it.


 * There are three ways to check whether an article (I think it was User:YellowMonkey who coined it this way to me once) is "double-dipping": The most newest method is to check the OnThisDay tag on Talk:Mary Rose. Another way is to search for the words "Mary Rose" on Selected anniversaries/All, which lists all 365 templates on the same page. The third way is to examine Special:WhatLinksHere/Mary Rose and look for all the pages that begin with "Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/."


 * My concern is that if the Mary Rose article is currently visible on the July 19 template, any user who uses the last two methods are going to get a false positive and might incorrectly assume that the article was featured on July 19, 2010, when in fact that was not the case. And thus they will then remove it from October 11 template, hidden or not. Therefore, I would prefer to keep it hidden on the July 19 template to prevent any misunderstanding like that. You can restore it later after October 11 if you wish. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Guess I'm just not too up to date with OTD procedures.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
It wasn't so much a matter of the Superbowls but the games that got them there during the first four years of it's existence. The Colts and Vikings would like to recognize their '68 and '69 NFL titles as league championships though they lost the Superbowl. Yet the '66 Chiefs and '67 Raiders, who also lost in the first two Superbowls to the Packers, aren't allowed to count their AFL titles from those years as league championships. Hopefully it's resolved now and everyone will just view them as conference games or accept them as league championships for both AFL and NFL. Zoro1234 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bradman's duck
Oh, it's not meant to be an attack or anything, and is one of the most famous events in his life because he was the greatest ever and only needed 4 in his final innings to end with 7000 runs and and average of 100.00. Everyone gave him a standing ovation, 3 cheers etc, and then he was out. People talk about it as "that's cricket" including admiring teammates Arthur Morris, Neil Harvey and Sam Loxton etc, as an example of the "beautiful unpredictability" of cricket so to speak, not as an attack or to make fun of him  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I know it was a famous event and feel free to revert it, but I'm personally not the sort of person who likes to feature great or notable sportspeople who end their careers on a relatively low note. It is sort of like a bad aftertaste, IMO, after a long notable, record-setting career. I would prefer to move it to one of his high points, or record-setting matches. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Webby awardses
Oh noes. Don'ts be takings aways my pluralses. - Gollum
 * --Lexein (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit
Thanks! Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 21:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ANB

 * In my time offline, the page has been moved from "vote" to "straw poll". And since other admins have made comments on that AN discussion, I'll defer to them on any further site notices. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK and SA
Need a better way of coordinating them so that good articles don't go to waste, accentuating the DYK backlog at the same time. I went and padded up the DYK queue with two extra on each of Aug 23's remaining batches, so I don't know what happened there  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget ITN, since changing that, adding new events and removing old events, also affects the other sectiona too ... I cannot anticipate that because changing ITN can happen at anytime. That is what happens frequently IMO. And that is probably what happen yesterday! Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page history of ITN confirms my assumption. From 13:34 to 21:34, two new events were added onto ITN. Together, they appear longer than the two old ones that were removed. That cancelled out your DYK padding, and was the cause of me making this edit. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Port
I am surprised that you moved my entry regarding the Battle of Grand Port from 28th August to 27th August. The date that the fighting ended is not significant. The much more significant event is that the French accepted the surrender of a British Navy fleet, as this was the ONLY occasion that this happened in the Napoleonic Wars. It is so significant that this event is the only naval battle commemorated on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. The French feel very proud of this event and it was a great humiliation for the British. The surrender was accepted on the morning of the 28th August as is stated in the Battle of Grand Port - see the British Surrender and Aftermath sections on that page. Also it is more important to point to the Battle rather than to the Grand Port District. Murfas (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)