User talk:Shearonink/Archive 2

Re:Jayne Mansfield editor
Thanks for the note and the explanation; I thought it was odd that the editor did not respond or acknowledge the messages. It was still a mistake on my part to leave vandalism warning messages for the editor - I misinterpreted his edits. However, I do feel better knowing that it was likely a banned editor rather than a well meaning newby.-- Kubigula (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BUtterfield
Tvoz / talk 17:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A help-me request(??) im my talk page
Hello there, what's that stuff at the end of my talk page with two user names?--Soumit Banerjee (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't take a look at it right now, but I seem to remember that it was a new user who then put the helpme in the wrong place(on your talkpage).Shearonink (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Oh, I see, thanks very much for correcting that funny mistake.--Soumit Banerjee (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump Obama phrase addition
Thank you for the comments about my adding Obama's "sideshow" quote to the Donald Trump aricle. I have opened a discussion about it and you might be interested in commenting there. Take care, Richrakh (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

List of professional cyclists who died during a race
Re:, Hernández is almost certainly the matronymic part of the surname. As per Naming conventions (people) we don't usually use them so you're right to remove, just FYI if you weren't sure about it. SeveroTC 12:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's fine with me, whatever the man's name was. It was changed by that IP-editor, I then researched it and was unable to find a source that stated that "Hernandez" was part of the name.  Thanks for letting me know, I'll alter the listing to include Hernandez per the Cycling Archives ref (maybe as an "also known as").  Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Image for DYK
Hi Shearonink, I just wanted to let you know that we are allowed to use images for the first hook in a DYK block (of 6 - 8 hooks), but it must be 100px in width and public domain or under the CC license. The picture you suggested, as uploaded by Dr. Blofeld, is copyrighted and thus cannot be used on the Main Page. Sorry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn, I did look for some kind of rule about that but was unsuccessful. Thanks for the heads-up. Shearonink (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I do not know if it is written explicitly in the DYK rules, but the fair-use policy applies to all pages, not just articles (the size thing is probably written somewhere, but I'm not sure where). Shame we don't have a Creative Commons or public domain image that would go well with the hook. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This version isn't quite right but it's about all Commons has... --Shearonink (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Monroe's skirt blows up in The Seven Year Itch trailer 1.jpg
 * Interesting find... shame it was cropped like that. I doubt we could use it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Judging by the notice on the image file, if you have a fast connection you could try and take a screenshot from the trailer. The trailer for The Seven Year Itch is in the public domain, apparently. I will take a look too, but I can't guarantee results because of how slow my connection is. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your comment at DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How's this? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Linky to mentee's talk page
Thanks again very very much for offering to do this. Talk page is here, and as promised I'll send on the chat log shortly. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Singapore
Actually they drive on the left in Singapore. You are clearly not a vandal so I assume you must somehow have been genuinely misinformed about this. -- Alarics (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An editor came into Help, made the claim about the driving and I assumed good faith about the edit. Sorry the change was incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another question from mort
Hey Shearonink. Regarding your tireless efforts yesterday, I'm still not able to find the "little box" you mentioned ?:

[17:57]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_MacDonald [17:58]  There;s a little box near external links, that shold lead you to the category [17:58]  done done done :-) [18:00]  mort mort mort [18:01] sorry, hadda step away [18:01]  take a look [18:01]  there;s a link to the category on Wikimedia Commons [18:01]  all the pics are there :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Sumner (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look down on the right of the article near External links. There is a box with the Wikimedia Commons logo that states "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Sculptures by Richard MacDonald". Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I found it. Again, thanks! Morton Sumner (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Richard MacDonald
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221(t&#124;c) 10:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
avs5221(t&#124;c) 08:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Lincoln
Thanks for your calm assistance and contributions on this. PS - I changed the name of the Marguerite Scypion article. Seems simpler.Parkwells (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for helping me out with my AfD problem in IRC today! (My IRC name is poet). sonia and I eventually got it figured out! Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Updating" maintenance templates
I noticed that you recently "updated" the maintenance templates on Gatorade Free Flow Tour. That's not really something you should do; the date parameter in maintenance templates indicates the year and month the problem was first noted. It's used to help sort articles by how long they've needed attention. Changing the date parameter to the current month and year essentially "resets the clock", potentially making it take longer for interested WikiProjects to address the templated issues. I've reverted your change to keep this from becoming a problem. Thanks, // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool, thanks for letting me know - I didn't realize updating these tags could conceivable cause issues. Shearonink (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * And... User:Shearonink/scripts. Delete if you don't want it; just thought I'd make it. Fixed the double-up also. Cheers. sonia ♫  06:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Women on Their Way, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
 * Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Blacklisted reference removal
When removing &lt;ref&gt;s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind&#32;(e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that one escaped me, thanks for letting me know. I'm doing this removal manually on 118 articles, the original website has devolved into a malicious re-direct, but can't figure out any other way to remove the offending website from these articles.  I can access the information using the Wayback Machine but can't add that back in since the original website is blacklisted.  I also am thinking that since these people all received the US Presidential Medal of Freedom that there will be other references to that in other sources.  It's a shame, the original website used to be quite good and safe to use.Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've now also missed Sargent Shriver and Ralph Bunche since. Anomie⚔ 10:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing my three errors out. Shearonink (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Calder
I've tried twice to clean up that awkward, foreign-sounding paragraph at Calder, and both times an IP-number account tracing back to France changed it back. I gave up, but I'll be interested to see if your attempt "takes". :) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That Bad Reflink
It actually kinda caught me. I was trying to add a bit to the page, but I fouled up my ref link, and then I got caught up in the spam filter.. It was a twenty minute headache to work around it, since I couldn't just revert my edit... But you're welcome...  Sadly this editing trial was much harder than I thought it would be.. My little screed about it: Talk:Lucille_Ball --—Cliffb (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits
"opened on 23 February 1869 ... the building was closed and the congregation disbanded in 2007." They must have been really old when they were disbanded, no? The church (building) was closed in 2007. It had nothing to do with the congregation. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to discuss how Swarcliffe can be improved, I think that would be fine. If you'd also like to work along with other editors to do so, that would be even better.  I am not sure what the entire issue is with declaring that this church building was closed and that this particular church as a unit of believers no longer exists.  Since Wikipedia is run by consensus, please go ahead and fix whatever it is about that sentence that is in error.  Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just talking to myself, but I hate it when...
The appearance of a page gets toggled and I have to get used to it. LIke what's happened to my 'Watchlist'...not fond of it, oh no. Now all the "Watchlist options and notices" automatically appear in a box at the top if I want them there or not. Hmph. Shearonink (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Theft by finding - thanks
Hi, added. Thanks. Wondered how to do that. Theft by finding is a species of theft and the sidebar is appropriate. Regards, Otherthinker (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

links...

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA

Help Please
Hey Shearonink... it's been awhile since I've asked for help but I was wondering if you can help me with my article and review it again... my article went up for deletion and the reason why I'm understanding seems to be someone's personally opinion rather than pointing out facts to me. How long does AFD lasts and can it be withdrawn earlier since no on is really responding to it besides the one who recommended the article for deletion. I'm just vedging with some frustration but if you can explain to me what's going on and when it's over... it'll help me see the light. Thanks.Hansomd 14:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * AfDs are by consensus, responding editors weight in with their thoughts on the article under consideration. I do not have access to my regular system but I am sure there is an AfD explanation here on Wikipedia.  I do not remember how long an AfD lasts.  The important thing to remember is to be patient and to not take any comments personally, talk about the edits not the editor. Shearonink (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thanks for the help, I've made the changes you suggested at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Inland_Empire_Utilities_Agency What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.101.236.88 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Article has now been created, see my comments on your talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary Stauffer
Hi Shearonink. Thanks for commenting on Template:Did you know nominations/Ming Sen Shiue. I agree with your comment. Do you know of any articles on victims similar to Mary Stauffer? If so, can you please let me know and I'll try to create an article about her? Much appreciated. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 14:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite know how to do a WP search for notable victims/survivors of crimes, most of the articles about famous crimes say something like "The death of Joe Smith" or refer to the crime itself, like Stephanie Roper murder.  One exception I have found so far is Matthew Shepard.  When I put Ming Shiue + Mary Stauffer into Google 5000 hits were returned.  The CityPaper article is very detailed: http://www.citypages.com/2010-02-10/news/mary-stauffer-stalked-by-former-math-student-ming-shiue/.  ABC Primetime also has a good article about the crime: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/primetime-mind-games-1980-kidnapping-mary-stauffer-math/story?id=10979437.  Then there is "Stalking Mary" the non-fiction account written by Eileen Biernat http://www.stalkingmary.com/the-final-chapter.html.  Urban Christian News has a profile of Mary http://www.urbanchristiannews.com/ucn/2010/05/a-woman-of-faith-mary-stauffer-refused-to-let-horiffic-crimes-ruin-her-life.html.  The original story apparently originally appeared in the Minneapolis StarTribune: http://search.startribune.com/search?stq=Mary+Stauffer+Shiue&q=Mary+Stauffer+Shiue+&btnG=&content_updates=A&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&x=0&y=0&entsp=a&dnavs=  but many of the StarTribune hits seem to be archived.  Here's a copy that I found on the Internet (but it is set to Print when you open it): http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=92593779.


 * Hope this helps, I just can't do it. The little I've already read about the crimes has been too disturbing.  Even though the story of Mary Stauffer's survival and her forgiveness seems notable to me, writing an actual article about her could possibly be a problem because of the the Wikipedia biography of living people/Notability (people) guideline of people known for one event. Shearonink (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Shearonink, I had actually created a redirect page immediately after creation of the article about Shiue Kidnapping of Mary and Elizabeth Stauffer. I'll use the sources you provided to create a page about Mary when I have the time. Thanks for your help. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bill Smith (fell runner)
I gather you figured out that I had timely nominated this. I had hoped that they could get it up in time for the funeral. It is extensively documented, as you saw. Thanks for your help. best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Smith (Fell runner) I am at my wit's end on this.  Does User: Nikkimaria just get to decide?  Ipse dixit?  Thank you for your earlier reviews.  The article has been continually improved since then.  Can you do anything?  Any assistance would be appreciated.   7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all DYK? Noms make it into a queue. I have one up now that passed review but hasn't been moved into the staging area either.  I'll see if I can get it passed (DYK? is not one of my areas of expertise though).Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. It isn't like I was asking for a WP:GA, although frankly, I think it is worth a "B" at the least.  I've been incessantly editing this (and I've mainly stopped all other editing because I am just p.o.'d).  Trying to eliminate everything that somebody can hallucinate into a "close paraphrase" is a fool's errand.  If one reads the more than 30 articles linked to this, there is always a certain amount of overlap, as the same subjects come up again and again, even as the words differ.  As I indicate on the article's talk page, the only substantive improvements it needs are a picture (I did leave postings at various fell runner websites), and perhaps a brief description of what fell running is (I didn't know it existed, and had never even heard the word before I happened upon one of the articles, and I think that is more typical than not of the average reader).  In any event, I can't do anything about the picture.  What I was trying to do was make a really good article on Bill Smith (from what I read about him I grew to admire him) and an article that might lead someone into information on this obscure sport.  I would also note that for an obscure and lonely sport that must be done without fans, this series of events was really well reported in a great many sources in the UK. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know, Nathaniel G. S. Hart
All done. WilliamH (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Slave George
Hi, thanks for the invite. I added some to this article, but it is difficult, as most sources are about the brothers and the Lewis family, and there are many conflicting accounts.Parkwells (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never heard of it before - what a compelling story - but came across it in the course of doing some other research and thought...ah ha! Parkwells could probably fix this. It is sad that there are poor to no available references about so much history because the subjects were among the not-powerful and their lives were not deemed worthy of notice at the time.  Glad you could improve it. Shearonink (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, they have been overlooked. What keeps me going at Wikipedia is that it is a chance to draw from some of the really good and exciting scholarship on issues such as this, and make it available to a wider audience. Thanks for your help and contributions at Thomas Jefferson as well as other places.

FYI
Just FYI, please see User talk:209.221.35.188. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also see the particular range of,  through  and  up to .254 as well as the ranges of  and .  Possible related IDs could be this and this. Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh man, that's just headache-inducing... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've been aware of this apparent single editor (similar editing patterns/identical edits across ranges and various IDs on similar or related articles) for quite a while. Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nathaniel G. S. Hart
Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force
Hi Shearonink,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hi Shearonink, Thanks for your attention and help. I do appreciate it very much. Oddly this isn't actually my first article. I wrote most of Quarry Hill Creative Center and some of Irving Fiske, if not most of it. But Wikipedia seems to have become a lot more demanding since the days when I did that (now they sell these articles on Amazon.com!) I will read your suggestions and see what I can do with them. It's frustrating because I feel I have already put in a lot of in line references and tried to make the info I brought in good strong third party information. I cannot help, however, the fact that some info on Barb Hall's life exists only in the Fiske Family Archives in Rochester and Burlington, Vermont. ONe day I may give these papers to Cornell or some other third party academic repository that has ties to QHCC -- (Cornell was my father, Irving Fiske's, alma mater). Possibly this would make a difference. In the meantime, Barbara is mentioned in a variety of magazines, articles, and online articles and "comicopedias" (as she was a comics artist) and I find it hard to see why I have not provided enough information on her life already. Is it a matter of removing things that are not in proper form? I'd be very grateful for anything you could do or suggest. Thanks! Songcat (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest picking out some appropriate Wikipedia Good Articles that interest you and use them as examples to work off of and also working through the Wikipedia Tutorial for some reminders/tips/guidelines. And remember, there are no deadlines in Wikipedia.  Good luck, take your time, do some reading and maybe ask some questions in the Wikipedia Editing Help Channel. Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I must mention that so far as I know, Wikipedia does not sell anything on Amazon. Wikipedia's content is free to be used and re-used just so long as proper attribution is made.  This seller  sells Wikipedia articles he did not write but freely admits this in his ads.  Books LLC is the publisher of many of the Wikipedia titles at Amazon as you can see from this listing of of over 39,000 "Source:Wikipedia" titles there.  Again, this 'author'/publisher freely admits that the content originates with Wikipedia.

A kitten for you!
Thanks for being willing to help me!

Songcat (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC) <br style="clear: both"/>

Following up from en-help IRC -- Can I get your input, perhaps?
Hi Shearonink, you posted a welcome note in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC chat just moments ago, but due to a technical bug (perhaps an issue with my browser or a plugin on my end) IRC is freezing up for me right now. So I thought I'd come here to ask you a brief question:

The Cheetos and Frito-Lay articles are currently not up to Wikipedia's WP:MOS content standards--the biggest issue being with reliable sources, which both articles are lacking. While I'd normally follow the mantra of WP:SOFIXIT, I'd like to get consensus from another uninvolved editor before doing so. Why? The company that owns Frito-Lay and Cheetos (PepsiCo) is a client of my current employer, and I wish to take great care in adhering to the WP:COI guidelines.

Can you take a look at my proposed changes (linked below), and just perhaps give me a sense of whether you feel these changes would bring the articles closer in line with the manual of style?

Frito-Lay
 * Current condition of the Frito-Lay article: Frito-Lay
 * What I propose the Frito-Lay article be changed to: User:Jeff_Bedford/Sandbox
 * My post on the article's Talk page, requesting input/consensus: Talk:Frito-Lay

Cheetos
 * Current condition of the Cheetos article: Cheetos
 * What I propose the Cheetos article be changed to: User:Jeff_Bedford/Sandbox4
 * My post on the article's Talk page, requesting input/consensus: Talk:Cheetos

Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I'll take a look later today. Thank you for being so upfront about any possible issues, post here and remind me if you don't hear from me in the next few days.Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Shearonink, thanks for such a quick response--appreciate you taking a look today! Of note, I meant to mention that I am cognizant of WP:OWN, and I don't intent for the proposed updates to be "final." I hope that, pending input from you, I can implement these suggested edits, and then welcome further input and continued edits from others. Lastly, if you look at the content, I've tried to incorporate criticism into the proposed drafts as well. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Happy Friday, Shearonink. Just popping by to see what you think about the Cheetos and Frito-Lay articles -- do you think my proposed revisions are reasonable and beneficial in bringing those articles closer in line with WP content standards? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jeff - This is truly a massive amount of material to get through, I can tell you've done a lot of work. So far what I have done is start bringing up the two Frito-Lay versions side by side and comparing them both for tone, Manual of Style issues, references, etc.  I could be wrong but at the moment it seems to me that the text of your Frito-Lay draft  - and this will probably strike you as odd - seems excessively detailed - I don't think every single snack product and/or line needs to be listed.  On the whole your Frito-Lay draft does seem well-referenced.  I noticed that controversies as a stand-alone section has been removed from your draft, even though you do include, for instance, a paragraph about GMOs and a paragraph about the Frito Bandito within various history sections.


 * While I am working on looking through the two drafts, I have some homework for you to work on...don't worry, it's not hard and it will help your work on Wikipedia articles. Go to Wikipedia Good Articles about everyday life (Food and drink) and read through any or all of the articles you will find there, paying special attention to the tone, to the types of neutral words used, to the structure, to how the articles do not shy away from controversies.  These are Wikipedia articles that have been judged to be Wikipedia Good Articles and they are examples of what Wikipedia articles about Food and food-businesses should strive to be.  I like examples when I am trying to master a new subject or a new skill, and will look at Good Articles myself to see 'How Did They Do That"...how did someone write a Good Article about a subject related to something I'm working on, For instance, let's say I want to bring an article about a golf tournament up to Good Article standards?  I'd go to the Golf section of the GAs and there would be the Wikipedia Good Article about The Masters and I'd use that as a template to work from.
 * I have not had a chance to look through the Cheetos draft and article yet, sorry I haven't made more progress. I will update here with my complete thoughts on your two drafts (as soon as I have them). Shearonink (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for being willing to assess these article drafts! After combing through Wikipedia Good Articles about everyday life (Food and drink), I agree -- the Frito-Lay draft is a bit too detailed for its own good. While I initially elected to keep the products list since it is currently in the Frito-Lay article, you're right--it is far too long, and not especially necessary since Wikipedia is not a product catalog (that list is already represented on this website anyways). Please feel free to chop that list from the draft, and if it would be simpler, you are welcome to make direct changes to the drafts (sandboxes) reflecting your feedback. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeff - I think your Sandbox draft of the Frito-Lay article re-write is now ready to go. Do you want to move it (or do you want me to do so)?  After all, you should get the credit if you want. --Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to hear that, Shearonink. If you don't mind, would you be able to move it over? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! Take a look at Frito-Lay now. Shearonink (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Outstanding, thanks for your guidance on Frito-Lay--I think it is much more factually accurate and readable now. As for the Cheetos article (and its proposed draft), is this one you'd like to take a look at, or would you prefer that I ask for another opinion elsewhere? I'm happy to go either way; just didn't want to occupy too much of your time. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can take a look at and fix-up the Cheetos article, but you have to understand it is going to take me some time. 1)..It is also a massive amount of material to get through and 2)..I make no promises about when I can get it completely done. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeff, I took another look at the Cheetos article and I was mis-remembering the length. It shouldn't take me as much time as the Frito-Lay one did but I'm just not sure when I can get it finished.  (Oh and thanks for the thanks.) Shearonink (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds great. You're right--the Cheetos article is much more concise in comparison to the Frito-Lay article (and appropriately so). This proposed re-write is a bit more straightforward, as it seeks to resolve the more obvious (to me, at least) issues with the present version of the article--which I explained here, on the article's talk page. The current version seems to place too much emphasis on trivial, unsourced/poorly sourced factors, such as non-notable promotions--yet it omits the History of how and when Cheetos were invented. Please do take your time in reviewing this one. After all, Wikipedia is not operating on a deadline! Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am doing a little bit on it at the moment. Unlike the Frito-Lay logo, there isn't a Cheetos logo on Commons or on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frito-Lay_Logo.svg so I am going to use a pic of a Cheetos bag instead of a logo. Shearonink (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The bag looks good to me. I have an SVG version of the logo. If you decide the logo would be helpful, just let me know and I can upload it. If you'd prefer to stick with the bag, not a prob! Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like the bag even better for illustrating Chester, but think the logo would be useful to identify the brand in the Infobox. I am basically ready to move the sandbox version over to Main space (which is more complicated than it sounds, since a history-merge will have to be done - you started your Sandbox version from the published version correct?), but am having issues with the Manufacturing section.  The sources in that paragraph don't exactly reference the actual process for the fried version and for the baked version.  If there are any other non-proprietary published sources, I've been unable to find them and if you could add them to that paragraph it would be a big help.  Otherwise that section will have to be severely edited.  Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like you were able to resolve the sourcing issues with the Manufacturing section -- is that correct? I searched far and wide for a logo and uploaded the best that I could find, while also moving the bag image down to the Mascot section. The logo is in jpg format. I would have preferred .svg, but could not find a single .svg version that was not significantly outdated. Thanks for all of your help with these articles, and do let me know if there is anything I can do in the future. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

More help
Thanks for your info for me-- I'll try to have the patience to go through all that and see if I can make it work. For some reason, I don't see anything terribly wrong with "Barbara Hall--Artist" that needs fixing so much that it can't be included. Could you give me a hint? Is it in the sources and their arrangement or lack thereof? Is it in the fact that many sources are in the family papers? I'd be so grateful if I did not have to grope in the dark. It's very discouraging. Many thanks again. Songcat (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of things...
 * Using private sources (such as family letters, diairies, written-down oral statements, family papers) constitutes original research. One of Wikipedia's principal core content policies is no original research which states
 * "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists"...
 * "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented."
 * Wikipedia content must be verifiable, so if an assertion is referenced from an unpublished source, a published source must be found or the assertion will have to be removed.
 * I am having trouble going through the mass references at the bottom of the page. These references do not directly source a specific statement.  Listing them as a bulk section, having them appear without having a specific assertion to back up is not within the style parameters of the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
 * References are there like informational breadcrumbs, Wikipedia allows editors to use any citation system that lets the reader understand where the information came from. They need to be constructed so the Title/author/date/publisher/page/etc are available within the reference.
 * For instance, when you reference Trina Robbins' "The Great Women Cartoonists" as well as "The Oxford Art Encyclopedia" no pages are given - you have to include the pages where the information appears. There is a Cite Toolbar available that will give you citation templates for web, news, book and journal...just open the Edit Tab on your draft.
 * At the top of the Editing Window, on the end of the line that has Advanced....Characters....Help...Cite. Click on Cite and you will now have access to   Template....Named references...Error check.  Click on Template, a drop-down menu will appear, click on the one you need (book, web, whatever) and fill it out.  Then hit Preview and when it is what you want, hit Save.
 * I have removed all the private family papers references. If you need to re-constitute that information just click on View history tab up at the top and go to the last version that has that information.
 * I looked through the Wikipedia Good Articles to try to find one that is suitable for your situation but decided to go with a short article. Take a look at The Daily Mash.  Notice how all its statements are sourced.  Open up the editing window (clicking on  the Edit tab) so you can see how the writers constructed the article.  Wikipedia articles have two layers, the layer the casual reader sees and then there's the subterranean layer that sits underneath with all the coding that holds up the outer layer of text.
 * I hope all this makes sense and remember...in Wikipedia there is no deadline. Good luck, Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shearonink, Thanks for all your help. But the only problem with deadlines is that my mother does have one. She is 92 years old. I'd really like her to be able to see herself in Wikipedia as my father is there-- as one of the founders of QH and not someone whose life is of questionable verity? Is there nothing that can be done? What is wrong with using family papers? I'd be glad to show them to anyone who wants to visit and have a look... But thanks for all your help. I'll try to adhere to the rules, even if they seem, to me, to be overly stringent, and I will look at the article you suggested to me. Many thanks for all your help! Songcat (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The rules are there to protect the subjects of articles, especially when one is writing a Biography of a living person. Without WP:Verifiabilty, people could assert anything (slander/libel/lies/etc) about folks and then publish it onto Wikipedia.  Unless a source is published, it and its assertions simply cannot be used in a Wikipedia article.  That's the way it has always been and that is what helps to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia and keeps it from degenerating into a mere opinion-blog.
 * The other issue you have is you have a close association with the subject, what Wikipedia would call a conflict of interest. When an editor has a close association with the subject of an article, it can be very difficult to maintain a neutral point of view and the NPOV guideline is one of the most important guidelines for Wikipedia - NPOV maintains Wikipedia as a disinterested party without any particular slant or prejudice to its coverage.  Now this doesn't mean that writing a COI article is impossible, just that having a conflict of interest adds another layer of complexity...for some further details on this, you can always refer to  the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.
 * I will look over your article this week and see if there's anything further I can do with it at this time, but you have to keep in mind that I, along with almost every other Wikipedia editor, am a volunteer and am editing in my spare time. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

HI, Shearonink. I do understand that you are very busy and I thank you for your help. Some of the facts, if they have published refs, are hard to support. For instance, my grandmother's obit... I have it, but from what paper? ETc. I believe I can be reasonably neutral. Will certainly try. I wrote 99 percent of the QHCC and Irving Fiske Wikis, and these were permitted; so I'm surprised there's a problem. Perhaps times have simply changed. I'll look at the article and see what you sent and I do appreciate your help. I do know you are doing it on a volunteer basis and I appreciate your help, that of CHZZ and all the others. Frankly, I'm thinking about giving up on the whole thing. The funny thing about neutrality is that my mother and I actually do NOT get on very well. I just wanted to make sure that an artist of her background and experience, and ability, had, if possible, representation. I want to thank you again for your willingness to give your volunteer time to all of us who just don't really understand all the rules and regs. Be well. Have a good Thanksgiving. By the way-- Important question! Is it not possible to use some of the 3rd party refs from Quarry Hill CC and Irving Fiske for THIS article, so long as Barbara is mentioned in it? Thanks... Songcat (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Songcat (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand what your question is. Simply put, all sources must be published and all references must be reliable.  From the Reliable sources article:
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.
 * If you are asking if a published reliable/verifiable reference that was used on one Wikipedia article can be used to source another, sure, why not? Hope this all helps, Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you note!
Thank you for your help Crtew (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Songcat (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Kellenberg Article
I noticed you undid my edit to the Kellenberg Article. I have posted my reasons for the removal of the content in the discussion section and would like to hear your reasons for adding it back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredricksSkype (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cemetery, Military Monument-3
Re. File:Cemetery, Military Monument-3.jpg

There are a zillion ways of adjusting it; I've made File:Cemetery, Military Monument-3 cropped.jpg. I can chop that in two, or adjust lightness, or whatever. Let me know.  Chzz  ► 07:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
You're welcome. It's easy to miss vandalism in that situation! Graham 87 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah, the Popeye's article attracts a fair amount of vandalism. Thanks for catching it. Shearonink (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Shyjayb
I am sorry..shyjayb 07:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Re:4
Thanks for the message. :) Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding George Washington
No offense, but it is better to speak from certain knowledge rather than hastily make statements against others. First, The Economist article is not an opinion piece. It is a very detailed article written by a highly respected agency. Second, i am not citing from another article which i edited. i said the reason for my revert was because the editor who first removed it said that T. Jefferson was not close enough to Washington. However, in the artcile George Washington and religion Jefferson is quoted amply (which was not added by me btw). So how can that editor remove my Jefferson quote when in an even more specific article to our argument he is amply quoted and not removed? Please research your information before you make accusations against me next time. Thank you.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

i would apprciate if you would re-add my edit you removed since it is a quote from a founding father and is concise yet has definitive meaning to it.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Replying to both of the above...I make no statements against others and I made no "accusation", I only care about what can be verified from reliable sources. The Wikipedia article George Washington and religion directly quotes what Jefferson wrote in his journal, it makes no assertions about if this proves or disproves Washington's state of mind regarding being a Christian (or not).
 * Jefferson is quoted as writing in his journal "Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green..." and then goes on to say Washington was not a Christian because Washington never publicly declared that he *was* a Christian. Jefferson goes on in that particular paragraph to relate that another friend, Governeur Morris, told Jefferson that Washington did not believe in that system, but he prefaced that sentence by characterizing Morris as someone "who pretended to be in his [Washington's] secrets & believed himself to be so."...To use the words "pretended" and "believed" indicates some measure of at least partial disbelief in what Morris related. The Economist has an apparent quote from Thomas Jefferson in the cited reference, however, nothing in that article is referenced with footnotes.  It is an editorial essay, written, as all columns in The Economist are, without a byline.
 * And no offense taken. It is verifiable that no minister was at Mount Vernon when Washington died.  To assert that the reason for a minister not being there as somehow proving George Washington's absence of religion?  Perhaps in this instance, it is as Freud is alleged to have said "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar."  We do not know why a minister was not summoned, we can only state from verifiable sources that no minister was present when Washington died.
 * And your edit summary ("But he is quoted in George Washington and religion"), appeared to be directly referencing The Economist article, which does not speak to what Washington exactly thought of his religion. The only sure thing we can see from the evidence is that Washington did attend church but that he did not partake in Communion, and that he was not alone in this, that, according to Bishop White "the greater part of the congregation" left when Communion was being served" and that he almost never directly spoke about or directly wrote about his exact religious beliefs.
 * If the editorial consensus is to include that particular material from The Economist in George Washington and in George Washington and religion, then that is how it will be. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Marni Nixon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dubbing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Benjamin Franklin Graves
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart (Your Ref corrections)
I'm sorry to be so slow, but I'm typing with two fingers, looking at KB. Pls be patient w/me.

I read your note about your changes yesterday and my heart stopped beating!! I have been working on this article for 3 months and I'm about at my wits end! I don't want to read any other articles, I'm out of time!! I just entered my rewritten article day before yesterday!

You read My Talk page before I made some of my changes to Image & Qoute marks and I forgot to note recent changes.

My Article is just like I want it, however your change was great because I was looking for a way to correct the Ref # size (make smaller) and link them throughout the article. I do not want auto numbering or placement! I have diff ref #s in many sentences. My Timeline chart proves my case and the Confusion section reinforces that proof. Can you show me where it tells what you did & where I can find Underlining wikicodes?

Switching back and forth is tooo confusing, can you email me? GregLChest@aol.com, Thanx! Gregory L. Chester 00:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
 * I would prefer to keep all my communications here so I can keep everything in one place, but thanks for the emailing offer.
 * Underlining is done with html, using  like this   which will look like like this.
 * To see what I did, click on the View history tab up on the right hand side of the page. That will bring up all the edits that have been done on your draft.  Then hover your cursor over the prev button of the edit you want to look at.  Click on the prev, what comes up will be a page with the changes in red.
 * I'm not sure you have understood this and I can tell you've done a lot of work on this article but once you've written something on Wikipedia, you have released all your rights to it. Wikipedia content is governed by the Creative Commons license known as "share-alike" or "cc-by-sa", so other editors can edit (and probably will edit) your SpiderGraph article.  I understand that you have placed different reference numbers within your SpiderGraph article, but your present system will probably be edited by other editors because of Manual of Style and citation concerns.
 * Good luck with your editing. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

New SpiderGraph chart article - Listing of Ref w/i my text - Your example Ref #1 (Jan 1, 2012)
Good Morning Shearonink,

I think I understand your Jan 1st example and I also copied "Ref for beginners" for my own ref, but when I entered Ref #3, it rearranged everything and now your example for Ref #1, is now #2 and my #3 is now #1 and so on???? It's goofing up the numbering of all my previous references! Is there a way to put references into the text w/o "automatically" rearranging everything, but using my number? I have 13 refs, used several times, all throughout the text. Also, Ref #11 is even placed into 2 ref lists. How do I keep track of which ref is which? Can you tell me what to do?

I only have till the end of the week to finish this and resubmit and last night I couldn't sleep, so I got up at 4am and started in working on entering my Refs. I didn't get to far! Gregory L. Chester 14:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

New SpiderGraph chart article - Listing of Ref w/i my text - Your example Ref #1 (Jan 1, 2012)
Good Morning Shearonink,

I think I understand your Jan 1st example and I also copied "Ref for beginners" for my own ref, but when I entered Ref #3, it rearranged everything and now your example for Ref #1, is now #2 and my #3 is now #1 and so on???? It's goofing up the numbering of all my previous references! Is there a way to put references into the text w/o "automatically" rearranging everything, but using my number? I have 13 refs, used several times, all throughout the text. Also, Ref #11 is even placed into 2 ref lists. How do I keep track of which ref is which? Can you tell me what to do?

I only have till the end of the week to finish this and resubmit and last night I couldn't sleep, so I got up at 4am and started in working on entering my Refs. I didn't get to far! Gregory L. Chester 14:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Gregory L. Chester 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GregLChest - The problem, as I see it, is that you have several different numbering systems for your references going on at one time in your AfC and yes, the html/Wiki coding will automatically number the refs. I can try to work on it but frankly, I am not sure which sources [your numbered references] lead to.  And just to make sure I understand...when you refer to "I only have until the end of the week", I assume this deadline is part of some outside effort?  I understand your frustration, but if you had started at the beginning of your draft with Wikipedia referencing, everything would already have been referenced "Wikipedia-style".


 * There is another issue...your AfC must prove notability and in its present state I am not sure that it has. Has the SpiderGraph been written up in newspapers/magazines/professional journals as a notable concept?  Have the articles been written about the concept itself and its impact on business/academia/whatever?  If so, you need to include that coverage in your draft.  I have asked another editor who's done some work on your AfC to take a look, I cannot try to 'fix' any issues right now, will try to do some editing if I can within the next few days.  Please understand that almost al the people who edit Wikipedia (including the Helpers in the Wikipedia Editing Help Channel) are volunteers, I have other responsibilities that I must attend to at the moment.


 * Also, please remember to sign your posts on talkpages with the four tildes ~, that will automatically sign your posts with links to your Wikipedia account. Shearonink (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart - Ref corrections
Hello again Shearonink,

I want to thank you or someone for trying to correct my Reference Headache! Unfortunately, I think we were doing so at the same time, however, I know you were quicker! After I had been working on it for some time, I Saved it to check my work. I noticed there were some grammatical errors, unfortunately I also noticed a few Reference errors: 1) There are 2 Ref on your #7: The first Ref is OK, but the 2nd should be another Ref, my #8: "Excel 2010 product information" http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/pd/productID.216445700/

2) Your correction at the end of Limitations #4 was still there, but it didn't develope. You just had [http and the url, so I tried to correct it, but I guess I was still doing something wrong??

Those 2 things still need correcting, I didn't know what to do to keep them in order, that you so nicely got them into, sorry!

Thanks again, I think it should be ready to resubmit.

Gregory L. Chester 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart - Ref corrections #2
Back again,

In my last message to you, I meant to say "grammatical errors corrected." Also, should the References of #4,7,8, & 9 be showing their URLs? Thanks again!

Gregory L. Chester 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Thomas Jefferson
Hi Shearonink - Could you help keep track of the timing for the "Call for opinion on placement of section to include "Marriage and family" and "J-H controversy""? I'm having a hard time trying to keep the focus on the proposal, for which there appears to be consensus in favor. We agreed to allow a week for the holidays, which are now over, but I couldn't find where the "week" started. Happy New Year! Parkwells (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. About the 'week'... When I mentioned it, I was thinking in general terms, to give anyone interested additional time after the holidays are over to weigh in with their opinions.  There are enough editors who are watching that article and the article has enough daily hits, that if a few extra days are added to the 'week', it's fine with me...the more the merrier.  I'm keeping an eye on the consensus/call-for-opinion and will propose a 'close' in a few days.  Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the posts today, the week will be up on Friday (since I mentioned the 'week' on December 30th), I will post a 'conclusion' then. Shearonink (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I rushed the conclusion last night, but the whole focus was disappearing again. One editor forgot what he supported on Jan. 1. Like you, I am very frustrated and disappointed, as there seem to have been several editors over the last couple of months who seem to know how to use reliable sources and abide by them, and we are all being frustrated by one who "just doesn't like" what he doesn't agree with. Am trying to decide what to do. Have tried to keep the focus on the article. Parkwells (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No apologies necessary and yes I agree with you about the depth of my frustration. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart - Answer to your Jan 5 message to me
Dear Shearonink & Matthewboker,

RE: Your Jan. 5 Comments & Suggestions message regarding my "AfC SpiderGraph chart" article.

I agree it is hard to stop thinking in terms of "I, the developer" of the SpiderGraph, but for this article, I've been trying to think of "I, the impartial Author." I just didn't realize that "I" should be omited entirely or it's not neutral. (I sure use alot of I's, don't I?)

I have been trying to compare each charting method's functions impartially and on there own merits and spell out the differences in this article. One method was designed to "make choices" and the other method was designed to "show trends." I was very surprised to learn that some of the Radar chart users disliked it so much, that they wrote articles exposing its faults, which I wasn't aware of until I uncovered them, and of course I had to included them in the article. This article will also allow readers or users of the SpiderGraph method to write pro & con articles about the SpiderGraph method too.

You asked me about notability, well all I know is the SpiderGraph method works. As a Product Manager, I used it for 4 + years and heard a lot of good comments. Got mentioned in a few small write-ups as a "PLC pioneer weaves a comparison web" and "How to Pick a PLC," referring to the SpiderGraph charting concept. At one point, the editor of the Control Engineering magazine called and ask me to write an article describing the "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs" (one of my Refs)and shortly after that issue came out, I got a call from someone asking me if they could include that article in their book. It wasn't until several months had gone by that I learned that the book was to be called "The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation"(also one of my Refs). Now I would say that's notable!

As for how many companies have "borrowed" my trademarked word "SpiderGraph,"well all I can say is, from the day the Handbook was published, till this, ~20 years or so, twenty-one (21) companies have been using my trademarked word, as their own. Microsoft sometimes uses both names as synonymous in the same articles. On 8/21/2006 & 3/10/2008, I emailed the 21 offendors with my Trademark information to asked them to consider paying royalties or to Cease & Desist. I only received one answer back "indirectly," and that was in the blog of S-Anand.net, where they actually reprinted my request letter as a comment (www.S-Anand.net/blog/ Multicriteria-Decision-Making).

You asked me why Friday was so important, well 4 months ago I received an "Office Action" letter from the US Patent and Trademark Office stating the my trademark was due for renewal and I have until Feb. 15, 2012 to reply to their letter or my trademark will not be renewed! (I started this WP article 3 months ago.) It seems that they have uncovered Fourty (40) companies using my word and it's now believed to be "generic and/or descriptive" and therefore not worthy of trademark protection! (as if its been protected all this time??) Consequently, I have to prove it's not generic, so I thought the only way to prove that a Spidergraph is not a Radar chart, was to write a comparison article pointing out the differences. In the Radar chart display, one has to guesstimate the trend or answer. With the SpiderGraph Decision making process you calculate the "best choice," then overlap 2 charts at a time, to visually verify that you have made the correct decision.

My article is not written as a press release, but as an article to explain what a SpiderGraph chart is and how it has been confused with a Radar chart, proving that they are nothing alike, with verifiable facts verbatim from reference articles to explain the differences and to air the distain of some of the Radar chart user/critics, who don't believe that it does what MS Excel says it will do!. Also, I'm sorry if my citations seem to be all over the place, but I used a couple of Refs to complete a thought and that put some Refs in the middle of a sentence. I thought you place the Ref right after the last word of the quote and not at the end of the sentence, if the balance of the sentence comes from me or somewhere else.

I want you to know that I'm not upset that someone changed some wording, I appreciate your help, after all I'm new at this. However, one thing has bothered me and that's my 2-finger (looking at the keyboard) typing ability. I must confess though, first I thought that one asks for help on My Talk page and after I waited 3 or 4 days w/o a response, I wised-up, but I still hesitate to use the Live Help Desk, since I was ready to quit or complain to a higher authority about my first call to the live help desk, when I was teased for a couple of hours by the "kids" on the other end, joking, while someone typed the word "Piss" in the middle of my title and then again playing around on New Years eve, when I got the same response, but I probably wouldn't have liked someone trying to get help on New Years eve either - nobody should be working on NYs eve!

I'm done adding to my article now, you probably noticed that my very last Ref had a dead link, so last night I had to find something else to replace it with and I'm glad I did. I think it's a good way to end, having comments from some one in the know, from the Educational side & the Manufacturing side, to prove that there really is interest in an article like mine.

Thanx again! GregLChest (and yes Matthew, my name is the same as the one who invented the subject)

PS - I had lost hope, when the sales of my paper version of the SpiderGraph declined, because as you know, your web site has to have hits to keep it on the front burner. Once it slips to the 4th or 5th page, your odds are nil to none! But with the advent of the iPad, thing are starting to look up. I designed a SpiderGraph Decision-making App and sent it out for quotes in Nov. I'll let you know if & when it goes live.

Gregory L. Chester 08:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart - Ref corrections
Hey Shearonink & Matthew,

I want to thank you for all your help and especially for all your patience! Your a pro when it comes to rearranging Refs!

I went back onto my article today to clean-up minor word & sentence additions &/or corrections and noticed that you have added my last 2 Comment sections as Refs (Thanx), unfortunately there are a total of 15 references, not 14. So, I believe either you didn't understand my other note about Ref #7 or maybe you never got it, so I'll try again. (I believe that after this change, I'll be ready to resubmit!)

My article refers to two (2) #7 Refs, unfortunately there is only 1, my original #8 was missed, so here are the references for both #7s

1st Ref 7. (for the Timeline chart, 4th item) "Can't find the Chart Wizard? - No Worries" by Amy Miller. http://blogs.office.com/b/microsoft-excel/archive/2010/12/07/cant-find-the-chart-wizard-no-worries.aspx/

2nd Ref 7. (end of 2nd paragraph after Timeline chart) "Excel 2010 product information" http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/pd/productID.216445700/

Thanx again,you've done a Great job! Greg Chester Gregory L. Chester 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, but I'm really busy at the moment. Also, your different numbering systems are very confusing to me, I have no idea what you want me to do on your draft to fix these particular refs.  I've edited all the others as best I could, please take a look at the code and consider trying to do these last two refs yourself. Shearonink (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Baklahorani
Happy new year. Just wonder if you can make a second check with this article in order to continue with the dyk procedure. I've fixed the specific parts with the paraphrasing issue. Thanx.Alexikoua (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Just wanted to say Happy New Year. Parkwells (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you :). Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart
Dear Shearonink & Matthewrboker,

Thank You very much for your help getting my article in shape! I have made the requested changes and have resubmitted it, but before it did I tried to add a third Image into the "Not to be confused" section, but I didn't know how.

Consequently, I have one last favor to ask of either of you. I would appreciate it if either one of you could add this Image to my article:

This Radar chart example was taken from: http://chandoo.org/wp/2008/09/18/better-radar-charts-excel.

Please place this on top of the Image: Take a look at this radar chart and tell me if you can interpret anything!

Then comes the new (4) Radar chart image.

Then on the bottom of the image, please add this:

There are 4 different data sets shown on this Radar chart, each with its own color. Unfortunately, color doesn't clear up the confusion very much! However, the confusion wouldn't exist, if you had 4 SpiderGraphs charts, to compare two at a time.

I'll understand if you try, but can't. Thanx again! Gregory L. Chester 11:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry, Greg, I'm not quite sure what you're requesting that I do to your draft, but in addition to doing more editing it seems you're also asking me to add various images. These particular images, however, are from Chandoo.Org which has a notice of copyright at the bottom of that page, so I suggest you follow the instructions found here.  Shearonink (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
SarahStierch (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

List of professional cyclists who died during a race
There is no confusion, but in 1951 TWO six days took place in Berlin, as you can see here:. --Nicola54 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicola - Thank you for clearing that up! I looked and looked and couldn't find the dates for the two 1951 Berlin Six Days. Do you know of any references that I could cite stating the dates?, since a Wikipedia article can't be used as a reference on another Wikipedia article...


 * Also, I've been trying to reference all the entries but I can't find refs for some of them. If you have any references for the following that would be a big help:
 * Otto Lutter, track cyclist, 1904
 * Hans Bachmann, pace maker, 1913
 * Hans Lange, track cyclist, 1913
 * Max Hansen, track cyclist, October 12, 1913
 * Constant Ceurremans, pace maker, 1931 found
 * Werner Krüger, pace maker, 1931 found
 * Georg Pawlack, track cyclist, 1933 found
 * José Samyn, France, a small race in Belgium, 1969 found
 * Manuel Galera, Spain, Tour of Andalusia, 1972 found
 * Karl Kaminski, GDR, during a track race in Leipzig, 1978 found
 * Antonio Martín, Spain. He was killed by a truck while training near Madrid, 1994 found
 * Michela Fanini, Italy, was struck by a car while training in Italy, 1994 found
 * Beryl Burton, United Kingdom. Heart failure while training, 8 May 1996.
 * Anders Nilsson, Sweden, 2000. National team member in Triathlon, professional. Died when hit by a car during bicycle training.
 * Luke Harrop, Australia. Struck by a car and killed on the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Australia in 2002 on a training ride. The driver did not stop.
 * Stive Vermaut, Belgium. Stopped professional cycling in 2002 because of heart problems. Had a heart attack during a recreational ride in 2004 and died a few weeks later.
 * Scott Peoples, Australia. Struck from behind and killed on a training ride in December 2006 in Victoria.
 * Ryan Cox, South Africa. Burst artery in leg on 1 August 2007, shortly after surgery.
 * Ben Mikic, Australia. Struck by a car while on a training ride in April 2007 in Sydney, Australia
 * Jason MacIntyre, Scotland, UK. Struck by a vehicle on a training ride in January 2008
 * Frederiek Nolf, Belgium. Died in his sleep during the Tour of Qatar 2009 found
 * Sinaida Stahurskaja/Zinaida Stahurskaya, Belarus, struck by a car on a training ride in Belarus, 2009 found
 * Thanks for any help you can give about any of the unreferenced names. I think if we can't find sources for the names above, the names should probably be removed from the list.  I'd like to submit it for peer review and then for Featured List and having unreferenced names will be an issue. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am the one mostly in charge of the German version. So you will see that there are references for most of the persons. So you can just take them over. And I am sure you will find weblinks in English for the younger news. --Nicola54 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your message
I read your message to my talk page. From what I can recall, all the (now deleted) page said was "What do I do here?". My message in the article referenced them to either WP:HD or WP:RD... as I don't use IRC, I did not know that you were assisting him/her. Perphaps the edit summary was a bit too blunt? Fei noh a  Talk, My master 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah...perhaps... Heh, I just remember how confusing Wikipedia was to me when I first started and I could easily see me posting an innocent question like that in the wrong place back then.  No harm done, thanks for the reply.  Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (The Witness: From the Balcony of Room 306)
Hi Shearonink! Thank you so much for your kind review and edits of of "The Witness: From the Balcony of Room 306". I have added several supporting citations where suggested, and appreciate the help (including section formatting) you've provided with this very first submittal. Please let me know if additional references are needed. With appreciation, Spacebender (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you so much for your kind words about my article. I am not an English major in any way lol so it was quite a compliment to be nominated for the Did You Know. Thanks again.

Runmikeyrun (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC) <br style="clear: both"/>

Don Turnbull Edit
Thanks for the feedback. I have added some more references. I hope they are OK. Let me know if we need more. Silverpool14 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Krejci Dump
Hello! Your submission of Krejci Dump 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! Mgrē@sŏn 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Krejci Dump
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart -Adding Refs question
This is the second attempt. the 1st time, I forgot to ref to my articles address, so when I went back in to enter it, when I saved it, I got an Editing Error. So, I'm redoing it below, just in case the 1st message got lost. Sorry for the confusion!

ADDED TOPICS: NOTABILITY & THIRD-PARTY SOURCES!

Dear Shearonink,(I tried Matthewrbowker but got no response??)

I've been trying to make my article more encyclopedic since 10/2/2011 with the help of 7 Editors, of which you are one. The article seems pretty much finalized as of Feb. 15 and I wanted to let you know and to Thank You for all your help.

The article's main objections have been about Notability and citing published Sources that are reliable and independent. Now that I have files (to attach to an email) that would prove that fact, I find myself wondering just how I go about doing that?? It doesn't look as if any attachment files (let alone 8 files) are possible with "User talk"?? Can you tell me what I should do?

Gregory L. Chester (GregLChest@aol.com) Gregory L. Chester 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

I NEED YOUR REF HELP AGAIN!

Dear Shearonink,

I'm really getting discouraged!

It seems that when I try to do the right thing and notify my Reviewing Editors or even ask a question, that I am only inviting Reviewing Editors (with ego & kingdom-building-problems) to just give me another citation or two or three and make my life even more stressful !!!!!! Its been 5 months and I'm about ready to throw in the towel.

Shearonink, you were nice enough to help me when I was having problems with my References. Now, I need your help again. Today, when I opted-out of the DLP bot, per your suggestion, I noticed that my article now has large red comments throughout my reference section and I don't know what to do about them. Can you lead me in the right direction? Not only did I get more headaches, but no one even bothered to answer my original question about: How do I get the requested information back to the Reviewers, so that I could possible solve and put an end to their Notability, etc. citations?

I almost forgot. Also, someone has removed my second Image??? How do I get it back?

Sincerely yours, Gregory L. Chester 20:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The image has not been removed, something seems to be wrong with the image-filename and has been wrong with it since it was added on February 14th.
 * Something is still wrong with the way you are signing your posts. Are you signing with the four tildes?
 * You cannot submit pdfs as proof of notability...there is no place to send them to. All references must be published, independent, reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and editorial oversight.  I am sorry you are having problems with your submission but there are no deadlines in Wikipedia, there's always time for improving submissions.
 * I would suggest that you not characterize fellow volunteers as having ego & kingdom-building-problems, especially if you want to work with them. Comment on the edit, not the editor. A Wikipedia article is open to editing and comment by all editors, that is one of the good/bad things about Wikipedia.  None of us own articles we have worked on.  The people who have edited your article or commented upon it are volunteers like yourself and are simply trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be. Shearonink (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Shearonink,

I realize my (non-directed) comment about the Editors (to someone I trust) may seem like bad manors (not knowing who did what), but I do realize that it may enlighten or turn the guilty person(s) off. However, being 71 (72 on St. Pat's Day) and a very principled person, I find it very hard to pull my punches. (Egotistical & grudging Editors have no place in a business like this!)

Please know, that I live by my favorite saying: "If the truth hurts, tough" and that I also try to be a very truthful & patient person (even after 5 mos. of  helpful road-blocks). I'm NOT at all the type of person that gossips or talks behind people's backs, I usually confront the person(s) in more subtle ways, but I have being overloaded for the last two years & now recently frustrated, what would you think if:

1) You didn't hear anything from or receive any citations since 1/24 (almost a month); 2) You ask them a question on 2/20 and receive no answer to your question, but 3) You receive 5 citations the very day after the question is asked, and 4) NO ONE signed their citations! 5) Also, your article receives LARGE Red Mark-ups in the Ref section, the day after your question???

BTW, Thanx for your comment about DLPbots and PDFs, however my files can be ".com" files and after asking all the Editors, I still don't know how to present the "published notability facts" to any of the Reviewing Editors. Also, the picture of Image #2 was there a day or two ago and now recently was removed. Can you help me get it back or tell me what to do?

Sincerely yours, Gregory L. Chester 00:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 01:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Shearonink - I've forgotten how to find the History for the last 5 citations! Can you give me the info for the Search Box/ Gregory L. Chester 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)


 * Greg -
 * You're not indenting your replies so it's making it hard to follow the thread in order, but anyway...
 * You need to understand that almost everyone who edits on Wikipedia is a volunteer, real life sometimes interferes with our Wikipedia'ing. No one is being paid to be here, we're all here because we think an online encyclopedia is important.  So sometimes it can take a while for answers to get back to the questioner.
 * The templates are never 'signed', you can look in the page's edit history and click on the 'diff' points to see who placed the tags on the article, but 'who' is not important, "why" is. Your draft was accepted, now it is being refined.  Fellow editors see things that can be improved so they are editing it as well.
 * There are no large red markup in the references now, that kind of transient stuff can happen when an article is being cleaned up, everything looks fine now.
 * The reason the article is getting edited (and yes, sometimes that means 'tagged') is because it is an now an 'article, when it was a draft-version, when it was an Article for Creation, it didn't get as much attention.  It has nothing to do with asking questions or not...it was accepted as an article.  Now, that doesn't mean that other editors might not have an opinion or that other editors won't edit the text and the references...of course they will!  That's what we do around Wikipedia, we edit everything that comes onto any Wikipedia page.
 * Wikipedia will only accept published sources. They do not have to be online.  If you can cite the information into something like that will be fine.  I do not understand what you are referring to when you say you have "files", be they pdfs or whatever...if the sources are not published then they are not verifiable and if they are not verifiable they are unusable.  For information to be presented in a Wikipedia article it must be verifiable.
 * Now, let me repeat this next statement again...
 * So far as I can tell, the red-lettered image has not been touched by anyone other than yourself. If you look back through the articles history, you will see that it has always been red-lettered.  Something has been wrong with the file-name since it was added to the article.  When I look at your Commons edits (the Wikipedia image-repository) I do not see this image-file name, I only see these edits: Commons edits for GregLChest.  The image for "File:Hpqscan0002a = The Real Estate SpiderGraph - A Home-Buying Decision-Making Aid.jpg" does not exist, it was never uploaded.
 * If you wish to see who has edited this article, just click on the "view history" tab up at the top near Read/Edit.
 * Hope this answers all your questions, Shearonink (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

SHEARONINK: Thanks for clearing up some of the Citations, etc., but just to keep you informed: I sent Commons my permission letter for the Image Hpqscan0002a this morning and went back into the article just to discover that Mabdul have already deleted the image! I pushed "undo" and explained myself.

As for answering all my questions (NO!). Most of my problems have been about Notability & Reliable 3rd party Sources! (Omitted my question regarding my sending "files" to the Reviewing Editors.)

Thanx again, Gregory L. Chester 21:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)


 * Start hand.svg Greg, please read "For what happened to that missing image...." at your talk page before posting about this issue again. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

SHEARONINK: SORRY for my confusion and Thanx again! Things happened to fast and when I came back into your User Page and Clicked on edit (All things began to look alike!) The Files that I mentioned are of the actual pages in Ref #5 & #15 in my article. (I just don't understand, that if someone researched a Handbook found in the Library of Congress, they could say it was not a reliable source??) However, in addition, one of the eight scanned pages is from the Programmable Controls' (trade magazine) "The P.C. Insiders Newsletter" section, that has a paragraph about me, entitled "PC pioneer weaves a comparison web." And overlaid on that page is a copy of another paragraph from Plant Engineering (trade magazine), entitled "How To Pick a PC." While they were published, Im sure no information on them can be found, since that was Jan. 24, 1985! (Sorry about not indenting, but when I hit "Tab" it doesn't work??)

Sincerely yours, Gregory L. Chester 22:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't hit TAB, you put -->.:<<-- in front of your post.
 * If you are in possession of these magazine articles, they can still be cited. They do not need to be online. Go to: Referencing for beginners with citation templates, cut/paste the template that is there, add it to your article filling out the parameters for each reference.


 * For instance, take


 * Copy the code, fill it out with your information from the various magazines and then paste it into the article for each reference you want to add.


 * Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Shearonink Thanx for the TAB info! But since it's 4:10 pm, I'm going to break for Lunch! One question: Do you remember my misguided Ego comment about some Editors? Well, can you find out if Chiswick Chap has a HS diploma, he just cut my article down to a third of what it was and misconstrued its total meaning!!! Every paragraph has been revised?? and Notes, References,and even Alsos have been removed!!

I really need a break NOW! Gregory L. Chester 00:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

911 SHEARONINK

I appreciated your help getting my article moved to the Public Wikipedia Website, but unfortunately, I went back to the article late yesterday and noticed that Chiswick Chap had made "Major work-over & removals," changing almost every paragraph in the article and removing several sections! "NOW THE ARTICLE IS AN ABOMINATION AND CREATES MORE CONFUSION AND INCORRECT INFORMATION, THAN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE TRIED TO CLEAR-UP IN THE FIRST PLACE!"

The article is now an embarrassment to me and I'M BEGGING YOU TO MOVE THE ARTICLE BACK TO AFC! When you and the other Reviewing Editors read the article, I'm sure everyone will agree that the changes made, were not done following the spirit of the Wikipedia-Process to make an article better!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 20:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)