User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 17

Michigan Wolverines Articles
Tony -- I see the Dick Rifenberg article got Good Article status. Nice work. I think we made a good team on that one! If you're interested, I've been working on several additional Michigan Wolverine articles in the past couple days, including Elmer Gedeon (3-sport star shot down over France in WWII), Don Dufek, Sr. (father of Don Dufek and MVP of the 1950 team and 1951 Rose Bowl), George Hoey (holds UM record for punt return yards in a game; later involved in eligibility scandal while working for U-Colo. athletic dept.), Ed Muransky (All American who holds the all time "Beef Bowl" record by eating 16 pounds of prime rib before the 1979 Rose Bowl), Jim Detwiler (Ohio H.S. star haranged by Woody Hayes on the phone for disloyalty tp State of Ohio in choosing U-M), Ralph Heikkinen (two-time U-M MVP from U.P. who went on to be #1 in his law school class and a law professor), Mark Donahue and Tom Dixon. I know you've got lots of projects going, but if any of these sound interesting, your help is always welcome and appreciated. Cbl62 07:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks .... a 1st? 100?
Thanks a lot Tony. One of the 100 involved a Mr Vernon who are local bigwigs ... and I think one had a strong Italian connection. Thanks very much. I think 100 is OK maybe I will put forward a few more of my own and equal your count on that score. Well done to you too. Victuallers 22:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:List requests
I will definitely get to the Chicago list soon, as it is needed for the Featured topic drive at WP:SKYSCRAPER/FTD. St. Louis isn't one of the top skylines in the country, and is thus not a part of the FTD, so it may take a while for me to get to it. But I definitely will eventually; I am working with another editor to get an English Wikipedia building list for every city which currently has one on the Polish Wiki, according to this template, plus a few more as well. Cheers, Rai - me  22:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim Mandich
I'll add Mandich to the cue. I added articles today on Calvin O'Neal and Tom Slade. Slade was not a great QB, but he nearly led the team to an undefeated season in 1971 and he's the one Bo spoke about to the team on the night before he died last year, telling the team they could aspire to be great Michigan men like Slade. Cbl62 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Links
I saw the message you left on Chrisjnelson's page and I might know a user that can help you make NFL players articles. Gypaetus maybe able to help, look at his edit history and youll see he makes a tons of NFL players pages, Go here to see his edit history:Gypaetus Edit History, and see if he can help you--Yankees10 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Gavin Donoghue
Hi, i would greatly appreciate it if you could try leaving some comments on Peer review/Gavin Donoghue/archive1.Thanks.--Sunderland06 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard, Floyd, Muransky, etc.
I'll see what I can find on Howard and Floyd for your articles. I nominated my Elmer Gedeon article for DYK status, as I think it has an interesting hook. Take a look at the Ed Muransky article when you get a chance. I thought a DYK along these lines might work: "...that in 1979 University of Michigan takcle Ed Muransky set the all-time record at the traditional pre-Rose Bowl Lawry's "Beef Bowl" by eating eight slabs (16 pounds) of prime rib?" Cbl62 18:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Found a little bit on Howard. Hope that helps.  Cbl62 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK hook added
I added your DYK to the next update. I modified it slightly because some non-Americans may not know what a running back is. They know what a football player is. Archtransit 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Jim Detwiler, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wistert & Skrepenak
I do have some stuff on the Wistert brothers that I will try to compile. Among other things, I have the 1934 Michiganensian which includes information about one of the Wistert's roles on the football and baseball teams. Also, I have a couple articles on the Wisterts. Nothing on Skrepenak. As for Muransky not appearing on the Raiders' post-season roster, not sure what to make of that. In interviews, Muransky talks about having been part of the post-season. Cbl62 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikitable formatting
You have posted the same question to the help desk 6 times (4 of them have been removed). Please see the reply in Help desk and make new posts in the same section. If you don't see recent changes to a page then try bypassing your cache. PrimeHunter 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Donoghue
Sorry, i thought you were interested in football articles.Thanks--Sunderland06 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl XVIII
My source is this. Seems as though this suppports what you are saying being on the roster. I'm not sure why he wasn't on the Super Bowl roster. Injury? If he was a regular player throughout the season, I would put him in the template, as that is the usual standard for these types of navboxes. Thanks. - Masonpatriot 17:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I think there is value in putting players on injured reserve on the templates.  I've already added a few players into the templates when I created them that were major contributors but did not play in the SB due to injury (i.e. Phil Simms for SB XXV and Anthony McFarland for SB XXXVII to name a couple).  I wouldn't be in favor of including pracitce sqad, mid-season trades, preseason cuts and the like because I believe that that overloads the navboxes and is inconsistent with what is done in the other sport templates (MLB, NBA, College basketball).  Many practice squad players never see action during the regular season, so I see no need to add them when they never officially played, never mind play in the super bowl.  The same rationale applies to pre-season cuts.  As far as trades, well, to use an example from baseball, Nomar Garciaparra is not including in the 2004 Red Sox navbox since he was traded mid-season, though he played for the team and received a ring.  I would argue that he should not be in the navbox, and neither should any September call-up who was not on a postseason roster.  I feel as though the Super Bowl navboxes are very inclusive as they are, and only need minor changes when players are found to be missing when they should be included (like you are doing).  I'm sure I missed more than a few when I created the templates, or I may not have a good of a grasp on each individual team, so I hope editors like you add players who may have been missed during my initial sweep.  Finally, the source that I've used, while listing players who played for a team during the regular season who were not on the SB roster, does not give their status (IR, cut, trade, etc.).  My source would not be useful in differentiating that info.  Thanks for your work and discussion, and I hope you see where I'm coming from.  Sorry for the long response!! - Masonpatriot 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists
Saw your comment on my RfA - my concern about the lists was that poor Scorpion0422 closed all but two of the discussions - some help there would probably be appreciated :) Thanks for your support! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Whitey Wistert
I added some additional information to your article on Whitey Wistert. The new stuff comes from a 2004 article about the Wistert brothers in the Detroit News and from other sources. Hope that helps. Cbl62 (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Boren and Billy Taylor
FYI -- The only other Michigan football articles I've created recently are Billy Taylor (American football) and Mike Boren. Not sure there's a DYK hook in the Boren article, but Taylor has led an interesting life -- spending 20+ years as a drug addict/alcoholic, living on the streets of Detroit, then having a religious experience that turned his life around. But I haven't had time to clean up the cites and references on the Taylor article. I've been working on another project tonight but will be getting back to the U-M stuff soon. Cbl62 (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edward Teller
Thank you for your sporting message.

My fundamental test for FA is: am I embarrassed to see this on the front page? I am embarrassed by several present (recently promoted) FAs, and would be by most GAs; but, as you said, Edward Teller is an excellent article. Really, all I wanted was to have that admitted, and considered when we decided whether the star should be kept. Whether the article can be improved is another question; all articles can be improved. This one has not been greatly improved, nor greatly changed, by the review; it was excellent before.

This is why I scorn mechanical tests: I am not embarrassed by the millimeter's difference between an en-dash and a hyphen; nor by linking short of a sea of blue.

It is, in fact (and this is plain on looking at the sources), a collation of the several excellent sources in the bibliography. Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders does not have this justification; it has no bibliography. Articles do need citation; but footnotes are not the only form of citation; a footnote that does not actually do anything for the reader which he cannot do easily for himself is not valuable to the encyclopedia.

Please also consider Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta, which has too many footnotes; it was refused FA largely because it does. Footnotes are a cost, although often a necessary cost. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Garland Rivers
Nice job on the Garland Rivers article. Very thorough and well written. I've been substantially re-doing the Jamie Morris article which was previously a stub. If you have anything to add to it, have at it. Cbl62 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Tony -- Nice phrasing on the Gene Derricotte hook. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Edward Teller FAR
I closed this FAR. You can tell by looking at the history of either the FAR page or the FAR archive page. Joelito (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Elmer Gedeon
Hi, the above GA nominee is on hold, please respond to concerns on the talk page within seven days or the article will fail. Due to concerns I have with the article, when you believe the current problems to be fixed, notify me and I will reassess it then and either pass, fail or extend the hold based on results. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I saw your name and found out that you are very active in WikiProject Chicago. I have written some articles about a province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and find that we have no WikiProject. So I created one, the WP:CONGO. I am not very experienced in Wikipedia. I learn fast and work with others well. If you ever have any spare time and can help us create a better WikiProject page, this would be very nice. Even if you have little time, spending 2-3 minutes to add some kind of template or other details to our page would be helpful. If you don't mind, I would like to copy a few things from the WP:Chicago page.

Our first order of business is not the wikiproject but actually writing the articles! Wish me luck! Congolese (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Edward Teller
Joel closed it and I support his decision. It was doing more harm than good remaining on FAR. Marskell (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Answering your question, if the paragraphs are not controversial and contiguous sentences are backed by a single source then a paragraph/(s) can be cited once or twice. Joelito (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ged mich bb.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ged mich bb.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

UM Template
I am thinking of eliminating the other important figures section. I think we have fleshed out every type of individual who could reasonably contest being added for being in a class of important individuals. I think the remaining persons are personal favorites more than important persons. The only possible category I might add would be Michigan Hall of Honor. However, I think we should leave the template generic so that other schools from other conferences as well as our own can copy it in a way that helps the project move forward without needless battles. I like guys like Dennis Franklin, Jon Vaughn and Jamie Morris. However, from the international Wikipedian perspective, they are not cleanly distinguished from others not included on the template. Why not add Julius Franks, Elmer Gedeon and endless others if we don't just say we have got all important categories of Michigan players included. Any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the Template is too long, but I think the Other Important Figures (OIF) section is needed. While having a subjective element, there is a short list of people whose importance in the U-M tradition is indisputable.  Don Canham and Bob Ufer are good examples.  Sure, we could add categories for athletic directors or broadcasters, but most who have served in those capacities (unlike Canham and Ufer) are either unimportant or appear elsewhere on the template (e.g., past A.D.'s like Yost, Crisler and Schembechler, and current A.D. Martin).  Rather than adding more categories, I think the OIF section is the best way to handle it.  Similarly, individuals who have set truly major records at U-M but don't fit other categories would fit in this category.  Examples include Jamie Morris who set the all-time school rushing records (both season and career) and still holds the record for all-purpose yardage in a U-M uniform.  Steve Breaston is another example, as he holds the all-time return records (both punt and kickoff) by wide margins.  (Right now, you have included him in the Alumni Active in the NFL section, but he would unfairly fall off the list if he is released by his current NFL team.  If we want to shorten the template (which I think is a good idea), I think better candidates would be (i) the Alumni Active in the NFL section (it is very long and consists of people who are either already listed in the template elsewhere or are marginal players in terms of their U-M importance), and (ii) shortening the All-Americans section by eliminating double-references (maybe just include a parenthetical (2) if someone was a two-time winner as in the case of multiple Pro-Bowl appearances).  Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to look at the template is to view it as a general template that we are using for Michigan. What should every football program (in  BCS conference) do?  I think it might be unfair to Western Michigan Broncos football for whom being drafted at all or ever having played in the NFL might be worth keeping them on the template to hold them to a BCS standard.   However, I think most BCS schools would be able to summarize the important wikilinks for their program by copying our format.  We have the second most AAs so even though we seem over loaded it is not too much of a problem as a general policy.  I think the best way to shorten the section might be to eliminate the "^" and use italics or underlining to represent consensus and unanimous.  I think many of the players who we want to say are important are important due to their recent good will production due to recent athletic production.  Even though Chad Henne and Ryan Mallett are important to Michigan football, they have not really earned their place on the template.  There will be several 2007 All Big Ten awardees and I don't think either will be first team.  However, I will not contest this section due to your explanation of a need for a catch all section, which catches them too.  I guess we are doing O.K.  I left something at Talk:Gerald Ford about whether they want our big template or just the retired numbers one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You make a good reasoned point about the length of the template being the result of the inordinate number of AAs, Pro Bowlers, etc, who have come out of the U-M program as opposed to other programs. As for specific people in the OIF category, I think Henne is just like Morris and Breaston.  Though he never made All-American and may never be a Pro-Bowler, he is the holder of a number of very significant all-time U-M records, including the all-time career record for passing yards.  I included Mallett mostly because of his central importance to the current program, but he also holds the U-M record for the longest pass from scrimmage in school history with a 97 yard pass to Manningham in the Nov. 2007 Wisconsin game).  Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thought on shortening the template. If the Alumni Active in the NFL section is kept, it should be limited to the REAL NFL.  Guys like Adam Stenavich who are playing in the NFL Europe should not be included.  Cbl62 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re FYI POTD nom
That's cool, but I think anything that becomes an FP pretty much automatically becomes a POTD anyway - it's just a bit of a wait. You might like to drop Howcheng a note and ask, as he pretty much runs POTD. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony. The POTD is selected from the pool of Featured Pictures in a roughly first-in first-out order; they're in reverse order at WP:FPT. As you can see, your baseball picture is still way behind in the queue. I wouldn't expect it to reach the Main Page until late January or so, although I was actually considering keeping it in reserve for the opening day of the new baseball season.  howcheng  {chat} 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. You may want to read Picture of the day/Guidelines for help in writing the POTD blurb (it's too long and a bit too detailed).  howcheng  {chat} 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rober Wahl
I added an article tonight on 2-time All-American Robert Wahl. There's definitely some DYK potential. Any help you want to provide on the article is definitely welcome. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Morris
Do you think Jamie Morris qaulfies for DYK based on having previously been a stub? If you want to give it a once over and then nominate it, that would be fine with me. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts
If you have the time and inclination, I would be grateful if you could pop over and have a look at this discussion, and provide information about your experience with image sizing as regards Featured Articles, so we can get that perspective on the matter. Tyrenius (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This went to the other Tony by mistake. Weigh in, It'll be appreciated. Thanks, Modernist (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know there was a new user User:Tony The Tiger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenius (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, given that the other Tony has not edited for three years, and given that the account was created in 2003 and your account was created in 2006, the only problem would be yours. This is only true if the other account starts editing again. For the moment it seems harmless. Woody (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I misread contribs as there's less than 100 and I just saw "December" as the first one. Must remember the year has a bearing on these things also. Tyrenius (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD
Yes, I already know about your experiment, and you know that I know about it. This is the fourth time you have bugged me about it, even though I have previously told you that I want no part in it. Could you please stop canvassing and leave people alone? -- Scorpion0422 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't ou just leave people alone? This is the third wave of messages you have sent out, so I'm pretty sure people already know. Besides, it's canvassing (and borderline harrasment) because there is another proposal out there and you are rather conveniently ignoring that and making people think that yours is the only one. -- Scorpion0422 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then at least take the time to make sure you aren't hounding the same people. I happen to know that at least 75% of the people you have bugged tonight have previously had lists promoted, so odds are that they already know. -- Scorpion0422 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, Tony, you know my thoughts on the matter. Please stop canvassing, especially on my talk page. I have only just seen the note on my talk page. If you are to canvass, then do it equally, ie. listing all available options and not just your own. That would seem to be both fair and magnanimous. Can you make sure that you don't spam me again please. Woody (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Vranos hook
Very nice hook on the Vranos article. I read it on the DYK talk page, and it made me want to read the article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Butch Woolfolk
I just finished a substantial rewrite of the Butch Woolfolk article, which was previously a stub. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. I have also submitted both for DYK inclusion. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Monet
Well, I couldn't leave it out! Tyrenius (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The 23 GACs
There's a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations about your multiple GACs that I think you should read up on.

Peter Isotalo 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WBEN - Rifenburg
Tony -- The WBEN logo was already on Wikipedia in the article about WBEN. I don't know anything about its original source. I simply linked it to the Rifenburg article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Elmer Gedeon
Tony -- Just read through the Elmer Gedeon article again now that it's obtained GA status. I think you did a terrific job improving, cleaning it up, and promoting it. It is a really excellent article at this point. Good work! Cbl62 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD voting
I don't think you can make voting mandatory on wikipedia - surely we all do this as volunteers. I'm unclear what we are supposed to be voting for - perhaps clearer instructions or purposes would help - also can we vote for our own? I also don't want to spend a lot of time reviewing lists on topics in which I have little interest -what time I have I'm currently trying to get 3 articles to GA & 1 to FA so those are my priorities for wikipedia time.&mdash; Rod talk 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: LOTD
Well, I think it's a little confusing. The majority of the voting page is devoted to comments, and I had the impression that rather than voting, the articles would be selected by comments. I'm not sure the way to fix it. I did vote, however. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have looked briefly and it seemed to me like comments were overwhelming the votes. I couldn't really even find the votes. I will look again now. Dincher (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I think that the format is fine. I guess that awareness could be increased and the message I received did the job. Thanks and have a good one. Dincher (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Transcluding Tables
What you say about the tables makes sense, and there are other examples where I could benefit from that, but I am unfamiliar with the "transcluding" procedure. Could you point me to an example that I could use? Cbl62 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Patrick Nash entry
RE: Patrick Nash entry. I am professor of history in Atlanta, Georgia, who is currently engaged in writing a political biography of Roger Charles Sullivan (1861-1920) the actual founder of the Chicago Democratic machine. I am also the author of numerous other works on Chicago Democratic Politics in the progressive period. My manscript has been prereviewed by three university presses in Illinois,as well as one commerical operation. All of these presses have given postive reviews to the draft, and are especially positive about the quality of its research. In short, when it comes to machine politics in Chicago in this period, I am probably among leading experts (if not THE expert). Roger Sullivan founded the Chicago Democratic machine. By 1920, he was absolute master of the Chicago, Cook County, and state Democratic Parties, and his organization was massive and stable. When he died in 1920, his primary ally, George Brennan, took over as boss. When Brennan died, Anton Cermak took over as boss. When Cermak was assassinated, he was replaced by a partnership of Patrick Nash (a Sullivan protege) and Mayor Edward J. Kelly. This organization was eventually further developed by Mayor Richard J. Daley. In short: Roger Sullivan founded the machine,and  I have done the research and have the credentials to back it up. Anton Cermak did not create the machine, he was merely, for a brief time, boss. I don't care what your article says, it is was created without the adequate research necessary to address this point. Further, if you take the time to check, the sitting leadership of the Cook County Democratic organization, recognizes Roger C. Sullivan and not Anton Cermak as the founder of the machine. My book manuscript will be completed by summer 2008, and will doubtlessly be published the following year. I repeat, I am the expert in the field and this article entry is incorrect. Please restore as I had it, and in future have the humility not to assume you know everything.00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Template thoughts
I want to think about the template. Frankly, I agree with the comments you received about the length of the template. I want to think about ways to shorten it without losing important content. One way would be to eliminate duplicative content by simply having a single category of "Important Figures" listed. That way, instead of having Tom Harmon, Charles Woodson, etc. listed multiple times they only appear once. I may experiment with something in a sandbox setting. I have started a total re-write of the Merv Pregulman article today. Aside from being an All-American, U-M Hall of Honor, and College Football HOF, he had a very successful business career. If you have thoughs on that one, as always, feel free.Cbl62 (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I am currently improving Gimme More for FA and aside from formal peer review, I am looking forward for some comments on the article for further improvements. Could you give me some feedbacks? Please see the talk page of the article and thank you very much. --&#946;ritand&#946;eyonce (talk•contribs) 13:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. --&#946;ritand&#946;eyonce (talk•contribs) 09:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm new to this: s/b. What does it mean? =) --&#946;ritand&#946;eyonce (talk•contribs) 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah... Ok, got it. By the way, about the favor, i'll try my best to give comments. You know, I'm a newbie and it seems reviewing is quite hard for me at this time. --&#946;ritand&#946;eyonce (talk•contribs) 12:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:LOTD voting
I had always planned on voting, I just haven't had the time until now. It can be a pretty time consuming process to read the comments on the LOTD page and then go through all of the lists as well to identify which are the "best". But I would tend to agree with an above comment that making voting "mandatory" would not be the best idea. Cheers, Rai - me  18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank Steketee
In addition to the Merv Pregulman re-write, I have now added a lengthy article about Frank Steketee, removing one more of the U-M All-Americans without an article. I also added some new content to the Dick Rifenburg article. Cbl62 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment
The Internet is an amazing thing. There are databases out there (some requiring fee) that enable you to plug in a peson's name and pull up every article that has been published about that person. It's not like the old days when that sort of research would take months of going through dusty stacks at a major library. I thought the bit about Rifenburg's practical joke on Wisconsin was especially nice. And no, not a professional researcher, just something fun to do in off hours.Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FLCs
I try to avoid voting in FLCs unless I have something against an article, or if it's been there 20 days and needs one more support vote. So, my lack of commenting means I don't oppose it. -- Scorpion0422 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because another part of my policy is not to support when somebody outright asks me to. I just said I don't oppose it. I never said anything about support. Wait a few days and someone will vote. -- Scorpion0422 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Boles
I don't have access to the Ann Arbor News with my subscription but I found this article, if it's of interest: “Bo knows Boles can be candidate for Heisman.” AP Article. November 15, 1989. “Michigan tailback Tony Boles can run (can he ever!) but he can’t hide from the Heisman Trophy anymore. He’s finally got Bo Schembechler touting him for college football’s most glamorous honor and that’s never happened before. … ‘He’s (darn) good,’ Schembechler said. ‘You’re (darn) right. He’s averaging 6.3 yards a carry. That’s not too shabby.’ … Boles, who last season rushed for 1,408 yards and nine touchdowns, has 822 yards and nine TDs this season. … ‘That’s the difference between Tony and some of the other backs we’ve had here. He was not a big track man. He was baseball and all-sports in high school.’” Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured list
Yup, also I see that you are pretty active here. I want to become an admin. I once requested approval like 2 months ago and I withdrew because I realized I wasn't going to get it. Do you think I qualify now? My failed attempt - Requests for adminship/Michfan2123.

michfan2123 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the criteria of featured stuff. Wow, I looked at your unsuccessful RFA's. I don't know what they are looking for, you have done so much. If you can't get it, I don't think I can, hehe. michfan2123 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. michfan2123 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Template
I had changed the template yesterday because the coding that's in there makes the decade markers virtually unreadable in the A-A section of the template. Is there some other way to fix it so the decade markers stand out?Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added my support on the receiving list, which is very nice work. On the template coding, I am using standard factory-issued Internet Explorer that comes with my Vaio computer.  I assume it's not that atypical, and the coding you have in the template for the decade markers does not work on my screen.  It comes up as an illegible run of symbols and numbers, and there is also no underlining.  If the coding only works on selected browsers, I think we should revise to use something more widely readable.Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a tech guy at all, and I wouldn't know where to begin to determine what coding to use for underlining on Internet Explorer. If I had a clue on that sort of thing, I'd take a look, but I really am clueless about such things.  BTW, I have added articles for All-Americans James B. Craig, Miller Pontius, Frank Steketee, and Merv Pregulman over recent days.  Still 13 All-Americans in the template needing articles.  Plenty of work still to go.Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The underlining fix you implemented works fine with my browser. Much better.  As for Gutierrez and Fargas, what would be the basis for including them on the Template?  Fargas really developed into a star after he tranferred to USC, didn't he? Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD feedback et. al.
You were missed during the feedback session. I see you have not voted yet either. If I had made voting mandatory, would it have kept you from nominating an article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One word, time. To make any vote (or !vote comments) meaningful would mean taking the time to review all submission properly. That is something I do not have I'm afraid. Would it have kept me from nominating, maybe. If not, then the voting that resulted would certainly have been a half arse thing. KTC (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - they are all already Featured Lists, so they all meet certain requirements. If I am going to spend lots of time reading lists, I would rather help out at WP:FLC (which, sadly, I do not). While I appreciate your efforts to try to make a List of the Day, I think the selection system you are now using is too cumbersome. Even if I did vote, I would likely drop out once "my" lists were featured as the LOTD. Hope this feedback is useful, thanks again for catching things to improve in the lists I coauthored. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how people would figure out what my 45 most important contributions are (including me). I guess I see a difference between deciding whether an article or user is qualified (FAC, GAN, FLC, RfA) and determining the order in the queue for lists that are already featured. I will try to add some general thoughts to your LOTD talk page Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters
Is it possible for the list to be mentioned on the main page on January 15, 2008? Thanks. Miranda 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Miranda 04:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice lists
Those are great, I supported all 3.

I created this in September. Do you think it could be a featured list?

List of tournament performances by Tiger Woods

I did like all of the work on it.

Only thing against it is no reference section. All the information is from individual season results at pgatour.com and golfstats.com. If I ref each year individually, do you think it would pass?

michfan2123 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks michfan2123 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Michigan rushing list
Nice job on the Michigan lists. While not so much a factor in the passing and receiving lists, the rushing list unavoidably suffers from the fact that it does not include records from the first 70 or so years of UM football. As one example, Willie Heston is the all-time UM rushing touchdown leader with 71 touchdowns. See College Football Hall of Fame: Heston You might want to add some narrative about the omission of such players due to the state of early records. Just a thought. Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Singular inches
I can do it, but not quickly, sorry. However, judging from what's in the text, in to cm, which does support singular, should work just fine. Is this something you'd be willing to consider?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Begin of the aricle
Hi Tony:

I only placed that tags in the article because I thought which the article was abandoned by your creator, and my only exit for the ploblem is to place a tag of "Unencyclopedic" (because the article don't had informations, and in this case I thought is better to elimine the article for a While) and "Contex" for the same reasons who I listed below; my intention wasn't make damage in your york, but, the article don't had informations, and don't have contex; in the moment I remained confuse about the destiny of the article.

Sorry if I did something bad (and sorry for my english!). --Brunoy Anastasiya Seryozhenko (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple Images
Ta-da! Triple image Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Graded busines school
I say a good way to weight the overall community sentiment on this is to actually send it to AFD. If the list is indeed hopelessly POV, it'll be shot down in no time. If not, then there's nothing Scorpion or Orlady can say about it's appropriateness. Make sure to ask in the AFD nom what, if anything can be done to salvage it. As it is, I think there's an obvious DONTLIKEIT element there, but there won't be enough people willing to engage into an otherwise inconsequential debate at FLC. Circeus (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:First SI Swimsuit Issue.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:First SI Swimsuit Issue.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Woods
That might be good, I will look into that. michfan2123 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NFL.com
Hi Tony. I just replied to your questions about nfl.com over at WT:NFL. I figured I better tell you, since it's been three weeks. The project isn't exactly a bustling with activity, as you can see. All the best ×Meegs 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobel laureates
Oh. my. God.

This is indeed, way, way too busy. Having two fields for both undergraduate and graduate degrees each is overdoing it (not to mention that there's duplication of information), too much information in "birth" and "death", and keeping the big quote in "contribution" won't work (and you know what I think of images inside list tables). My gut feeling is that if you absolutely want to retain sortability and some legibility, you'll have to reduce the table to a bare minimum. Maybe a broader table format more akin to that of FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives might be better. I'd recommend, if you chose that later option, splitting it by which nobel they received. Circeus (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

UM Passing and Rushing Lists
Tony -- I'd be happy to support the lists on UM passing and rushing records. Can you shoot me a link on where I go to do that? By the way, my latest effort on Jack Blott and Germany Schulz have taken a lot of effort. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts or suggestions. Cbl62 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of the Day and Did You Know
I have a couple questions. One, is the List of the Day definitely going through or are you still trying to get support and accepting nominations to show people would be interested? And two, have any tips for getting any articles I create to be part of a "Did You Know..."? I see you have a lot, so you're apparently good at it. I've tried in the past, and it hasn't worked. BsroiaadnTalk 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have actually nominated one list already, and when I can I will look over some of the others and leave feedback if I can think of any. I really hope this goes through, I'd love to see one of my lists on the main page. And alright, thanks. Also, I moved what you said to a new section to make it easier for me and because they are two different conversations, even if it's on the same subject...the new section is at the bottom. BsroiaadnTalk 06:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK efficiency
One of your hooks is in the next update. It may appear in less than an hour if it is not late. Congratulations on a hook which is about 3 new articles! That really conserves space allowing more people to have their hook selected. Archtransit (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I, too, thank you for your efficiency. Good job on the triple fact! -- Royal broil 01:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD congratulations
Thanks but List of Odonata species recorded in Britain isn't mine.&mdash; Rod talk 08:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD
Thanks TOny! Sorry to not be more participant in the process, but I am having some rough times. It would be great if you linked the list for Jan 4th, if it does not bother you. Thanks!--Legionarius (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no date preference for List of premature obituaries. Ben Finn (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I also offer my thanks! I don't really have a date preference for either List of Harry Potter films cast members or United Nations member states, though if you're looking for something, I just searched the latter article for "January" and both the Czech Republic and Slovakia were admitted to the UN on January 19 (after diving from being Czechoslovakia), so that might be a really obscure tie-in. In any case, it doesn't really matter. :) See you at the next month of proposals! --Fbv65 e del — t — c // 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's great news. :) Sorry about not being around for the commenting - I was a bit busy with other matters. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I had several concerns with the page, which is why it failed. The prose needed improving and I felt that there should be more about his NFL career, considering that he played there for several years. I suggest you renominate it if you feel my concerns have been addressed. -- Scorpion0422 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

GAOH Halle Berry
All corrections are done. Just the spacing in awards list - should it be there or not? Vikrant 15:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Greg Skrepenak
The page is better than before, but I won't review it, because I believe that rereviews should be done by different people. However, you should probably wait a month before resubmitting it because there is currently a huge backlog in the sports section and you should give the reviewers some time to catch up. -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: GAOH Halle Berry
Added DOB and POB. Vikrant 11:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK hook
Hi Tony, I did consider using that hook, in fact I did put it in a previous entry, but quite frankly when I read it I had trouble understanding what it was all about. But I'll go back and have another look at it now and tell you what I think. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I read it, and contrary to my previous impressions, I think it's fine to go. Since I've already completed the current update, I'll put it on the update page below the current entries for inclusion next time. In the unlikely event it is not used, I will put it into the next update I do, which I anticipate will be some time tomorrow. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Dear Tony, I wanted to wish you a very Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Christmas (barn) star! Have a good one, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK problem?
Not sure what your last post to me was about Tony. Royalbroil posted your article to the mainpage yesterday as you can see from the DYK notice I posted to you above. So what exactly are you referring to here? Gatoclass (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I thought from your note that you thought your hook had not been posted. I wasn't confused about your article at all but I got pretty confused by your message!


 * Anyhow, it all seems to have worked out okay. Obviously you worked very hard on the article so I can understand why you were keen not to see it get overlooked.


 * Anyhow, merry Christmas Tony, and thanks for your ongoing support of DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason that I had removed the article was because I thought it had already run on the main page. I was mistaken. I had accidentally credited the article when it in fact had not run. I earlier had been trying to add the article to the Next Update, but I had an edit conflict and let someone else load the next update. Sorry for the problems that I caused, and I happily used the article even though it was well past the normal 5 day window. It was a judgement call that needed to be made in your favor because you did nothing to do with causing the problem. I hope this clears things up and that you accept my apology. Royal broil  02:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrigley Field, Scoreboard, etc.
I removed it simply because there was nothing in the caption that indicated that it had anything to do with the section it was in. It was also not placed very elegantly. And I don't think a brawl that occurred later in the game has any relevance to the photo other than coincidence. That could be mentioned if you want, but if the purpose of the photo is to illustrate the bleachers, then the caption should say that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You could put it back if you make it clearer what you are trying to illustrate. You should also reshuffle the positioning a bit so that you don't have two photos one above the other. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, for one thing it was in the 1937 reconstruction section, when it was actually taken after the 2005-2006 reconstruction. Adding it to that section might make it kind of crowded. But let's try this. Here they are twice, with you original caption, and a suggestion for a better caption. I think you should move the details to the picture page, since the purpose of the picture in this context is presumably to illustrate the ballpark:





The only issue now is that we have several photos stacked up on the right edge. But I'm not sure of an obvious way to make that better. Perhaps the guy who uploaded those images is watching the page and could figure out how to make the two recent right field corner views, of the turf installation, fit into the page better. But your addition works, I think. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was easier than I thought. I just moved the bleacher exterior down to the lower left, next to the part that discusses it. I think it looks pretty good at this point. I'm waiting for someone to complain that there are too many photos. In my book, there's no such thing as too many photos. d:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed a typo and then modified the wording to keep it to 3 lines (on my screen, anyway). Assuming it's a free photo, you can add it wherever it seems appropriate. Since the foreground subject is "demonstrating" a pitch, it could be added to the Baseball article, the article about the player himself, and anything else that seems relevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I like plenty of photos. That section might seem a little busy. I start to wonder if there should be a separate page on the various renovations over the years, but that might be overkill and somebody would probably post a "merge" tag the next day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Desk
I replied to your question at the Help Desk. Cheers-  Cat tleG irl  talk 06:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Odonata species recorded in Britain
Hi. Thanks for your comments at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200801. I've made some edits to address the first point - have I gone far enough or are there still terms you'd like to see linked? Could you expand on your second comment, as I'm not sure what the problem you're highlighting is? Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I'll take a look at it. And I was wondering if you would mind withdrawing some of your college football personality GA noms. There is currently a huge backlog in the sports section and while I have been working to eliminate it, I've been trying to avoid too many of your articles because it would be unfair to you to only have one person review them. But, several of the articles are likely going to fail due to lack of comprehensiveness and not meeting the "broad" GA criteria. Some of the articles only have one sentence on his life outside football and thus make them not great biographical articles. If you would be willing to do that, it would make things easier on the reviewers. -- Scorpion0422 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it say that we have to leave extremely detailed reviews. What you are looking for is a peer review. And the reason I picked the articles I did is because I was only in the mood for reviewing shorter articles, so I just randomly looked for some nice short ones. I also failed one and passed one. By the way, if a biographical article is missing such vital information as date of birth, then it's not a very good biographical article, is it? Finally, every time I have ever commented or reviewed something, you have constantly pestered me about it, so I will likely not be reviewing any of your GACs or FLCs again and if you're constantly biting the reviewers, none of them are going to want to review your stuff either. Some things pass, some things fail, but you've been around long enough that you should know not to whine every time something of yours fails. -- Scorpion0422 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but that's not the only thing I failed those two over. None of your articles had much outside of their careers, such as their personal life, their retirement, etc. Biographical articles should go into detail over such things. -- Scorpion0422 01:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I put Jack Clancy on hold. Perhaps next time you should actually read the reviews. And I didn't quick fail them. I read all of the articles from start to finish. The only reason I've reviewed six of yours is because I was asked to help eliminate the sports section backlog and you happen to have nominated well over half of the articles there, so it's kind of hard to avoid reviewing them. -- Scorpion0422 01:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Heller House GA Review
Hi, Heller House has been reviewed for GA. The article was put on hold for 7 days and comments were left here. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

re. GA reviews
I read your (lengthy) statement on Scorpion's talk page, but stand by my reviews. You may request a re-review if you wish. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "I am asking that in the future you do not do the same disservice by writing such lazy unskilled or disinterested reviews" - Considering the wording of that message, I'll be sure not to review any of your articles anymore. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your comments in further depth here. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoah, hold on, Tiger.. Dihydrogen Monoxide has reviewed two articles I worked on, and I found him to be intelligent, concise, friendly, and having absolutely no arrogance whatsoever. Have you seen the mountain of reviews he has done? I would ask him to review any article at all in the future (and I sincerely hope he does) so "shame on you" for being grumpy and insulting him just because he failed an article of yours. Some people can't see the wood for the trees, said the half-blind three-fingered lumberjack to his son.... :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not seeing the wood for the trees, Tony. I have been through 19 GA reviews and I am honest when I say that I agreed with every one of the reviewers (even when they failed two). They found stuff I had overlooked or was sloppy, so I worked carefully through their complaints. The one thing you do not do is argue with them. Don't forget, they're doing this for free, and they all want to see more GA articles. (BTW, one reviewer said that he will think twice before reviewing one of your articles again, which is only to be expected if you bite their hand off.)


 * GA article status is now a lot tougher than it used to be: see this for an example. The editors on that project are serious (even though I disagreed with their attitude and the name for the whole thing, which I find melodramatic and agressive). To conclude: Get the books out, fix the references, avoid adjectives like the plague, get another person to read through it before you submit it, and you will get your GA, but only after co-operating with the reviewer. I am totally happy about reviewers like Dihydrogen Monoxide reviewing my work, because he's great, and I really mean it. You don't believe that, but maybe it's the wood and the trees thing again. Take a step back. :) --andreasegde (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

LotD on FC
Hi Tony. I've been pondering some options for incorporating the list of the day (and month) into the existing featured content page layout. What do you think of having something like;
 * List of the: Day, Month?

That could probably be fit into the bottom of the existing featured list box, or possibly somewhere in the header bar. It wouldn't be difficult to get those to automatically update based on the templates. I'd also like to look into building an archive of 'blurbs' from each list to randomly display in the list content box in addition to (and possibly eventually in place of) the current selection. --CBD 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Link to response --CBD 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bostic looking good`
The Bostic article is looking good. I'm going to try to get Bob Chappuis in shape over the next day.Cbl62 (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a couple minor copy edits on the Bostic article, including removing the stub designation which no longer applies in light of your expansion of the article. I think you handled the Pro Bowl tiebreaker issue appropriately.  I wonder if there is a way to propose that football player Bostic receive the main Keith Bostic designation instead of the computer programmer who currently has the page and does not appear to be particularly notable, at least not in comparison to the football player.Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do to find birth dates, but they are not readily available for those who didn't play pro ball or get inducted into College Football Hall of Fame. On the Bostic Pro Bowl number on the template, I am fine either keeping as is or changing.  I think it's accurate either way, and your article (linked in the template) clarifies the exact facts.  I have nominated my Bump Elliott and Bob Chappuis articles for DYK on 31 December and 2 January.  Both were stars of the 1948 Rose Bowl games that occurred 60 years ago 1 January 1948, which I think provide a nice hook.  BTW, I noticed the criticism of the Vi Daley article (in my opinion not well-taken criticism) and chimed in on the talk page in opposition to deletion.Cbl62 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Vi Daley article
Hey, just wanted to let you know that some IP from Chicago is taking issue with this article over its notability and bias. I think their charges are bunk, but got caught up in a discussion with them because I issued an NPOV warning and thought that you might want to respond on the article's talk page as you're the primary contributor. Broken Sphere Msg me 04:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Power pitcher
Hey, I was wondering -- do you happen to have a copy of the references cited in power pitcher? It might help to know what they actually say. As written, the paragraph is really kind of crappy. Without the sources, it's kind of hard to tell whether it can be salvaged. Cheers, Feezo (Talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Marquise Walker
I couldn't find the Newsome quote but I did add a good account of the Iowa catch. I attended the Washington game in which he caught 15 passes, and he was an amazing college receiver. There are some articles I saw that refer to his lack of NFL speed being the reason why he wasn't picked until the third round. A couple other thoughts on the article: 1) The bit about putting his Super Bowl ring on eBay is based on two message board posts and not a truly reliable source. It obviously makes Walker look bad, and I'd be reluctant to keep that in without something more than message board posts to back it up.  Did he even qualify for a Super Bowl ring??  2) I think that making a single DUI arrest into a whole separate section gives it undue prominence. I don't dispute its relevance but I think it currently has undue prominence in the overall article. 3) The reference to him being Gruden's first pick is accurate, since the Bucs didn't have a pick until the third round, but it creates an impression that Walker was a first round pick, when he wasn't taken until the third round. Cbl62 (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kickoff table
I removed for various reasons. For one thing, there was no reference to verify that any of the figures were accurate, let alone correct. Furthermore, the figures in the table change in any game that Hester, or any of the other active players participate in. Unless there’s legitimate citation to back up all the numbers – it’s all original research, similar to the Ryan Braun quarrel over the summer. Then again, if there is a website that has such information, what would be the point of adding an entire table when we could just add the information in the sentence, along with a reference link. Also, why is the table placed in an awkward part of the article – it’s bad enough there’s already nickname section that spits out information that’s mentioned within the article. ;)

If you can find a source to back it up (as well as a better place to put the table) please feel free to add it. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 06:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It can verify which which players have returned more than four kick-returns, but can you find something that can nail down the TD % field? I've heard announcers go over the statistic, but I have yet to actually see an official citation. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 07:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier, when does math become OR? ;-) While I agree with you with that TD/ATT should yield TD %, we're bound to run into some conflict with WP:Verify or WP:OR. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 07:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding a source. Have a Happy New Year. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Heller House
I think it looks pretty good now, although I don't think it should have been put up for GA in the condition it was previously. I found it interesting to do, but I wanted to make a point; get in there and fix what a reviewer thinks is wrong, and that's all. I hope it passes, and I wish you the best. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gene Derricotte
I added a few bits about Derricotte. There is actually a pretty rich pool of newspaper articles about Derricotte, and my edits this morning only scratch the surface. When time permits, I'll do some more work on the article. I think it best not to re-nominate the article until we can get it into really good shape.Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Heller House GA
Good work to both of you. The article now passes GA criteria and has such been listed. Thanks for all of your effort. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that is lovely news, and just before New Year's Eve as well. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Luc Robitaille
Hey. Remember when I asked for your feedback on how to improve this article for Good Article status? Well, today, I have added a large amount of references, which was the major issue facing that article. Before I touched it today, there were five references. Right now, there are a total of 20 references. Here is the link to the changes I've made thus far. There are still several statements that require references, but I think this is a very good start. Most of the references I added have come from the Kings' 2006-07 and 2007-08 media guides, with many others coming from HockeyDB.com.

I think this is a very good start at improving this article even more than I did when I did that major re-write (it would've been much easier for me if I had added the references when I did the re-write). I think that this is a very good start at possibly getting it to good article status. I'm interested in hearing your feedback about my work today, and if there are any new issues that you see that would prevent the article from possibly getting up to Good Article status. I know about the section headers, and will try to think of a way to work on that soon. Please get back to me with feedback. Ksy92003 (talk)  23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Maulbetsch and Schulz
Not sure I understand the comments you left on the talk page. I thought the articles were in pretty good shape (in fact my best work), but your long laundry list of Auto Peer Review comments and criticisms make it sound like they are in need of a major overhaul. Can you be specific as to what it is you think needs to be done. I'm tempted to just pull them all back from good article consideration. Maybe that's what I'll do.Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul G. Goebel
In addition to Bentley, Goebel is identified as an All-American by Bruce Madej's book and by several newapaper articles written about him. Not sure what it's based on, or what the original source is.Cbl62 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources I have seen identifying Goebel as All-American do not specify first-team or second-team. They simply identify him having been named as an All-American in 1921.  There are other points in the Goebel story that I had trouble verifying.  For example, several article refer to him having played for the Chicago Bears in the 1920s, and even talk about him going to Bears reunions.  When he was elected mayor of GR, there was an article on the wire syndicates about how a former Chicago Bears player had been elected mayor.  But I can't verify his having played with the Bears at Total Football II, pro-football-reference, database football, or any contemporaneous source.  When going back to the early 1920s, I'm afraid records just aren't as good as one would like.Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I have now added the Bears reference back into the Goebel article.  It may be that he was on the roster briefly but didn't play.  Given the fact that he did play for Columbus in 1925, and doen't show up as having appeared in any Bears games, that seems likely.Cbl62 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if all Bentley images are published pre-1923. For example, the Goebel picture looked more like an informal shot rather than a yearbook shot.Cbl62 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked out your edits to Bump Elliott. Thanks for the help.Cbl62 (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)