User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 18

Reply
In case you hadn't noticed, there is already a display of a random list on the page, and your experiment has not yet been approved. If you want it displayed on that page, then you should get approval on the talk page, and also the other list of the day experiment should be shown too, otherwise it could be taken as advertising. -- Scorpion0422 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are something else. When I first reverted it, it was added by a different user. Personally, I don't think either should be displayed until they are official, and I was unaware that the other one was at WP:FL, so I will remove it. The featured content pages should not be used for advertising and once either one of the proposals are official, then it can be added. -- 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs)

DYK request
Hi Tony, re your request on the update page:

Can someone choose one of the Keith Bostic (football player) hooks from 12/27 for the next set of hooks?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply was:


 * I don't think we can do that Tony. We have an abundance of selections right now and we have to pick them on their merits, we can't play favourites. If that article is good enough, it will probably get in, if not it won't, I'm afraid there are no guarantees at the moment. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Having written the reply though, I decided to take the liberty of removing your request from the update page and placing it here along with my reply instead. The reason is because I am concerned your request might actually prejudice your chances of getting your article in the update. Of course, this is only my opinion, and I might be wrong, so it's entirely up to you if you want to place it back into the update page's Holding Bay area again, I won't remove it again if you do. Gatoclass (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by a "fifth day time request", but if you mean you think your nomination is about to expire, it isn't. We are a day or two behind and we are certainly not going to pass over a whole day's worth of submissions just because they are a day late. Your submission will probably have a chance to get into any one of the next three or four updates.


 * As for "I've never seen a fifth day request passed over before", perhaps that is because there have not been as many submissions to choose from before? There's a substantial backlog and not everyone's submission is going to get in.


 * I think I should expand on my previous comment though. The problem with a request like the one you made Tony is that it puts updaters in a difficult position, because whether they choose your submission or not they are then open to charges of favouritism or bias. And I thought it best that other updaters not be exposed to such a dilemma. Since you've re-posted your request, I won't be removing it again, but I really don't think you should do it. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since your article was well written and you left an additional reason on the suggestions page concerning why you thought it might be appropriate to include it in the current batch, I have included it this time around. However, I would ask you not to place such requests in the update page again, because as I said it makes it difficult for updaters to choose impartially. Just leave an additional message on the suggestions page if you think there is some special reason your hook should be chosen, where updaters can read it and decide for themselves. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I think you probably have a point about that. But the thing is, your request in the update page didn't say "the Wolverines are about to play, and this would be a timely moment to promote an article about the wolverines". It just said, basically, can someone choose my hook for the next update, without giving a reason. So how would I know you are making the request on the basis of an upcoming event? It just sounded like you were asking for favouritism.


 * Since I now understand what you were proposing, I think there is probably nothing wrong with posting what you term a "date request" to the update page. However, you need to make it clear that that's what you're doing. I also think you should be aware Tony that when there is a backlog, such a request cannot automatically entitle you to an update spot, because that would be unfair to other contributors who may not have the advantage of a regular game of footy to justify the inclusion of their hook. So you shouldn't expect that such a request is always going to be satisfied. You are not the only guy who is working hard on articles for DYK Tony, and we have to give everyone a fair go. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly think it's an issue worth discussing, in fact after this exchange with you today I had already decided to sound out RB and some of the DYK admins to see what they think, and will do so as soon as I can find the time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How to place star at top?
Hello, Tony. I have selected some of your DYK hooks before. I noticed that your user page has many FA stars. How do you put it there? I worked on and nominated the Boeing 747 article which just made FA. I would like to put a FA star on the top of my user page, like you (and others). How does one do that? If it's easier to do than describe, you can do it here User:Archtransit. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Business school rankings
Congratulations. You got another star. Vantelimus (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was too late. Whenever, you need a review, let me know.  I usually try to give helpful hints and never savage an article.  Nobody should accuse you of canvassing because you'll rarely get an unexplained "support" from me.  I'll do my best to analyze the article and explain my support.  If it deserves an "oppose", which I wouldn't expect from an editor of your experience, I'll help out with suggestions, not flatly oppose.  Happy New Year! Archtransit (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image templates
Wow, I have not heard of those templates until now. Thank you! I think pages like List of tallest buildings in Tulsa could cerainly benefit from more images, but I just worried that the templates will "crush" the list tables too much. Do you think we should try it on the Chicago list? By the way, sorry for the lack of work on my part for that list, but there are just so many building articles to create... I will get to it, but it will likely take quite awhile. Cheers, Rai - me  01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1931 College Football All-America Team
I did some research into who were the recognized All-American selectors and created a model page for 1931 at 1931 College Football All-America Team. I would be interested in any thoughts you have on how to improve it before I do the same thing for any other years. With this type of data, there will be even more reliable information as to who really was an All-American. Cbl62 (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is ESPN Encyclopedia of College Football available on the web?Cbl62 (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not familiar with it. Will have to check it out. Thanks.Cbl62 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk page edit
Ah, I didn't check to see that Maywood and Chicago were in the same county, so I didn't originally see the connection to the Chicago wikiproject. I'll go ahead and add it back in. Wizardman 18:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ted ginn jr.
My only problem with you edit was you didn't put a reference and you didn't put down who the record was previously held by. RC-0722 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad then. I must not have been paying close attention. RC-0722 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "text removal" at GAN
is inappropriate, I know what I'm doing thanks, I'm an admin, I don't need welcoming to WP, please consider reading this essay. -- Maxim (talk)  00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * hmm, it sometimes happens that I accidentally highlight the text and delete it by accident; I didn't notice that happened at all... but I hate the blue information "sign", I've had way too many posted at me... :-( -- Maxim (talk)  00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wicked under Chicago's scope
Why is Wicked (musical) under the scope of WP:CHICAGO?--Yamanbaiia (free hugs!) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about All-Americans
Who have I included that you don't agree with?? I did not include Paul G. Goebel at this time, even though he is identified as a first-team All-American in the official UM and Bentley Library lists. I frankly think the U-M and Bentley lists are legit, but have held back for now (because of your comment). The only two players I added are Maynard Morrison and Ed Frutig. I have verified through original published sources that they were legitimate first-team All-American selected by Hearst/INS in Frutig's case and Collier's/Grantland Rice and NEA in the case of Morrison. These were widely-recognized national All-American selectors, and I have included in-line citations for each in the body of the article. Also, Frutig and Morrison are both listed as first-team All-Americans in the NCAA publication, http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/footballs_finest/2002/154-174.pdf. That would seem to be an over-abundance of verified proof that these two were first-team All-Americans. Does the ESPN book you have not list them? If not, it would appear to be an error. So, please let me know what I have done that you don't agree with.Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed Frutig
Your comment earlier took issue with something I had done to the template. Can you let me know what I did there that you disagree with. As for Frutig, the 1920 DOB appears to be in error. His own daughter (in a published artice in 2007) says he was 89. This is consistent with the 1918 DOB in Total Football. As for the punt issue, which page do you want me to look at in the publication for which you gave me the link?Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed the page reference. I'll take a look, but please let me know your issue with the template.Cbl62 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the list on p. 52 for single-season blocked punt records. It looks like the records there are limited to more recent years.  There is even a note that it doesn't include, as one example, a West Virginia player with 7 blocked punts in 1934.  Why does that lead you to take issue with anything said in the Frutig article.  Frutig's five blocked punts (and in only eight games) are verified in published newspaper accounts. Cbl62 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Frutig's five blocked punts were in 1940. At what page does it give the perameters as to what years are referenced for the record book?

Also, I read you comment about the template. I agree that these issues need to be thought through. I have been trying to verify candidates one-by-one before adding to the template. As for Volk, I thought his inclusion as a first team All-American pick by The Sporting news - http://mgoblue.com/football/article.aspx?id=40316 - qualified him for inclusion. However, I now note he is not included in the NCAA guide. Do you know whether he is listed in the ESPN book? Cbl62 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. The NCAA record books says it goes back to 1937 on punt block records, and Frutig's big year was 1940.  I'm not sure which sources are correct in light of this.  There were multiple published accounts of Frutig's punt blocking prowess, and at least two newspapers ran the following statement:  “Frutig turned in a fine record defensively particularly in respect to his blocking punts.  In the eight games Michigan played this fall, Ed personally blocked five punts.  At least three of the punts he blocked were immediately followed by a touchdown for Michigan.  Ed is a senior and played his last game against Ohio.” Published in: (i) “Frutig Was Demon on Defense Too,” Wisconsin State Journal, December 3, 1940; “Sports Briefs,” The Wakefield News, November 29, 1940.Cbl62 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Rick Volk, old issues of The Sporting News are available on line at http://www.paperofrecord.com/ The December 10, 1966 issue announced the publication's All-American team and Volk was a first-team safety along with Nate Shaw of USC. "Spartains, Irish Lead All-America: Pro Selectors Pick 4 From Each College," The Sporting News, December 10, 1966.  Given his status as a first-team TSN A-A, do you agree he belongs on the template?Cbl62 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rick Volk
I don't favor creating a "Type 4" A-A on the template. The Sporting News is one of the major All-American selectors. It is not an un-recognized or second-rate selector. As I've been saying for some time, I think the template is way too long and complicated as it is. I'd be inclined to do the following: 1. Limit the All-American selections to those who we can verify were a legitimate first-team All-American. Under this standard, a Rick Volk belongs. A Bubba Paris may end up having to drop off. I've done research and can't find any contemporaraneous record of Paris having been A-A. 2. Collapse the multiple listings of individuals who have won 2 or 3 times. The double-listings takes a lot of space. 3. Eliminate references to unanimous, consensus, or any other variation of A-A from the template. That level of detail can be left to the articles on individual players. 4. Eliminate the template category for current NFL players. Simply being in the NFL, even as a second or third stringer is not, in my view, notable enough to be included in the Michigan Wolverines Football template. I think including Pro Bowlers (and maybe All-Pros), Pro Football HOF, and even 1st round picks is useful, but inclusion of all current NFL'ers seems excessive. 5. Eliminate the "Active First-Team All Big Ten Players at Michigan." Again, and per the discussion at the College Football project site, the template is way too long and needs to be shortened. This seems to me like another good candidate for deletion. 6. Consider eliminating the "Big 10 Championship" seasons section. Right now, it's not so useful because there are so many unwritten articles. But I think this section could be very useful as the articles get filled in. 7. The "Other Important Figures" section should be kept narrow. My original concept was to cover someone who is an all-time record holder not listed elsewhere (e.g., Henne and Hart) or truly legendary figures who just don't fit elsewhere (e.g., Canham and Ufer). I'd consider dropping guys like Gordon Bell, Dennis Franklin, Tai Streets, and Jon Vaughan. The one thing that was clear from the discussion on the College Football project page was the overwhelming consensus that the template is too long. Rather than creating even more categories, and sub-categories (e.g., Type 4 All-Americans), we should be thiking of ways to shorten and simplify the emplate. You and I have both worked hard to improve the template, and I don't think either of us should make unilateral decisions. If we disagree, I suggest we discuss and try to reach a consensus. Let me know your thoughts.Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley GA on hold
Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I passed the article, good job on addressing the issues. On the talk page, I included a few other minor things that should be fixed in the "GA passed" section. I also see that you have a lot of GANs right now, and I will review them, but only one at a time (I won't start the next one until you complete the prior one). I will be reviewing other people's articles as well, so it may be awhile at times before I get back to you. Anyway, good job, and keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Solution
Thanks for the input on feedback. I think I've done the same thing ("some") and will be careful about that. BTW, I've been thinking about the template more and may have an idea that could make everybody happy. If I have time, I'll play around with it today. If ends up being something that doesn't work, we can always revert. Or if I can figure out how to do it, maybe I'll crate an althernative verion in the "sandbox."Cbl62 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTD:
Hi, so what exactly is the list of the day? I know I know, I should know by now, but I don't... Is it going to be on the main page? Is it a test for the main page? Is it just a fun thing you've wanted to do? I'm curious... Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw, so the List of dinosaurs only gets featured once - and on your test? If this makes it to the main page, will it be re-featured on the real one? Spawn Man (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So I figured I should say something...
I wanted to write an apology. I'm not very good at writing apologies so first, here is a preemptive apology for the possible cruddy nature of this apology. All mildly veiled attempts at joking aside, I really do want to apologize for the somewhat rude and heated words that were exchanged by myself and other members of WikiProject Musical Theatre. This is a personal apology (basically, the others do not know I'm doing it) but I felt it was called for. I have no doubt that you are a wonderfully well-practiced editor and truly agree with your sentiment towards promoting a collaborative and welcoming editing environment. I do not attempt to justify any words exchanged on the Wicked (musical) talk page. Merely to perhaps provide some insight as to why several editors reacted so harshly. This article has been a very tough article for our wikiproject to handle. With such a popular musical, it was often the target of vandalism, list-cruft, and other not-so-good edits. Thus it has been a long and tiresome journey to get this article to GA and then (hopefully) FA status. What then happened was probably only a misfortune of fate: your bot tagged the article. This coincidental happening was poorly reacted to and effort was wasted on a meaningless dispute that will probably have no effect on the article's content whatsoever.

So again, I apologize for any heated words exchanged and any bridges burned. I would be truly grateful if you reconsidered your comment and assisted in promoting this article to FA status. I would also like to offer my assistance at anytime. (Just drop me a line. I'm not the best article writer, but I do have a knack for wiki-coding.) Finally, I would like to offer you this plate of cookies both as an apology gift and as a likely encourager of mirth. Best regards and happy editing! -- omtay 38  06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your participation on the article, in the end, is completely up to you. The category that places it in WikiProject chicago is currently up for deletion along with several other musical categories of that nature (we've been mulling over deleting them for a long time). Thus, I doubt the tag will be added again to the article. I was hoping you would consider editing the article merely as an experienced editor, not as a representative from any particular wikiproject. If, however, its priority is lower because it is not under your wikiproject's umbrella, I completely understand and hope we may have a chance to collaborate in the future. Best regards. -- omtay 38  15:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The BIG YELLOW one (blue is so last week)

 * Congratulations - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Category: Chicago Musicals
Then I shall re-nominate it for deletion. The category was included with the list because it was being deleted for the same reason. Please note, it is considered bad form to remove content from deletion nominations. The category will get its own, separate CfD and the other editors can express their opinions there. You may do the same. I will post a link to the discussion here when I have finished processing it. -- omtay 38  02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been nominated and can be found here. You may express your opinion there as to this category's inclusion. -- omtay 38  02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I read your notes on my talk page. The process is to get consensus on the CfD discussion to remove a listed item from a group nomination. Then you can strike out the entry but not remove it. This was not done, so leaving the group discussion for Category:Chicago Musicals seems reasonable and proper. It would be out of process to have two CfD discussions about one category underway at the same time. Since there does not appear to be support to keep that one category, I suspect that it will be deleted. What I can suggest is that you add a comment for the closing administrator to not list that one category in the work queue, or to label it with 'no bots' so that it does not get processed while you take the discussion about the deletion to deletion review. However, I'm not sure what grounds you would have for getting the deletion overturned. Read the DR introduction to see how to appeal a decision. Also given that the category only has 2 articles, one would question its need unless it was a part of a series and I'm not sure that case has been made. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tony. I noticed on Omtay's talk page that you said you were "miffed" at Omtay's group, and I am guessing that you mean WP:MUSICALS.  If so, can you tell me why you are unhappy with the Musicals project?  In actuality, and sadly, there are only usually 3 or 4 editors who are really active at the project, and if someone is annoying you, it would be great to let us know so that we could try to improve our image.  Best regards, and Happy New Year.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have put the Chicago wikiproject tag back onto the Wicked (musical) talk page. I can only say that whoever took the tag off in the first place does not speak for me, as an active member of the Musicals project, and I certainly welcome any assistance in helping us to improve Wicked. I have not been very active in editing the Wicked article until today, and I think that there is a good deal of weak and confused writing in the article, so it needs all the help it can get! One thing that may persuade you to forgive the Wicked editors is that the musicals project does not have a lot of experience at advancing articles to the GA and FA levels, and that this experience with Wicked may help the project to do better work in the future. Musicals is an area that gets a tremendous amount of fanatical fancruft, so we are lucky when we are able to make any progress at all against the tide! :) Best regards,  --  Ssilvers (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Wistert GA Review: On Hold
Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Young (pitcher)
Hi,Tony. I am japanese wikipedian Kanesue. I like MLB.

See Chris Young (pitcher) section and Please improve article if you can.--Kanesue (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wheatley and Woolfolk
I was unable to find any additional information about Woolfolk or Wheatley's track accomplishments.Cbl62 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you got Good Article status on Wheatley. Congratulations.Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
Sorry about that. I realized my mistake and fixed it for 2007 Hawaii Bowl. Thank you for reminding me anyway. — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the Category redirect template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTD
Thank you for the spam. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation. I just don't see it working. I find your user page to be a real turn-off. I can understand taking pride in what you have contributed, but I just perceive it as too much bragging for my tastes. "Claiming credit" just implies too much ownership for me, although that might not be your intention. In addition, I have to admit that I'm frustrated at having the one article that I have nominated for a Good Article review lost in a backlog while you submit dozens. I just think it would be best if we both stick to contributing to Wikipedia in the manner that we see best as individuals. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User talk:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:List of tallest buildings in New Orleans
You can definitely e-mail me (e-mail address is Raime76@gmail.com) the pictures, but I think you would have better luck with VerruckteDan; he is the one who wrote the New Orleans tallest buildings page, and certainly knows more about its skyscrapers than I do. But thank you for taking the pictures; I am sure that they will greatly add to the list and to individual building articles.

The issue of pictures for every entry in the table has been discussed, but very few cities have pictures for every building. Seattle and New Orleans seem to be the only two; lists like the ones for Boston, Houston, Miami and New York would contain mostly empty entries for images. I think if anything, we would do the double image over the triple image template, but I am also unsure about that, as it would crush the columns more than they already are, would lead to smaller images, and would create an uneven margin with the table. However, I will ask Hydrogen Iodide and Leitmanp, two other building list contributors, for their opinions.

And please don't worry about the San Francisco building list finishing 7th; we all have our personal preferences, and I recognize that you still had concerns with the list. You don't have to apologize at all. Cheers, Rai - me  22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:WP:LOTD
Thanks for the comment! Your trophy shelf is quite full, and I'm just making it! I hope to participate in WP:LOTD when I have time. Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, no, thank you...
I've been noticing your work. You are a total wiki rock star. And a true Wolverine as well, I presume. Keep it up and go blue! Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Vaughn GA Review: On Hold
Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The citation tag still needs to be addressed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say go with option three since GAs can't have the "cn" tags at all. Once you move it, I'll pass the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Bell
Thanks for the help with the Gordon Bell article. I particularly like the career statisics chart that you added. The only thing that I don't like is that the lead starts with a focus on his professional career which was marginal, at best. Given that his prominence and notability derives from his accomplishments and records set for the Michigan Wolverines, I think the lead would more naturally start with his college career and accomplishments and then mention that he also played professionally. This makes sense to me both in terms of a chronological flow and in terms of leading with his most important/notable accomplishments.Cbl62 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to spend some time today beefing up the Bell article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesse's two infoboxes
See Talk:Jesse Jackson. Cheers Tvoz | talk 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

KOTR
I didn't know you weren't finished yet, otherwise I would have waited.  TJ   Spyke   00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing King of the Ring (1994). I really appreciate your comments and the grammatical help. I strive to keep articles free of grammatical errors, but it gets hard to notice them after working on an article for so long (I think I might have actually created this article). I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. I expanded the lead (please let me know if you think it still needs to be longer or if I'm on the wrong trach altogether) and I added two pictures (I explained my choices at the bottom of the talk page). Aside from that, the grammar has been fixed (you might still want to look over how "kayfabe" is used to see if it works now). Please look it over when you have a chance and let me know what you think. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Prairie on FAC
Sure. The article is great and been passed for GA. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, welcome. It's quite late since you requested for a review. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * GRats! The article got FA status. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of responsiveness, eh?
-- Scorpion0422 20:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you also like me to link the phrase "piss stain" too? -- Scorpion0422 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

King of the Ring (1994) updates
I added the picture of Owen Hart to the article. I'm a little unsure of what is confusing in the lead, as Owen Hart did win three matches at the pay-per-view. If you could clarify, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that more clear? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a little bit and I switched the order of the lead paragraphs. Does this look better? GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments on the article's progress. I think I've got that sentence fixed, so I'd appreciate it if you could check when you have a minute. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Dan Dworsky
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the (very small) issues to be addressed. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed and done with the epaperwork! Great job! Ealdgyth | Talk 00:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Gordon Bell (American football)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the (very small) issues to be addressed. Great work again! Ealdgyth | Talk 14:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked and found nothing indicating that Bell played for Ottawa. Doesn't mean it didn't happen but I have nothing to verify it.Cbl62 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, it's passed and processed! Congrats! Ealdgyth | Talk 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I think we had good teamwork on the Dworsky and Bell articles. Thanks for your hard work, and I hope we are able to work together on more articles in the future.Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington Park Race Track
Be glad to take a look at the article, and pull a few books. Will get around to it this evening, I hope. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Lucien Lagrange requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Don Dufek
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the (very small) issues to be addressed. Great work again! Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your final revisions to Dufek look good to me. Let Eladgyth know when you are ready for him to take another look.  Cbl62 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Her. (grins) I'm a her, and the username is female also. See Ealdgyth Swan-neck Ealdgyth | Talk 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed footnote 23. And apologies to Ealdgyth!Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I gotta ask, how many Wolverine Football players do ya'll have in waiting? Ealdgyth | Talk 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dufek2.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Dufek2.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) 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Yearby
I'm not sure how to handle something on the Bill Yearby article. There were wire service reports in 1971 that Yearby was arrested and charged with assault with intent to commit murder for the near-fatal stabbing of his estranged wife in Detroit. According to news accounts, he was visiting his mother-in-law’s home where his wife and 18-month old daughter lived when he allegedly stabbed his ex-wife several times after she refused to allow him to take his daughter for a short visit. The ex-wife suffered more than a dozen stab wounds and was in the ICU for three days. However, I can find no reports as to whether he was convicted, acquitted, charges dropped or what. Do you think it's appropriate to add information on 37-year-old charges without also having the outcome? Let me know what you think.Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucien Lagrange
I dumped some stuff on Lagrange in your article, to help with the notability challenge. Keep, revise or delete as you see fit.Cbl62 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Jack Clancy
As per usual, the notes are on the talk page. Questions, concerns, etc. can be addressed to my talk page, or the article talk page. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you'd rather someone else reviewed all of these articles, just let me know. I know I'm picky, and I could understand if you'd rather they weren't picked to pieces or if you'd rather have someone else do some of the reviews. I'm just trying to take care of the backlog of nominations, and working through the oldest nominations first. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Walter O'Malley
The 48 hours/7 days thing was just some boilerplate put out by the template I used. You can take as long as you like, it doesn't matter to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, that 7 days thing got put there by a GA template I used. You can take 7 months if you want, just let me know when you're ready for another look.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Clancy
Contemporary accounts of Packers games show that he was a starter.Cbl62 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTD
re featured lists, it would be nice if list of birds of Thailand could be featured prior to 13th Feb, when I go there, thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification on the featured lists that I nominated. I am not aware of any particular dates when they ought to be featured. (Now we just need some additional good nominations for the next month...) --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Ed Muransky
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTD
Thanks. No, I don't have any preference for a particular date. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Butch Woolfolk and George Hoey
On your questions about Woolfolk, my resources have very little on college track and field. It seems that newspapers didn't pay nearly as much attention in the 1960s-1980s to track as they did to football. For this reason, I haven't been able to help with informtion on track results for Woolfolk, Wheatley, or Hoey. As for Hoey, I have spent some time cleaning up the article, and I think it's in pretty good shape when it comes up in the GA queue. One thing that might help would be one of your "Career statistics" charts -- if you have time.Cbl62 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

List of AKA sisters preferences/etc.
Thanks, Tony for the selection. I was really busy with the AKA FA, which is in progress. I also didn't know how to vote. Couple of issues that I will address. First, I modeled the FL list after List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers (this includes the caption).

List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters

 * See WP:CAPTION--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to mee that "The poem "Alpha Kappa Alpha Woman" was written in 2002 by Alpha Kappa Alpha members of the Rho Mu chapter at the University of Richmond." is not a proper introductory sentence for the main body of list. S/B in footnote or on side.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I explained how the poem connects to the list with a sentence. Miranda 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you make each table the same width?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no, because the table fmt. is the master list template.

Request date: February 14, 2008, since the day is the founding date of Black History Month. Cheers. Miranda 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas Welcher
A tag has been placed on Thomas Welcher requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jons63 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Wilcher
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Thomas Wilcher, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put the "expand" template on Thomas Wilcher; I merely removed the PROD. As I understand it, if you expanded the article and think it's reasonably complete, you are entitled to remove the "expand" template.

However, I urge you to remove the image of Bo Schembechler. It's misleading -- the article is about Wilcher, not Schembechler. (When I first saw it, my thought was "Gosh, Wilcher looks old for his age!")

--Orlady (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I wasn't the one who updated the template, so here goes:

AfD nomination of Thomas Wilcher
An editor has nominated Thomas Wilcher, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep the Wilcher article
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to give my input on this. I think the article could be worked on, but Thomas Wilcher is definetly a name that is recognized in high school football. He had a respectable playing career, and holds MHSAA track records, that may never be broken. I will fight for this article to remain.Jake (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help Jake (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I helped to keep, that is the most ridiculous deletion nomination I have ever seen. michfan2123 (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Test cricket records
Hi Tony. Thanks for the note and the selection for February WP:LOTD. There's no particular date preference, but I'd be grateful if you could let me know when a date is set so I can let others at WP:CRIC who work on it know. Regards. &mdash;Moondyne 14:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Ipswich Town managers
Hello Tony, thanks for your message. The only date I could suggest would be Feb 18th since that's Bobby Robson's birthday and he's the picture representing the list. As above I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you decide on a date. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oliver FA
I was a bit concerned by your comment and I wanted to apologize if I have inadvertently offended you; I certainly didn’t mean to imply anything about your “powers of inference” and, in fact, my impression of such powers has been positive in our, admittedly limited, dealings. I do appreciate your input. Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ  ơƚɑ  talk 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

George Jewett and Willis Ward
My latest projects are Michigan's first two African-American football players, George Jewett, 1890, 1892, and track/football star, Willis Ward, 1932-34. Ward is very long and still rough, but I'd welcome any input you might have.Cbl62 (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Ted Petoskey
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox colors
In response to your question about MLB infobox colors, see WT:MLB. It was (sort of) decided to remove all colors from retired MLB player infoboxes. You could re-raise the issue there if you're so inclined. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

List of the Day, New Jersey Devils players
I'm sorry, I have been extremely busy with school lately. I'm off for about the next week and a half, so hopefully I can get to editing more often and vote for some Lists of the Day to make up for me not doing it before. Also, I have no preference for date for the List of New Jersey Devils players, any date is fine with me. BsroiaadnTalk 21:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling of New Jersey Devils section. --97.100.3.190 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

LOTD
Will this be featured on the Main Page?  m ir a nd a  01:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User page
I blanked the user page for now, as I want to re-do it differently. You can still view it at history, though.Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucien Lagrange Architects
Hi Tony, I must have missed your post yesterday, sorry.

I haven't been doing updates myself lately because I have submissions of my own in DYK right now and it makes things a bit awkward. I personally wasn't satisfied with the cites for Lucien Lagrange, but Royalbroil was and said he would do the promotion. However, since he's away at the moment, I've now promoted it on his behalf. It should appear in the next batch (unless someone else removes it). Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought...
Hi Tony -- I wonder if you could take a look at List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, and its companion List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City, and comment on what you think might be needed for it/them to reach FL status? It needs work in the detailed descriptions of sites, among other things mentioned in its Talk page, but I am wondering about bigger picture issues, and strategy to proceed. The closest model i know of is List of Chicago Landmarks. BTW, you may have noticed, I offered some comments on the latter list in its Featured List of the Day nomination process, but there was no discussion (either my comments weren't helpful, sorry if that was the case, and/or they were offered too late in the comment period). Anyhow, I'd very much appreciate any advice you could offer. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Chris Howard (American football)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

List of spacewalks and moonwalks
Sorry to belatedly reply. The only significant date on this list for February that I noticed was February 7, the anniversary of the first untethered spacewalk, which is also subject of the lead image of the list. Rmhermen (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed Muransky
I've been working on the University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor, and preparing articles for early inductees with no articles, e.g., Thomas Trueblood, Ralph W. Aigler, Cliff Keen, Newt Loken, John Townsend (basketball). Haven't been loafing, just didn't really think the Ed Muransky article was particularly interesting. But if there's something specific you want me to look at, let me know.Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I took care of the two items that were cite problems. Let me know if there's anything else.Cbl62 (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked a few things around, let me know if I've fudged things up badly. Once I know that I didn't destroy things, it's a pass. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GA reviews for sports
Hey Tony, will you review some of the articles in the sports section GA nominations? They're starting to overflow, and we don't have enough reviewers. I just noticed how many GA noms for sports you had and thought you would definitely have enough experience to help out. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Prairie Ave FAC
Very much welcome. I know we can still have a lot of fun in the future. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC and checkmarks
Hi, I saw that you are starting to check things off as done at the FAC for Tyrone Wheatley. Please be aware that the guidelines have changed and now say not to use graphics, and Sandy gets pretty upset when she sees them. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello TonyTheTiger, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very useful. :) Just remember it's for vandalism-reversion only. Good luck! Acalamari 00:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Héctor López on hold
Hi Tony, and thanks for your GA nomination of Héctor López. I have reviewed the article and placed it on hold pending some issues being addressed (further detail on the article talk page). All the best, EyeSerene TALK 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Next Step
Never been through the processes before. What's the diference between A-rating and GA-rating? Which article(s) do you think would be appropriate for either?Cbl62 (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)