User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 21

Might enjoy this
http://www.620kpoj.com/cc-common/gallery/thumb.php?src=/export/home//cc-common/mlib/674/02/674_12029357352.jpg&wmax=446&hmax=410&quality=90

-Pete (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp and College Football
Do you think it's appropriate to put a Wikiproject College Football banner on the Jack Kemp talk page? His notability doesn't stem from his college career, but we've included it on other individuals' pages whose notability doesn't stem from college football. Since you're currently running the FAC for the page, I thought it appropriate to get your opinion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You got it. I'll see if I can dig up any additional information as well. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Arr, matey! Ye have been blocked for an infinite amount of time fer makin' the followin' joke responses to these pages: Yarrr, ye will now walk the plank! Ungggggh....for more information, please see here and donate braaaaainss....
 * Pirates
 * Ninjas
 * Zombies
 * Robots

A wikipage in need
Wikipedia is strictly buisness ( mostly), so here goes... Talk:Floppy disk It is actually a long story. look all the way at the end of this talk page with my username for details because I am wondering about it. 5 things formerly on this list have been solved so spread the word!

--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp
I do live in SoCal, but don't have any info on Jack Kemp. I associate him so much with Buffalo, I didn't even realize he was from here. And I've stopped subscribing to the old news database. The article looks good and would certainly appear to be FA quality. Cbl62 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice link, btw. I'd completely forgotten that Bill Cosby played football at Temple, then I remembered some of his routines that involved him running out of bounds every time he got the ball. Good stuff. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

South Side
Please look at my edits again, sir. I did include a valid reason in my edit summary. So if you would, please, restore my edits as the South Side is not a census designated area nor does the Bud Billiken Parade take place on the Southwest Side. Will you restore the edits or do you want me to?99.140.164.99 (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bud Biliken parade paragraph was under the Southwest Side subsection. Perhaps it should be elsewhere in the article or a Parade section should be created. The category does not belong on the page because the South Side is not an official community and not a census designated community. There is also no evidence that that category would even apply to the South Side. 99.140.164.99 (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Willie Gillis in Convoy.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Willie Gillis in Convoy.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) 08:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about WPCHi
Hello Tony, SatyrBot autoadded the Chicago wikiproject to an article I recently wrote on Rico Tomaso. Rico was born in Chicago, and attended the Art Institute of Chicago, but is not really notable for anything there, as far as I know. His famous artist period of his life was in New York. I am not familiar with the Wikiproject Chicago standards, so I left the project banner on the article talk page, but I suspect it should be removed. Thanks,  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago/Did you know
This still does not appear to be using the "layout" structure from Portal:Norway/DYK. If it is alright with you, I will just go through and reformat this as I get a chance. Are you aware that portals can only use free-use images? Cirt (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not too keen on this "Selected list" idea - when we say "This is a list of..." but don't show the actual list in the portal that looks weird. The idea of "Selected landmark" is nice - but are these all "official" landmarks of Chicago, or just chosen locations selected by Wikipedians?  If it is the latter, better to rename this subsection to something else more general.  Cirt (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you check out how I reformatted Portal:Chicago/Selected article and all the selected articles therein using the layout page, you'll get an idea of how I will go through and reformat the other subsections. Could you go through and doublecheck the images used in this portal to make sure that we are only using free-use images?  Cirt (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "Things you can do" is a very common feature on other WP:FPORTs, and "Main topics" is required. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) For the most part the main portal page of a portal is supposed of function sort of like the Main Page, and I don't think that the "Selected list" section really gels well with the idea of a Featured Portal. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) 10 lines doesn't have to be exact, but blurbs shouldn't be more than 15 lines or less than 7 or so - and that's just approximate. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the layout/format for the other subsections will all eventually be formatted like the way I just reformatted "Selected article" - if you can figure this out, great - in either case I will try to work through reformatting some of these. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The "caption" field in these layouts is just a rollover caption - so this isn't really correct - try to make the captions short and sweet, and avoid wikilinking. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal talk:Chicago
Let's continue further portal-related discussion here, to keep it all in one place. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Roanoke Building and Tower
Got ur message. I would add a correct citation about the NRHP date of this building, but the National Park Service webpages have been down and are only partway back up, so the right link information is not available to check and use in citation. I guess I could add a footnote for the new listing info, for the time being at least, although that is not exactly what I had in mind. I have been posting some info in the Talk page of the article, I suppose you must have seen that. I do still question if the building is an NHL, too, but don't have definitive info either way. It may take a few days to sort this one out. doncram (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago
Your additions look great so far, but could you hold off for the time being on adding new selected material to the various subsections of the portal, until I have had a chance to go through and make some minor formatting/standardization changes to the rest of the portal? Cirt (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if that came off too brusque and I really do want to stress that I appreciate your work and I do want you to add more if you wish to - but it will be easier for you to add more and for me to work with it, once everything else in the portal gets standardized, first. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blackstone Hotel
I have no problem with extending the GA hold period. I just logged in to Wikipedia right now to suggest an extension, but you bet me to it :-) The photos in the article are already excellent -- the one in the infobox is better than the photo used in the New York Times article in the reference section. Bláthnaid  23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Good luck with the photos! Bláthnaid  23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They are excellent photos. The owners of the hotel should pay you for advertising it :-) There is just one small issue left that can be fixed in a minute, which I've mentioned on the talk page. Bláthnaid  19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to find the article in the Chicago Tribune archive, but could not find it. There is an article here that you could you as a source instead. However it just says that the chandeliers and sconces in the ballroom are originals, not that there ones throughout the hotel are renovated. There is some more interesting information in this newspaper article that you might like to use to expand Blackstone Hotel in the future. Bláthnaid  20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very cool bit of info. It's a pity that Good Articles are not eligible for DYK. I will comment out the word "all" in the sentence about the sconces until you find another source, and pass the nomination. Congratulations on (yet another) GA! Bláthnaid  21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done! I was delayed by reading Blackstone Library. Chicago's tourist board should really pay you. :-) Bláthnaid  21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Willie Gillis
I reviewed Willie Gillis and have placed it on GA hold. Comments left at Talk:Willie Gillis. Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I took at look at the new format and I'm not sure which version I like better. They both have advantages. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:20080409 Blue Cross Blue Shield Chicago.JPG
A tag has been placed on Image:20080409 Blue Cross Blue Shield Chicago.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

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  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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:2101345479 5b9127e1ec.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:2101345479 5b9127e1ec.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

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  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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:2102130452 fdf1e34434.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:2102130452 fdf1e34434.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

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  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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:2174568925 20a4057c6b.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:2174568925 20a4057c6b.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

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  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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: New York Times articles
I have been working on making this list of articles accessible where possible - I have made every link I could freely accessible on that list, there were about 1200 there to start with! I've been mostly getting the free versions of the articles by Googling the titles or manipulating the URLs See my response at User talk:JGHowes for more info. I don't have any problem accessing the NYT articles at Crown Fountain without an account ... these became freely accessible in September per this Wikipedia Signpost article. Graham 87 07:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only form of URL manipulation for the New York Times articles I know of is as follows: if the URL is http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=XXX, go to the address bar and change it to http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=XXX. This is a HTTP redirect and will automatically take you to a freely accessible version of the article if there is one. I have already dealt with all the "select.nytimes.com/search/restricted" URLs where possible. Articles before 1987 are usually not freely accessible, and some articles after that require free registration ... I'm not sure of a way around that. Graham 87 11:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did my edit to Crown Fountain make any difference? I removed everything after the html from the lURL of the article about surveillance cameras. I'm not sure what the options do but I'm sure the one about "slogin" isn't a good sign ... maybe it makes you log in if you're in the U.S. If you see a New York Times URL with options starting with "sec" or "page", leave those in because they either refer to certain sections of the article or make the article display on one page - you can see that in action from the "single page" link in a NYT article. Graham 87 11:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea
Hey ive been pointed in your direction by user, dyhydrogen monoxide. A few weeks ago i put a list up for FA lists. It failed so i was told to try the GA nomination list which i then did. It was taken off the list, apparently there isnt any such think as a good list ANYWHERE. I think a GA list award is needed for lists that are good, but not quite good enough. FA is tuff, does that make any list below it rubbish? no of course not. We need a method or recognising these articles. I want to start something for them, call it a new idea or whatever, wikipedia must learn to update and i believe it has an outdated policy on lists. By giving recognition to good lists it encourages people to go that extra mile. Im taking this seriously and i hope you will help. Please get back to me at my talk page. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Four Freedoms
Hi Tony; it's good to hear from you again. I will be happy to look at the article. I had the good fortune to grow up in a house filled with original illustration, including some paintings by Rockwell. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not following up yet--as I recall, it took me forever to look at Monet's Haystacks after you started that article, and even then you had to jostle me a few times. I did have the briefest look at the Freedoms, and the main article looks like it is taking impressive shape. I hope to read it through in the near future. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Chicago/Selected article
Please remember to wikilink the bolded titles in the blurb text of the articles. Also, can you go back and check through to see if all "Selected articles" and "Selected bios" are WP:GA or WP:FA ? Cirt (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Four freedoms
I wouldn't be overly concerned. The quibbles are about the wording of the hook rather than the suitability of the article, and many of the noms from the same date are waiting to have their turn. They'll probably all feature, including your one, but the multiplicity of alternative hooks is a bit of a barrier to someone wanting to make an easy uncontroversial call so it will probably wait until the last moment before going up. To be honest, my choice would be my suggestion, "that 25 million people bought posters of Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms after they were published in the Saturday Evening Post, helping to raise $132 million in war bonds?" in that I think its the clearest and concisest, as well as being supported by the sources. My advice is to wait to see what happens at the next update. There's still another day of expiring noms it can go to. Benea (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it will be ok. I added a note in bold, but I've never edited an update & don't know how to, so won't do it myself. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

multiple image template request

 * See Requested templates eDenE  17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to User talk:Edene: The problem was the box_caption_position was taking either above or below, not top or bottom. Anyways, the template got some changes again. I removed box_caption (and box_caption_position, box_caption_align, box_caption_background) and added header and footer. Template:Multiple image. eDenE 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an answer and a question; see Template talk:Multiple image eDenE  20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:LOTD
Thanks! Sure, I'll nominate it, and I'll look into getting involved with the LOTD process in general. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll start voting tomorrow, I'm short on time right now. I look foreward to seeing this on the main page. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Chappuis
Woody has beaten me to it and done the necessary at Milhist. Thanks for the alert, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk


 * Best is probably to start afresh with a request at Logistics dept/Sources. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

J. R. Richard
I'm planning to re-nominate J. R. Richard for FAC in a few days. Previously, you mentioned that the article needed a copyedit. I posted a LOC request about 6 months ago, but nothing ever happened. I was wondering if you could drop by over the next few days and comb through the article. Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. I'm just glad you'll have a chance to look at it. :) Just a heads-up: I might put it at FAC before the weekend. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek
I must have dreamed it! Its odd, I was looking for the article today and couldn't find it. There was an article somewhere, and remember I was traveling for work the past two weeks that talked about the Newsweek archive opening up, and it was going to go live in a few days. I cant find it, or there was a snafu at Newsweek. See if you can help me find it. And change the number to whats correct from their archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess they fell behind schedule: Last fall, the magazine — part of the Washington Post Company — made its online collection of past articles free and easier to navigate, and expanded it to go back to 1990; Web traffic to the archive quadrupled. Next month, it will add articles from 1975 through 1989, and then work will begin on everything back to the magazine’s founding in 1933.

Tiger
I awarded you a tiger (on your page) for your great work. STORMTRACKER   94  Go Irish! 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Prose size
If you've added the script and forced a reload of your monobook.js with ctrl-shift-r (for Firefox) it should be working. Do you see a link which says "Page size" in the toolbox, i.e. at the bottom of the box which has "What links here". If so, what happens when you click on it? If nothing, are there any messages in the javascript error console (Tools->Error Console in Firefox)? Have you tried it on a few pages? Dr pda (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Project
Did you mean Categories or WikiProjects? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly because it is most prominant under the WP:WPTC, which is really the only project whose scopse includes the article. There is also a List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, which is also assessed only under the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. In theory, we could probably add dozens of WikiProjects to the article, which only have a little bit of relevance. If you do think this is a problem, you could start a discussion at the WPTC talk page. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it is confusing, and sometimes I still don't fully understand. But, the WikiProject Severe weather, as defined by the project scope, includes severe storms (thunderstorms) and only that. The WP:NTROP, as defined by the scope, includes extratropical storms which are not severe thunderstorms nor tropical cyclones. Most of the projects do have ways of telling them apart. The WP:WPTC as well as the other weather-related subprojects of the WP:METEO have made it tradition to remove the WP:METEO tag, and replace it with the relevant subproject's tag. I hope this answers your question, but if not, just give me a shout. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In a way, yes. Most tropical cyclones that affected land areas have WikiProject tags for the areas that it affected. I'v never seen the WP:OCEAN tag on tropical cyclone articles, but in theory it could work. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson, Jr.
I've moved your question to the main talk page for DYK, which would seem to be the better place for it. Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Sisson_Hotel_Dining_Room_1920.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Sisson_Hotel_Dining_Room_1920.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU ≈ talk 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Sisson_Hotel_Penthouse_Deck.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Sisson_Hotel_Penthouse_Deck.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MECU ≈ talk 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/TonyTheTiger for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Scorpion0422 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Voter qualifications for LOTD
Tony, I am aware that there are no posted voter qualifications for LOTD. I was surprised, though, when you uncritically added User:Babybambam's misplaced votes to the tally, considering that the user had almost no history as a contributor to Wikipedia, much less as a contributor to featured lists. Now that I see that Babybambam is apparently a member of your family, I believe it was very unethical of you to add this user's votes to the LOTD tally. That's no way to help the LOTD initiative gain recognition and acceptance. --Orlady (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that participation in LOTD nomination and voting has been essentially limited to a group of FL contributors whom you individually invited at one time or another. That makes some sense, since the people who are most familiar with FLs are the ones in a best position to evaluate FLs. If you are truly interested in broader participation, instead of recruiting your mother you should be recruiting a larger cross-section of FL participants by posting monthly notices of "nominations are being accepted," "voting is now open," and "voting is about to close" at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates and Wikipedia talk:Featured lists. --Orlady (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked "Do you think we should attempt to post at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates and Wikipedia talk:Featured lists now that we have some modest results." My answer is "yes." Your effort is doomed to failure if the only participants are people you invited, including your mother. Granted, it also might fail if you "go public" at the FL and FLC, but it will not succeed if you don't openly seek involvement from the FL community. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Everyone who has had a list promoted has been pestered by you, and I doubt that a lot of people who are uninvolved in the process would care. As well, your proposal has not yet been approved, so I don't think it should be mentioned yet. Your best chance would be to get an article about it in the Signpost. -- Scorpion0422 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: New York Times URLs
In the first example, you can remove everything after the .html and it will always go to the first page of the article. For http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00EFDD173CF937A35752C1A9629C8B63&scp=50&sq=%22Jesse+Jackson%2C+Jr.%22&st=nyt, you can remove everything from the "&", so http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00EFDD173CF937A35752C1A9629C8B63 will get you to the right place. I know that "sq" means search query, but I haven't found a use for the other things after the & sign. As for your next examples, you can make them more readable by chopping off everything except for the URI part, as the URI is actually another way of accessing the article. So the first example can be reduced to http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15cong.html while the second example can be reduced to http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html. Graham 87 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You can also remove the "scp=xx&" parts as I've done at some links at Jesse Jackson, Jr.. I'll try to finish off that one, because I think there is another URL in there that can be shortened. Graham 87 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll have to remove the "scp=" parts by hand because the number after the scp is always different. I just did this at Jesse Jackson Jr., as well as removing a part of the URL where you wanted the first section of a page. Graham 87 04:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Also done at Jack Kemp. Graham 87 05:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe "search count position"? Graham 87 05:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp
I struck most of my comments, and elaborated on the two outstanding issues. As for my oppose, I'll take another look at it either later today or tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll figure out how to hide the resolved issues. I'm still uncomfortable striking the oppose, however. I still think the article could use more copy-editing, since there's only so much I can do in that regard. There are still a few sections I haven't looked at, so I'll comment on those later. Progress is being made, so keep working on it. Giants2008 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I left more comments at the FAC. I'm still not comfortable dropping my oppose, because I'm still finding some areas that I think can be improved. Take a look at what I left you, and when you address them let me know. Assuming it stays at FAC, I'll drop by again with anything else I can find. Giants2008 (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My oppose has been dropped, and I'm close to supporting. I looked at the political sections, and they seem to be quite good. However, you may want to quickly check the end of the article, as I saw some problems there. Overall, I think it's just about ready. Giants2008 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dropped my oppose and am on the verge of supporting. I left my last (I promise!) batch of comments at the FAC. Good luck with the comments and the FAC. Giants2008 (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I left three more comments at the FAC - and my support, which is provisional only until the final comments are taken care of. You truly earned it! As for O'Malley, I'm planning on taking a look at that later. I may do some minor cleanup myself, since I don't want to leave that many comments (more than 60, by my count) at another FAC. Giants2008 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome back, I'm getting back into it slowly. Sorry we departed ways so angerily. It wasn't just you but a combination of things that led me to act like a jerk. Sorry. IvoShandor (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp overlinking
I had skimmed the article (FAC is a great way to find interesting articles to read), and did notice the issue. Had I commented, I would have brought it up, but at the time, my spacebar had went awry (just got that fixed), and I was unwilling to get involved in FAC again (I'm trying to do more new article stuff). I'm willing to do the search-replace needed, though; the amount of links to Times and other publications verges on the ridiculous, and I've always considered parent companies to be unnecessary (and staunchly opposed the addition of that parameter to cite news when it was proposed). Circeus (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/TonyTheTiger
I've closed the above case without further action. Please bear in mind that meatpuppetry is frowned upon, so it would be wise if you and your mother could both read and abide by WP:SOCK. I've left a similar message for your mother on her talk page. Any problems or questions, feel free to leave me a message. GBT/C 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Response
You seem to have missed the second part of my comment. I was testing you to see how closely you check the lists before you add them and to see if you keep an eye on the process at all. You obviously don't do either of those things because all four were delisted (a long time ago). -- Scorpion0422 11:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK'd: Po-on (novel)
Thanks... - DaughterofSun (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I Used to Work in Chicago ...
Hey, another portal that I have been working on is almost finished at WP:FPOC, I'll be able to do some more focused work on Portal:Chicago once that's finished up. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm a little bit freer now, gimme a day or so and I'll get crackin' on it. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I know, it's next on my list. :)  Cirt (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal DYKs
Thanks for the tip. I will watch that page to keep it in mind. You'll catch me, I didn't even know the one I just got was nominated, and I nominated one other to see if I could get this guy's photo on the main page but I probably won't be actively participating in DYK much. IvoShandor (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: LOTD
Which of my lists have been chosen...? Gary King ( talk ) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject Matter Expert
I created a page in my sandbox to show an idea I have for creating a Page or project to identify wikipedians as Subject Matter experts or near experts on a given subject. Right now its just one big page but if it takes off it could be multiple pages and or projects. The basic concept is that if I am knowledgable about Math, Science, Wikipedia policy, speaking greek or whatever I can put my name under the category or categories I am interested in participating in and if someone has a question or needs help relating to that subject they can go to that page and contact one of them on their talk page. Obviously its more useful for popular or obsure subjects but in general I think that it would help to improve the public perception that Wikipedia content can't be trusted. Plus it will give new users or users who jsut need help. Its still a very rough idea and right now I based the page on the Logistics page of the Military history project but I see this changing into somethin much bigger. If you don't mind take a look and let me know what you think. I know that there were a couple of things similar for designating an expert but I believe that last thing that WP needs is another voting pool. I am going to leave this message on a few other talk pages of editors that I work with frequently to get some general opinions or ideas before I try and sell it to the WP as a whole. Please let me know what you think.--Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your partially right on that it is similar to project membership but its different in that not all subjects have a related project, there are A LOT of projects so therefore finding the answer may require going to a lot of different places and even within projects its difficult to determine who knows about what. I envision this page being linked to at least the bigger projects (like the military history project) and then if you had a military history related topic then you could go to the SME page and essentially jump off to the correct project.  I hope this helps.--Kumioko (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Newsbank
I can't manipulate the URL on that website to make it freely accessible. I think it's best to use the original URL anyway ... at least it's possible to get an extract of the article. Graham 87 02:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LOTD
Hey, I was just checking how the idea was working out. I have two questions. One, is it appropriate to redirect LOTD to a user page, as wouldn't that violate the policy of no cross-space redirects? Equally as important, is there any progress in there being an actual Wikipedia page? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the link, I'm not sure, but would that violate the policy of no cross-space redirects? I'm sorry to hear progress is slow. I'll admit, my lack of participation was a bit of a Catch 22. I didn't think to take the effort to participate there, since nothing seems to be happening to it. On the other hand, progress would likely become slow if not as many participated. That said, if you do propose this again, please give me a post, as I will give my full support. If LOTD became official, participation would surely be vastly increased, since it would be much more visual in the WP community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing hooks
What happened: I was copying them to the next update and ended up in an edit conflict with someone else who was updating. It was dinnertime, and I had to go eat and forgot to restore them.

I'll put them in the next update where there's space. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did that now. They'll be in the next batch. Daniel Case (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Newsbank
That's not good. Well, here's the story - there's 2 different URLs on the individual pages of the articles, the URL in the title bar, and the OpenURL, which is what you're supposed to use when referencing a story. Use the OpenURL one, otherwise it'll request a username and password (which in my case, is my library card # and an assigned PIN for the Carol Stream Public Library.)

On a related note, it seems that when visitors enter Newsbank via an openURL, they are able to search the database as if they had logged in. I think that's a bug. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced the last url with an OpenURL. From there you can click "New Search" at the top (at least I could, and I tried this with a fresh browser) and then search for headline. (The search will default to the newspaper of the linked article, e.g. "Chicago Tribune"). When you find the article, the linked article name at the bottom of the page is the OpenURL. I haven't done the other two yet, just so I can see if this works for you. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Russian Task 101.jpg
Hi TonyTheTiger!

We thank you for uploading Image:Russian Task 101.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kemp article size
If you haven't already seen it, you should take a look at WP:ANI for what happened with a similar article size discussion elsewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, you are violating quite a few rules right now by doing such as you are doing above. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I see above is a link to your incivility. I have done nothing wrong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, Tony, that was a response to Wasted, not to you. As my edit note said, my response to you was on my talk page. Now, there is not an incivility there, because telling people that there are other options if they disagree with the MoS requirement for FA is not incivility. It is a blatant fact, because the guidelines for FA are the rules for FA. Now, Wasted has violated multiple Wikipedia rules by posting such links to multiple user talk pages, which is what my comment is originally saying. Please note that. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:McCarthy Building image2.jpg
Hi TonyTheTiger!

We thank you for uploading Image:McCarthy Building image2.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: NYTimes fee service articles
Unfortunately, no. It would have been nice if the NYT had made all articles written before 1987 free, but they didn't. I'm sure they'll become free eventually as the NYT receives more complaints or their current system doesn't generate enough revenue. If there was a free version available, the URLs you gave me would have taken me to the free version automatically. Graham 87 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NYT
I don't have access anymore, when the NYT dropped the paywall they refunded my subscription. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just saw this. I can e-mail you the PDFs of the two articles, but it appears you never set Special:Emailuser. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Still not working for me. Just e-mail me through Special:Emailuser and I'll provide the PDFs in my reply. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Team first-round pick templates
I'm not crazy about your edits to these, but if that other stuff is going to be in there, I think it needs more separation from the primary list. Right now they kind of blend together.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont really agree with these, its kind of pointless, for example I dont think there needs to be links to other teams, the whole point of the template is to see them for that team and that team only, I dont really know how to explain this by typing--Yankees10 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you could say that about a lot of templates. I added a horizontal rule to the Phins one, by the way. If we're going to do it I think it should have it.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * thats my point I dont think any of the templates should have anything like this, but thats my opinion--Yankees10 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, I responded to the message you left me on my talk page so things wouldnt get confused.--Yankees10 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * TonyTheTiger, can you at least add the horizontal rule?


 * Also, I think we should ditch the overall No. 1 templates. Those are the things that really have no connections. For example, a template for Dallas Cowboys first-round picks makes sense to link all the templates for other such teams. But there's no connection between No. 1 overall picks and a team's first-round picks. What does Mike Jenkins' being a first-round pick of the Cowboys have to do with Orlando Pace?► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, I also dont think it should be on Template:NFL Number One Draft Picks‎--Yankees10 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm posting this here because it's about your edits in general rather than to a specific template. Please add the horizontal rule that I added the Dolphins' and Bills' templates - it creates some separation.► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I left it at the talk page but you have not responded, This isnt going to work your messing with the title, you cant read it--Yankees10 03:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Tony, I third the request to cease what you are doing, first off this is a pretty big change which should have been brought up at WP:NFL, second it looks pretty crappy, third you have a template inside a template, which is just weird, and lastly you have ruined the color-coding system which is WP:NFL MoS on all the templates. I am very close to reverting all of your edits. I would appreciate you stopping as multiple editors have asked and to revert your edits or at least discuss the changes.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @   '' 03:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I shouldnt have done anything except for what I did. In the future you need to take responsibility for your edits, if you dont know how to do something correctly then dont do it.  Dont expect someone is going to come behind and fix your mess.  List of NFL team first-round draft picks should be on every team list of first-round draft picks, which serves the purpose of letting people navigate to the right place.  In the future, please discuss major changes like these and if someone asks you to stop, please do.  Reverting all your edits took time away from me watching the LA Galaxy game, which is disappointing.  If there is nothing else you need on the template, I am going to delete the template.  Thanks.   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @   '' 04:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that A) you should have at least mentioned what you planned on doing at WT:NFL, you were changing the basic layout of templates for a project (while also changing the appearance of hundreds of pages on Wikipedia), B) when you noticed that something was wrong, you should have stopped and asked for help, C) You need to stop next time if some editors feel your changes are bad, especially if you don't have any consensus to do what your doing and extra especially if there is a problem with your edits, D) Never expect that another editor should have to clean up after you, the only reason that I actually took the time to revert all your edits was because your changes affected hundreds of pages. Tony I have nothing against you or you wanting to put a see also link (even though I think it is completely and utterly pointless), but Tony don't expect me to do that for you.  If you want the change, than you are going to have to go about implementing it.  Also, making a change and expecting others to fix your mistakes is real crappy dude.  After this little fiasco, I would highly recommend putting a note on WT:NFL seeing if there are any objections to this, while also maybe running it by the two editors who posted above my posts.  In the future, please be a little more careful.   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @   '' 05:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mirth & Girth
Hey, thanks for the heads up - I missed that in the sudden flood of edits. It's been a busy three days. Also, about the MI articles - I'm pretty sure, unless I find another bug (or someone's Michigan library card / password) I don't think you could find stuff for outside of the state. That said, having access to articles from Rockford and Springfield and Peoria is nice. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Walter O'Malley
The article is used as a reference in the article already. It is titled "Walter in Wonderland". The link works through the reference section in the article. Its an underused source in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally come across the same problem in Wikipedia. I will create a link of a person's name, expecting it to be a blue link, and when I save it, its a red link. Sometimes it is obvious, a different type of apostrophe, or two spaces between the first and last name, but other times it isn't so obvious, and I just make a redirect without exploring it further. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, excellent additions to the article. Its grown by 50% since you have been working on it. Have you noticed how the Newsweek archive is even worse than the Time archive? Its almost impossible to find the article you want, and I don't see it in the Google News search yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Value menu
As for the article on the lawsuit, at this time it is just an allegation by a disgruntled franchise. Until the case winds its way through the courts and all the facts come out we do not know if it truly was the reason for the franchises failure. What was the pricing of their other items? Was a Whopper priced at $7 at their locations instead of the company average $3.29? The concept behind the value menu is to encourage sales of other high value items such as fries and beverages, which cost the restaurant pennies on the dollar. If they overpriced the rest of the menu, than they would have forced their customers to the lower cost value menu at the franchise's detriment. The articles that I have read only show the franchises whoa is me, look what the big, bad company did to us! side of the story, and is a bit biased because of that.

Also, according to sources I have read major fast food companies engage in 3-4 suits with some of their franchises every year, this just could be another case. If we were to include ever one of those cases BK's legal issues section would be 10 times as large as it is now. Because of this I have only included major, company altering law suits that had significant impact on the industry as a whole, and at this time that suit is only a minor blip on the radar.

Additionally their accusation doesn't fit because I have seen franchises in high rent areas that ignore the pricing advertised by the company, so the franchise's allegations seem hollow to me.

Does this help?

--Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OTRS
Hi, when you send mails to OTRS, would you mind only using one email address? It just ends up creating duplicates in the system. If you've accidentally sent it to the wrong queue (permissions-en instead of permissions-commons, for example), we can take care of that on our end. Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

LOTM
Those FLs I nominated that became LOTMs were merely FLs that I noticed and that I deemed worthy of recognition (interesting, well-constructed, etc.). There's no glory for me in having nominated them. As for nominating additional ones, I have other priorities right now. Have fun! --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DTN
Do not, under any circumstances, reinsert references to a patently unreliable, polemic right-wing conspiracy site. The David Horowitz Freedom Center is not a reliable source for anything other than its own opinions. FCYTravis (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion about this on the reliable sources noticeboard. FCYTravis (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)