User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 26

Peter Bynoe
DevorahLeah (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Ah I feel so much better now. Found all sorts of useful stuff that will fill in some important blanks, and hope I can take it up to GA for you. When I am finished later tonight-- and again, as I said on another discussion page, I know I am doing the footnotes wrong and I apologise-- please help me with the clean-up of the footnotes, and then let me know if my research brought it up to GA status. Glad I finally found one I could help with-- it was really bugging me that I couldn't help on the others you asked about...

DevorahLeah (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC) SO did I do what you needed me to do, Tony?

DevorahLeah (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)You asked if I have more examples of the media focusing on only Lee and Bynoe, rather than even mentioning other partners. I do. Lots of examples. These were typical-- the group was mentioned, but only Bynoe and Lee were the focus. DO you need more than these?

1. The Financial Post (Toronto, Canada) July 12, 1989, p. 43

BLACKS GET EXECUTIVE-SUITE TOEHOLD: Nuggets purchase could start wave of minority-owned teams

by Jamie Wayne

You have Probably never heard of Bertram Lee and Peter Bynoe, but they have earned a spot in sports history alongside Jackie Robinson, the first black man admitted to major league baseball.

The duo head a group of black investors that bought the Denver Nuggets of the National Basketball Association for US$65 million, breaking down the color barrier to sports executive suites.

The Nuggets are now the first minority-owned major league professional franchise in the U.S.. [snip]

2. The New York Times, July 16, 1989, p.7 [with photos of both of them]

ECONOMICS LESSON

Seeking gold from the Nuggets cost Bertram M. Lee and his partner, Peter Bynoe, $65 million. When the National Basketball Association, as expected, approves their purchase last week of the Denver Nuggets, they will become the first black owners of a major American professional sports franchise. Mr. Lee, the architect of the deal who already owns three radio stations, a hair-care company and a Boston television station and had been shopping for a sports franchise, said the purchase was motivated by economics, not posterity. If it didn't make economic sense, believe me, we would not be sitting out there having a need to be first, Mr. Lee said. ''To the extent that we are, and that we can be used as role models, that we can give hope and inspiration then, fine. It's not a challenge, though. I'm not putting down the gauntlet.''

3. Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), July 12, 1989, p. 7

DENVER NUGGETS BECOME FIRST PRO SPORTS TEAM OWNED BY BLACKS

by The Associated Press

DATELINE: DENVER

Bertram Lee and Peter Bynoe became the first black owners of a major professional sports franchise by purchasing the Denver Nuggets basketball team. Former Nuggets owner Sidney Shlenker on Monday acknowledged the $65 million sale, which must be confirmed by National Basketball Association owners.

Mr. Lee owns television and radio stations in Washington, D.C., Utah, and Nebraska and is also chairman of BML Associates Inc., an investment holding company in Boston. Mr. Bynoe is the executive director of the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, which is building the new home of the Chicago White Sox.

DevorahLeah (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Thanks for the help with fixing the footnotes-- and I hope Bynoe now has enough information to be considered a GA. Glad I could finally come up with something to assist your Chicago project!

DevorahLeah (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC) YAY!!! I am so happy I was able to help get this one to GA.

WP:Chicago
Apologies for the delay in responding, I was moving my fiancee this weekend and we're still getting settled in. I do remain interested in either being involved in coordinating peer reviews or assessments. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chicago Coordinators
Sorry about my really, really, really late respone. I have been kind of spacey this week, who knows why. What areas do you still need a coordinator in?? -Marcusmax (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * cancel the above statments I see where i am listed to Coordinate!! thx -Marcusmax (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can keep an eye on the FA, GA delists. But I will talk with the other review coordinators first, so we can figure this all out. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:20080903 Nastia Liukin responds to Oprah Winfrey.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:20080903 Nastia Liukin responds to Oprah Winfrey.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Bears Seasons
Just been a bit busy lately. I should be able to do some work on it this weekend. I think it's coming along pretty well, but it seems that some just want it gone. I'll be voting keep when it comes down to it. I think it's a very informative list and is as good as current featured lists. RMelon (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Russian Task 101.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Russian Task 101.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Bears Seasons FL
The Chicago Bears Seasons List, as you have noted to me and I have seen is currently up for removal. Yet it seems rather odd why this List is up for deletion, and other FL Sport Seasons reamin untouched. For Instance, St. Louis Rams seasons dosen't meet many wikipedia standards. That being said I think Chicago Bears Seasons, is looking real good right now and it blows other FL's of the same type away. Anywho, iv'e pledged my suppport and will gladly help this list remain an FL. -Marcusmax (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like this one is almost off the block. After talking with one of the FLC directors, he made it clear that only 2 major problems are left. This would be the colors used in the list as per WP:COLOR and some formatting issues per WP:REF. Just wanted to give you a quick update, and I understand that a user is going to fix up the refs this weekend which is a very good thing. This one looks like it's going to make it. -Marcusmax (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have manually finished some color scheme work, once the ref work is finished this one will be done. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like the user who was going to do ref work this weekend failed to show up, this is a major setback. -Marcusmax (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King
Thanks very much for doing review, Tom (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. Crown FAC
(copied over from my talk page:) Sorry I didn't manage to do more on this. August proved to be very busy indeed. But good luck with other FACs. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LOGO 140208.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:LOGO 140208.pdf. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article WSJ (magazine), and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually had noticed this at DYK and had the same opinion as Art LaPella, shouldn't it be referred to as "WSJ. magazine" not as "WSJ." because the latter looks like it is referring to WSJ which is how i have always referred to the Wall Street Journal (it's a different matter that it looks like a typo with its period now). Art LaPella's point was not about the period, it was about using the word "magazine" to distinguish between this and the Wall Street Journal, also known as WSJ. doncram (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NRHP2 and Black Metropolis-Bronzeville District
About the Black Metropolis-Bronzeville District, the district is not itself listed in the National Register. The 6 properties mentioned in the articles are individual NRHP sites, all listeed at the same time as part of a multiple property submission, which is consistent with what multiple property submissions accomplish generally. Their articles should be updated to reflect that they are NRHPs fully, and not merely contributing properties in a NRHP historic district. The "contributing property" language in the Black Metropolis-Bronzeville District article should be removed, too, in my view. It could be argued that they are contributing properties in the Chicago landmark historic district, but I don't know if that is official language of Chicage landmarks and contributing property is usually (and perhaps only) meant for properties within NRHP historic districts.

About the use of NRHP2, what is not working? If you don't want the map to display, just blank out the locmapin= field. Please clarify. Glad to look into anything here further. doncram (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * About which are officially NRHP districts or not, you can check in the NRHP.COM site for districts in Cook County. NRHP.COM is my shorthand for www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which is a private site that echoes NRIS data, differently than Elkman's tools do, and it happens to distinguish between districts vs. other NRHP sites.  The water tower one actually is a district, apparently, which sort of surprised me.
 * About which are landmarks or not, any that are National Historic Landmarks should have the nhlsum reference to its NHL summary webpage. If the question is whether they are Chicago Landmarks, that should be your territory.  Frankly the infobox assertions of CL status should be footnoted as the NHL assertions are, in my view, but i note they are not.
 * About an NRHP line and also a NRHP historic district line appearing in NRHP2, well, that is a "feature" and/or also a "bug" with NRHP2. In my view, only one should appear.  It is the subject of unresolved discussion with Dudemanfellabra who programmed that.  I don't think the duplication matters horribly for stubby articles, but if there are a couple articles where the issue arises which are being developed toward GA or FA status, then that could be a good vehicle to raise the issue.  I personally give considerable deference to editors trying to do one article really well. There is a related issue about how to term the NRHP districts.  The NRHP2 infobox presents them as "National Historic Districts" i think, which is making up a proper noun name that does not exist, and is a problem per i think wp:Neologism.  Are you developing any one of these towards GA or FA?  I would be happier pushing the general issue at wt:NRHP or elsewhere with a specific instance that matters that way.
 * I'd do some editing in those 6 MPS properties to add the MPS document, but there's a NRHP site which is currently down so I can't right now. Will put it on my to-do list to get back to within a few days. doncram (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, South Dearborn Street-Printing House Row Historic District is an NRHP district (and also an NHL), and South Loop Printing House District (new article stub now) is an NRHP district. What their boundaries are, and whether or by how much they overlap, could be ascertained by reviewing their NRHP Inventory/Nomination documents at the State of Illinois Hargis site.  I tried following my own instructions at wp:NRHP about how to get documents out of HARGIS just now, but find the Illinois site is down at the moment.  It's also conceivable to me that neither one of these corresponds exactly with the Printing House Row District that is the Chicago Landmark, although the article currently asserts the Chicago Landmark is the same as the NRHP South Dearborn Street-Printing House Row Historic District.  It's there in the documents, perhaps requiring some interpretation of the maps and/or verbal boundary descriptions provided. doncram (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup
I'm back, I think for real this time. It looks like some things have changed since I went on my extended break. How is Chicago wikiproject doing? I haven't had a chance to stop in and have a look. I have some articles/topics I'd like to work on. TheQuandry (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll stop in and have a look around. And I'll see what I can contribute to Cloud Gate. For now though, time to go check on my dinner. I'm working some odd hours these days. TheQuandry (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Wolverines men's basketball
Talk:Michigan_Wolverines_men%27s_basketball ? Gimmetrow 12:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallenberg
I will work on it when I get back, by coincidence I am now in Sweden visiting family. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MLK jr.
I gave a second opinion, in case you didn't leave the page watchlisted. Protonk (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominate Millennium Park for a Good Topic?
I was wondering if you'd be up for nominating the Millennium Park articles collectively as a Good Topic. All of them are currently GAs, (other than the two that could never be GAs with the present information available). --TorsodogTalk 21:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My Kind of Town
The context of the song, which I wrote, summarizes a scene in the film Robin and the 7 Hoods. The film is the source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The film is a verifiable source, so while a secondary source would be ideal, it is not needed. I don't know how to do the fancy-schmancy citations. If you do, feel free to format them correctly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I took away the adjectives to remove any hint of POV or "interpretation". What's left simply describes what's on the screen, which anyone can verify. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review limits
The guidelines for Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:It's About the Money.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:It's About the Money.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Chase Promenade
I have passed this article as a GA. Great job, and keep up the good work. If you need anything else reviewed, just get back to me on my talk page. Thanks, -- Jor dan  Contribs  18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

CHIBOTCATS
Not at all, the more the better. If t=it would help I could make a list of all the Chicago subcategories to see if there are any others you want. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  01:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Merle Reskin/Blackstone Theatre
DevorahLeah (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Tony, you asked me about this a few weeks ago, and I finally did find a bunch of interesting stuff about the Blackstone. What exactly were you hoping to add? I tried to make sense of the peer review comments, but wasn't sure what's needed. Is this a GA already? What I found is early history, from the 1920s and 30s and 40s mainly. Will any of that help?

Go, Cubs, Go
I've enjoyed it too. I typically just stick to grunge-related articles (Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc.), but I'll give "Go, Cubs, Go" a glance.-5- (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look and made some minor edits. Otherwise, it seems pretty comprehensive and well-written. Well done!-5- (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

HM template
Thanks for the encouragement.  Ty  02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Meetup list
Please put me on the notification list for a future Chicago meetup. I live in Northwest Indiana. Thanks,  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto if you would. I live in California and Minnesota and probably cannot go but just in case. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hidden discussions
I have added a new explanation to Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cubs W flag
There's more detail in the Wrigley Field discussion of it. Actually I think it's rather silly to have a one-paragraph article about a flag, as it really doesn't add any new information on the topic. I was trying to add some perspective to it. The one hazy area is when they switched the color schemes. The Cubs media guides stopped talking about it for awhile, and then in the 1990 book they mentioned that it was blue W on white, i.e. opposite of what their guides had said earlier and for a number of years... hence, "by 1990". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I rewrote it to make it clearer that the media guides are my source of info. If you want me to look up specific years and pages, I could do that. Meanwhile, I'm looking through my photos to see what I can find. I didn't often photograph that flag. I have one shot from June 11, 1977, in which the Cubs beat the Giants 5 to 3. Although it's an Instamatic and a bit blurry, there's no question it's a white W on a blue background. However, it's not really suitable for framing. I'll see if I've got anything more recent. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a lot sooner than 1990. The first one I took of that flag after 1977 was on September 12, 1983, an 8-0 win over Montreal, and it was a blue "W" on white, like today. That gives me a better time frame to zoom in on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Cubs retired Ernie Banks' number in 1982, and starting flying a flag of his 14 on an off-white or cream color background, on the left field foul pole (the foul poles double as flag poles). Prior to that, they had flown a dark blue flag on that pole. So the theory that they switched the W flag to blue on white to coincide would seem to have some merit. Finding it, outside of blogs, could be difficult. I know I seldom photographed it just because it didn't seem like such a big deal at the time, just an interesting little oddity. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ernie Banks article includes the reference, which is to the Cubs' official website and shows the years of the retired numbers: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding an internet source that discusses when the switch was made. But at least I have a narrower timeline for it now. Onward to other tasks, for now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're having dreams about Walter O'Malley, you probably need to get out more. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To show you how reliable media guides are, the 1984 Cubs guide (p.6) still talks about a white W on a blue background, despite the fact that it was already blue-on-white in 1983. That error continues through the 1989 guide (p.5) and it's fairly obvious they just kept including the same article without checking its details. They finally fixed the error in the 1990 guide (p.6) This is sounding kind of familiar now. I think I looked into this about a year ago, and realized the error in the books, but the only proof I had was my mediocre 1983 photo - so I fudged in the article and said "by 1990", because that's what was verifiable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "How much of the story..." about the flag? Or about Wrigley Field in general? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The PDF appears to match the current hard-copy book. The section "Wrigley Field History and Information" is listed on p.362-364. The short paragraph about the flag, on p.362, is nearly identical to the one from 1990, maybe just trimmed a little bit. Prior to 1990, the wording was the same except for the colors, of course. It's worth noting how Wrigley Field was traditionally discussed near the front of the book but is now stuffed in the back. I would say that goes back to the days when the Cubs used to promote "Beautiful Wrigley Field" as the primary selling point, given how lousy the team was. My earliest memories of WGN-TV ca. 1960 made that exact point in ads for the Cubs: "Come on out to Beautiful Wrigley Field", with film footage of families bringing in picnic lunches and such, obviously undercutting the concession sales, but P.K. did things his way. As much as he and Bill Veeck did not get along, I would say they were both in agreement in their philosophy that you can't guarantee a victory, but you can try your best to be sure the fans have as good a time as they can. Anyway, at some point in the last 18 years, and at least a decade after the Wrigley family sold the Cubs to the Tribune, the media guide editors apparently decided the team itself was sufficiently saleable, and relegated the info about the ballpark to near the end of the book. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any good shots of the flags. My camera is not that good, and I've always been a grandstand denizen, not a bleacher creature. :) You won't likely get the other teams' flags in the same shot with the W (or L) flag because they're not up at the same time. The American flag flies atop the masthead, of course. The two columns of flags show the NL teams in standings order. All those flags are lowered at the end of the game, and the W or L flags are raised (or both, if necessary). I remember once when the Cubs moved into first place (which was then a rarity) that they lowered all the flags and then brought them out again with the Cubs on top. The flags at the ballpark are not just decorative. The ones on the scoreboard and the ones along the rooftop tell the players what the wind situation is at any given moment. They're high enough up that they usually catch any hint of breeze. If they're blowing in, the pitchers love it. If they're blowing out, the hitters love it. If they're blowing across the field, the fielders hate it. You probably knew all that. :) The rooftop flags used to be blue with a simple "W.F." (in red) on each of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but here's my hunch: The photographer caught them "in between" lowering and raising. That 8/2/08 game was a 12:05 start, which is typical for a Saturday game. The game ran 2 hours and 30 minutes, so it would have finished about 2:35. The clock shows 2:41, or just 6 minutes later. So I'm guessing that they had hoisted the W flag and had not yet taken down the other flags, and some lucky fan snapped a picture at just the right time. That other photo, where the W flag stands alone, was taken at 3:50, on a day when the Cubs won 3-2. That one apparently came from April 18 a Friday game with a 1:20 start that ran 2 hours and 29 minutes, so it would have finished around 3:39, or 11 minutes before the photo was taken. So they work fast after the game ends, but they can only do one strand at a time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony
Thank you for supporting my RfA nomination, Tony. Without your tutelage late last year, teaching me proper citation format and introducing me to DYK, it would not have been possible. I appreciate the support, assistance, and confidence. Unfortunately, it does not look as though the Wolverines performance this year is anything that will inspire me back into a frenzy of Michigan football articles. Cbl62 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wheatley
I didn't replace it. I should add I don't have a significant problem with your nominating a second TFA at a short interval, but I think you inflamed things (not with me) by filling your own vacated slot. That, in combination with suitably placed articles at intervals down the road, I think led people to the conclusion you were going to keep doing that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote lots of stuff!
Cool! It is UNBELIEVABLE of how many things you yourself wrote! :)

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ --Blacky98 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Eldrige Recasner on hold
Hello, the article is on hold. Please see its talkpage for details. Thanks, good work, and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Something must be wrong with my purge, too, because I can't see my comments, either! Thank goodness that they're visible when you click the review page, though! CarpetCrawler (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's nothing, I fixed it! Congratulations, the article has passed! CarpetCrawler (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you put pictures?
OK, I would LOVE to donate a tiger pic. but it's just that I don't know how to do it. Can you tell me how to? ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Thanks.

♦ ♦ Blacky98 (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whitey Wistert
Heads up:. Giggy (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All the Way (Eddie Vedder song)
Hi Tony, I put the article on hold. --Efe (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I left there my final comments Tony. --Efe (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)



Efe (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * I passed the article to GA Tony, with comment. Congrats! --Efe (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations.-5- (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony. Your attention is requested at the All the Way article. Someone has an issue with information in the Release and reception section. Thanks.-5- (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. That seemed to get out of hand quickly.-5- (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All the Way
I wasn't completely sold on nominating it anyway, so if it doesn't become listed as a good article I can accept it. Some articles just don't have the information or notability to become good articles. I think this is one of them. The song is just too new. It just came out last week, so it couldn't yet have acquired the coverage and notability that is required to have an article become a "good article." Time will be the judge of whether the article will be deserving of the status in the future.-5- (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that most complaints concern things that you added. The only complaint I can see with one of my contributions is the tracklist, which I guess I can agree with since it is only one track. But, is it really important that this become a good article at this time? Will it be the end of the world if it doesn't? It doesn't mean it won't be able to in the future. I can see the reviewer's points about a few things. Some of the stuff in the article doesn't relate to the song. However, the reviewer is being nitpicky on a few things, so I may point that out on the review page. I'm not trying to hang you out to dry on this, but I guess this isn't that big of a deal to me. I work on all of the Pearl Jam-related articles, so I will continue to work on this one. But, I don't need it to become a good article at this moment. I'm patient.-5- (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's just one small portion of a larger paragraph. That was the one point I felt was nitpicking, and was just about to type something on the review page about it. It seems that some reviewers just come up with anything just to have additional points to put in their reviews.-5- (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded there. Thanks 5 for the suggestion. --Efe (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Printing districts docs from HARGIS
Because HARGIS's query system is very non-intuitive, I have to follow my own previously written out instructions at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, but those work at least as far as identifying reports. Following those instructions, i choose to build a query on the word "Printing". That yields hits on 12 reports. Three reports seem of direct interest: "South Dearborn Street-- Printing House Row Historic District", "Printing House Row District (CLG)", "South Loop Printing House Historic District".

However, when i click on those reports, the javascript that is supposed to show them fails to respond. I am using Firefox as i try this. Hmm, trying again with MS Internet Explorer, I get just one step further: clicking on a report opens a new window, but that eventually shows "Server Error in '/HARGIS' Application." doncram (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * okay, sounds like you get to the same point i do, now. from my previous notes, it is clear that clicking on "report" has then been the next step, and that worked in the past.  i do recall that HARGIS has varied in its performance a lot.  maybe trying again in a week or two?  or call the office that supports HARGIS to complain, during the week?  sorry that's the best i can do. doncram (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

AT&T Plaza
I have passed the article as a GA. I see that there is nothing more that you can add to it: it is essentially complete. Good work, you did a great job. I hope you Featured Topic nom comes through. All the best, Jor  dan  Contribs  19:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * There's a first time fpr everything :) Though by my count, it's only twenty minutes to go until the Main Page needs to be purged, and the new nominations added. Including yours. Seems alright to me. Jor  dan  Contribs  23:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your question on GAR for Michigan basketball scandal

 * My apologies, I did update the GAN page and the transcluded the talk page from Talk:University of Michigan basketball scandal/GA1. If I did something incorrect, again I apologize.  I have begun my review though the weekends are bad for me, I should have more time this week to continue to review.  H1nkles (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Those cute mini-GA icons
How do you do that? Where you have those mini-icons on the top of your page? I want to do that for the article I worked on that passed the GA review, but I have NO clue on how you do it. Thanks! CarpetCrawler (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)