User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 35

The other Tiger
I'll try to add references to the other paragraphs in the next few days. Even so, there's still a lot of other unreferenced content, along with other problems I pointed out in the review. I remain unsure that this is really at the GA level right now.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
Thanks for your comments on the Jackie Robinson FAC. There are a couple of remaining suggestions I didn't act on for editorial reasons, but I learned a lot from your posts. The inclusion of non-free images appears to be the snag. I've become convinced the article can't reach FA consensus without removing all non-free images, and that the administrators won't elevate the article while there are any standing non-free-image-related complaints. At the end of the day I care more about an informative, well-illustrated article than I do a star at the top, so I am not going to pursue the FAC again after it dies. But if any contributor wants some low-hanging fruit for a successful FAC-elevation feather in their cap, this would be it. Thanks again for your input. BillTunell (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Goat Star
I do remember that you prefer tigers to barnstars, but you didn't mention goat stars! Hope that the tigers don't get to him.

The award is documented in User:Chzz/Recipients of the Goat Star. I am working to progress William Windsor to Good Article status, so please look in some time. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots
Sure feel free - But leave a note on the image so it doesn't get retagged? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Vicenarian (T · C) 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: PokerTracker assessing
Just seemed like adding projects for the sake of adding projects. I only kept the ones that I knew for sure it belonged it, although you can add them back if you want. Gary King ( talk ) 02:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I read the article; I spotted it on the main page when it was a DYK. It's a good article, although the images make it cramped a bit. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend you convert File:Hand history.jpg and File:Tournament summary.jpg to text and just enter it into the article as text into a  tag or something, rather than using an image. It's a win-win situation because then the images won't be squished, and you can also scroll the text.  Gary King  ( talk ) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay done. Normally I'm against scroll bars but in this particular case, it's far better than using an unreadable image IMO. Gary King  ( talk ) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah pretty much, but still better than using the image IMO. The image is pretty pointless. Maybe you could just shorten the text so scrollbars are unnecessary. Gary King  ( talk ) 04:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The text can certainly be shortened. For the "Sample Tournament Summary" text, for instance, you can play a 6-max tournament instead of a 90-max one, and then there are only 6 players to list instead of 90. That's one way to shorten that one. For "Sample Hand History", it's essentially the same thing; just play a table with 6 or less players. Gary King  ( talk ) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on the heads up
No, it was a copyvio, so I deleted it. The Chicago website where the original map is makes no mention of a free license - see here, so it was a copyvio. Sometimes people confuse US Government work (which is free) with state and city work, but this had a published prior to 1923 free tag, which is obviously in error.

Thanks for your earlier note oin my tlak page, which I now realize I did not reply to - sorry. I plan to find a replacement ref (or refs) for the first use of the Structurae ref, then leave it as a ref for just the two metal subcontractors. Does the Millennium Park book mention subcontractors (would it be a source to replace those two)? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rob Pelinka
I see you're still adding content, which is good. Unfortunately, the FAC was archived. However, I'd like to continue reviewing and copy-editing the article, so just contact me when you're done and I'll come back to it by the end of next week. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

BP Bridge
I archived the PR and supported the FAC, then realized you and Torsodog graciously listed me as a conominator on the FAC, so I struck my support - sorry. I am watching the FAC and will help as needed. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome - do you want me to try and come up with a compressed closure paragraph? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tired compressing it - I think the overall Park article should go into more detail on these (I think that was your question). I think the main articles to try to get to FA would be the park itself, Pritzker Pavilion, Cloud Gate, and Crown Fountain (plus BP Bridge of course). I think that Lurie Garden and the Harris Theater could probably also be FA eventually. Not sure that any of the other features would have enough details / sources to get to FA. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kemp
After having Yukon Quest turned down a second time at FAC, I'm starting to understand how you must feel in your quest to get that article upgraded. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BP Bridge
You might want to ask User:DavidCane to comment on this one as well, if he doesn't anyway. As far as I know he has no connection to the Chicago area so would be looking with a completely fresh eye, and being a Quantity surveyor in real life, he's generally very good at spotting potential problems with technical terms in architecture and landscape articles. – iride  scent  22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to be of help. I've had a look and left some comments. It's an interesting article.--DavidCane (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, my computer locked up when I tried to edit the Talk:PokerTracker. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard
The article Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Vicenarian (T · C) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All-Star Final Vote
I added the above page to the FL task force cleanup page. The issues aren't terribly hard to fix, so I was hoping that we could work together to fix it rather than start an WP:FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Landmarks
you can stay informed here by reading the monthly minutes

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1693670307.1244662189@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccdadehhjfekjhcefecelldffhdfhk.0&contentOID=537030096&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Zoning+and+Land+Use+Planning%2FCommission+on+Chicago+Landmarks%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Zoning+and+Land+Use+Planning&deptMainCategoryOID=-536903220

Re: Aces and Eights
Truly, I wish I could AGF it (it's an offline source, so that's the best it can get). However, if I could tick it as such, I must confess that I can't nominate my own hook (A suggestion rather than a rule: try to avoid picking your own suggestions. Use common sense here, and please avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. DYK is meant to be something that is motivating to editors creating new content.) I think I could AGF it, but if there's someone I'd see for the final say, it's going to be the one who struck it down in the first place: JulieSpaulding. I'm really sorry, I don't like being biased towards myself. The only other way I can tick it is if I use Stevage's hook, but as you mentioned, the hook is missing how it's statistically optimal to split them. I'm going to leave a message on the DYK talk page concerning it, as the people there probably have more experience OKing situations like these. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actors GA Sweeps
I noticed that you just kept a few actor GAs for Sweeps, but I didn't see a review on their pages. If you believe they meet the criteria could you please make sure to leave a review on the talk page stating so? It'll help if any other reviews occur in the future. Thanks again for helping out with Sweeps. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you didn't see any issues with the article that conflict with the criteria, then just say that after reviewing the article you still believe it meets the criteria and have kept it per sweeps. A sample from one of my reviews can be seen here, but feel free to write whatever you feel comfortable with. We just want to ensure there is some confirmation from a reviewer that s/he looked over an article, saw that it met the criteria, and acknowledged it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know which reviewers? I want to ensure that all articles have some indication that a review was performed. I've been keeping track with most of the reviews but I may have missed a few. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you see any reviewers that do so in the future, can you please remind them? I don't want to scare any reviewers off now that we're finally under a thousand articles left to review, but I want to make sure the reviews are performed properly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Landmarks
I found these on the landmark webpage. I will update the list today

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/pdf/2008_Annual_Report.pdf http://egov.cityofchicago.org/Landmarks/pdf/LandmarksBooklet.pdf

These two links will contain all the landmarks approved in 2008.

Also, you can obtain a copy of the latest Landmark map (January 15, 2009) at the Landmark Office 33 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602. Be sure to check the date on the back cover.

I noticed that they are really slow at updating the Landmark website. The landmark map and the monthly minutes that I sent you earler are the best way to stay informed and keep the list up to date.

User Name
This message is to inform you that your name "tonythetiger" is a complete ripoff of Tony the Tiger Frosted Flakes Cereal, thanks. South Bay   (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles
Thanks for looking at the article. Despite any disagreements, the article got improved through your presence forcing us to check what was said and notice some errors.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Millennium Park
I will put the Tori Amos closure back in if you want. Just let me know - I have been mulling it over and think all three closures could be introduced by talking about how the parking garage revenues did not meet expectations so the authorities tried other means to raise funds.

As for the Millennium Park article, I certainly think it could be FA (and mentioned it as such, although not by full name). I almost never work on FACs on the same topic back to back. The problem is that I have a lot of interests and not a lot of time. It would be easier for me to work on Pritzker Pavilion since it is the other Gehry structure and I already know something about it, or Crown Fountain, since I did some work on it when it was at FAC. The overall park article would be the most work for me as it would involve learning about ALL aspects of the park. I may have time and interest to do more copyedit work towards FAC on Millennium Park articles in the future, but right now Paennsylvania state parks and covered bridges and creeks await. Thanks for your kind words, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Eve
Hi, I am reviewing Arthur Eve for GA and have left my initial comments at Talk:Arthur Eve/GA2. The article seems to be in good shape. There are just some issues that need addressing. I have left some examples and may add more as I read through the articles again. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict
Hey, it is probably right to delist the article just now, it needs tidied up. I do want to do it but have arthritis so I can't really type to much at the moment. Gavin (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Joffrey Tower
I reviewed Joffrey Tower for Sweeps and there are several points that need to be addressed. The review's here. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally I do, but I figured you'd address the issues. I'm sending out the notices now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I always try to contact the main editors as well as the WikiProjects. In this case, from Sweeper to Sweeper (I'm making up these Sweeps terms as I go), I thought you'd be interested in resolving the issues yourself. I added details on the instructions page about contacting contributors/WikiProjects a while back so that reviewers would do so. If anyone is not doing it, just direct them there. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No I see what you are saying, it's usually displayed for the community GARs. It's up the reviewer how reviews are performed so long as they make sure the article meets the criteria. Unfortunatley not everyone contacts the editors/projects which may cause a review to go unnoticed. I mention in the review that I will contact the main contributors and projects, but I don't list out who I contacted by name. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 15 June 2009 ==


 * Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
 * Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders
The page has been delisted and I believe there is a consensus for a merge. Would you like to work on a merged page yourself or would you rather have me do it? Or, would you rather leave the three pages as they are? -- Scorpion 0422  14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions on how I should do it, or should I just do what I think works, then you can make whatever changes you like? -- Scorpion 0422  20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks very much for the Chicago barnstar and congrats again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up - I have another long article to reread at FAC first. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FLC review?
If you've got some time free, would you mind giving List of Maryland Terrapins football honorees a look? I'm planning on submitting it as an FLC and could use some extra sets of eyes on it. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cloud Gate
No, that IP edit was not me. I just did one copyedit. I agree, some of those changes may not have been the best. Good luck! Reywas92 Talk 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Confessional
Forgive my WikiProject master, for I have erred. I haven't been a terribly constructive WP:CHICAGO project member, but I'd like to offer my photography services to you over the summer for whatever Chicago-area topics or locations you'd like to prioritize. Just be forewarned that the quality of my photography equipment may far outstrip the quality of my photographic eye! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods dead links
I'll try to fix as many of them as possible over the next few days. Not sure I'll be able to fix them all, but most of them should be simple enough to repair or replace.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors
Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Four Award for BP Bridge
Congrats on getting this through FA nomination. Have a Four Award for your trouble. --DavidCane (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PokerTracker PR
I read the article again today, and it seemed much improved. Finetooth (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's always hard to guess what another reviewer might say or see. This article seems to me to be stable and broad in its coverage. I didn't have time to check the sources as closely as I would if I were the GA reviewer. I have reservations about the image overlap. The article is reasonably well written, but that's not to say that it couldn't be further improved. Perhaps a fresh set of eyes would help. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that works better than the section overlap. Finetooth (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice job with the article so far, Tony. Are you interested in working on Holdem Manager as well? I assume you already know what the software is :) Anyway it'd be nice if the article was created; if you don't have the time for it, then I'll try to get around to it when I do. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Union Stock Yards
Per your request on my Talk page, I added a reference, or citation if you like, to the Union Stock Yards article about the International Amphitheater, replacing your tag. Afterwards, I noticed other references in the list have "Retrieved on [date]" phrases after them, but such a phrase did not appear after my citation automatically. Do I add or some other checker add the phrase manually? Is there a "more desired" format for adding references? H Padleckas (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brown good article review.
Please would you be so kind as to provide a link to the previous GAR so that I can compare the difference between what we had then and what we hacve now. ta. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, what I meant was..It says at the top of the brown page that it is a good article, so it must have at some point been assesed as such and now it is for reassesment so do you know where I could see the first assesment to compare it to the article now. thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Wow, very different, thanks tony. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

FAC for Mariano Rivera
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I have started another nomination for the article Mariano Rivera due to the progress I made in addressing reviewer concerns. You had previously supported the article for FA in the previous nomination and I wanted to contact you to see if you could show your support again in this 2nd nomination. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 22 June 2009 ==


 * Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
 * News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Missy and Frankie Rayder.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Missy and Frankie Rayder.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 13:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:TonyTheTigrr Real Money history.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:TonyTheTigrr Real Money history.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All-Star Final Vote
Talk:All-Star Final Vote Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

William D. Boyce
Hi. I tried to find our talk of this in your archives but couldn't. I checked Dec 2008 - Mar 2009. Maybe it was by email. You said you may be able to take photos of the old Boyce Building this summer. You wanted to wait for the summertime lighting. If you can still do that, I'd appreciate it. I can process the OTRS if need be. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Gate
Sure, I'll look into it later, looks a very good article overall from what I saw. Keep up the good work! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? In my view images provide important information in the article if they accompany the text. OK I had thought they were an improvement. Maybe you will tolerate one more? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I completely understand if it is the 4th nomination though. I'll remove the others, I think the one of the boy and the reflection is appropriate to the text though. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I upload tonnes of images every day from flickr so you don't have to worry about that. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I've moved the tent image from the reception where it seemed out of place and placed it in the construction section where the construction phase is discussed. I gather FAC reviewers objected to images used in the article in the past?Anyway don't worry I've finished with making the adjustments I wanted to make. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 12:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I was about to remove it. I'm pretty much happy with the article now anyway. Regards. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done already! It is tricky ground though with images of copyrighted structures, maybe I'll just remove the images i added if you are concerned with them. I'm uncertain as to whether they are permitted. Normally we accept images of monuments but I don't want anybody to oppose the article based on images so.. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the previous image with the rationale. The last picture, the one of the boy it would seem to be about the boy, rather than directly the structure as you said. I'll be interested to hear what the image reviewer has to say about that one. as it is pretty harsh to claim that it fails requirements. Best of luck anyway, I'll be watching developments. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)