User talk:Canadian Paul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Ancient History – DYKs and More – First Award to Adminship – Adminship to Third Year

Contents 1 Advice 2 Your GA delisting of Fann Wong 3 GA review of Baldwin of Exeter 4 Age of Empires 5 Another review request 6 GA review of Hubert Walter 7 Art D'Lugoff 8 Lois Nettleton 9 Dick Tracy (film) 10 Thanks! 11 Hello again 12 Supercentenarians 13 GA Sweeps update 14 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter 15 For your information 16 Angus L. Macdonald entry 17 Good 18 Harry Hill (cyclist) 19 Frank King (cartoonist) 20 Infobox 21 Sonja McCaskie 22 Help 23 I would like your help, please... 24 Just wondering 25 Again 26 Semi-protection request 27 My info box 28 Sockpuppetry 29 Flag icons 30 Supercentenarians 31 Re:Still living? 32 Move back 33 Great to see you back 34 December to Dismember (2006) 35 Daniel Machover 36 Oldest people by us state North Dakota 37 Ray Hazley 38 Move 39 Barker 40 April GA Newsletter 41 Wade Mainer 42 Technically... 43 Oh yeah! 44 Arménio Ferreira 45 Wikimedia Canada 46 Notability discussion on Hugo Kuranda 47 Kálmán Sóvári (wrestler) 48 DYK icons on user page 49 Sourcing from Luke Ford 50 Standards for redirects 51 1995 Japanese Grand Prix 52 Bobsledders 53 Edna Parker 54 Major League Baseball 55 Jack Kilpatrick 56 Could you please explain more fully? 57 Talk:Economics#Failed "good article" nomination 58 Read your user page...agree with points 59 Géza Kalocsay 60 WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter 61 Otolemur crassicaudatus 62 Oswald of Worcester 63 Saskatoon Neighborhoods 64 E.V.O. 65 Uncivil comments 66 Congratulations! 67 GA review of Carmelo Camet 68 Bart Versieck 69 template:Infobox Military Person 70 Joseph Pevney 71 Supercentarian Vandal 72 WikiProject Good articles newsletter

[edit] Advice

As you've proven a very fair, and strict (which is good) GA reviewer, I'd like your advice on an article: Easy Jet. I know it's short, but information isn't exactly thick on the ground on horses. Think it's worth taking to GA? I mean, if we can have GAs on manga series...Ealdgyth | Talk 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look at it shortly and conduct an informal review to tell you what I think. Cheers, CP 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it gives me an idea of what to do with the article. It's very easy for ME to know why he's important, but getting a non-horsey person's insight helps a bunch. And I wanted an idea of how short might be "too-short", which you helped with too. I'm still pretty new to the whole WP:GA thing, so I'm not sure where the limits are on things. To answer your question on why he's in the hall of fame, he is probably the premier sire of quarter horse racehorses. Something like 2500 foals, of which about 1500 managed to earn a ROM (race register of merit) meaning they were pretty fast on the race track. That's pretty good odds. He sired three winners of the All American Futurity, the richest (and biggest) race in quarter horse racing, as well as winning it himself. If the subject matter and length work, which from your comments it sounds like they do, I'll go in and expand/tweak/make the prose flow better. If it was always going to be too short (I can probably only get it doubled, at the best), there was no sense in bothering, since it's sourced and tells the important facts. Thanks a bunch, you helped a lot! Prepare yourself to see lots of individual horse articles at GA in the future, besides the usual bishops that I've been bringing there. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I impose upon your Canadian sense of duty and have you do a quick look-see at it again? I expanded/clarified/tweaked/pruned most of the morning, and while I have left notes on some of the more prolific horse article editors here, having a non-horse person look it over who has an eye for details will really help. No need to do a detailed review, just point out any glaring things that don't make sense to a non-horse person. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 21:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try to have another look at it shortly. Cheers, CP 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice time again. I reviewed Overhill Cherokee about a week ago. The article has been mostly worked over since then, and the only issue I'm seeing right now is the lede. I pointed out WP:LEDE and said the lede should be expanded. I got some expansion (four sentences?) but it still feels skimpy. Am I within reason to keep the article on hold and ask for more expansion. I would think it needs some of that voluminous history put in, but I'm afraid of being too picky on other people's articles and asking too much. Help! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA delisting of Fann Wong

You recently delisted Fann Wong as part of the GA sweeps, after your concerns were not addressed within the seven-day hold period. Could you please read and respond to my comments on the talk page, posted shortly after the article was delisted? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I will check it out in a while. I have a fair amount of tasks in my queque, but I will get to it later today. Cheers, CP 17:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Baldwin of Exeter

I hope I've properly addressed your concerns with the article without managing to introduce new errors. Whenever you have time (I know you're busy) they are ready for your perusal. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll check it out now. Cheers, CP 05:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Empires

Thanks for the review. Do you mind if I ask you for another look at it when I'm done with your comments? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It'll be a bit more informal of a review, but I'll definitely go over it and point out any concerns that I find. Cheers, CP 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome - I'll get to it one of these days. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another review request

I noticed that you've been reviewing articles as part of the GA sweeps, and I was wondering if you would mind doing Homer Simpson next. It has been a GA for over a year and up until recently it looked like this. Since then I have cleaned it up and expanded it significantly, but it still needs work and I am still unsure about its GA status. So could you please re-review it and feel free delist it if you feel it is necessary. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I will review it shortly and leave a message on the talk page as to whether or not I want to delist, put on hold for small changes or keep. Cheers, CP 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all your concerns. Thanks for the review! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I will check it out shortly. Cheers, CP 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Hubert Walter

All action items taken care of! Those were easy, I must be getting better. Whenever you have time.... Ealdgyth | Talk 06:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn, almost beat the message on my talk page this time. Cheers, CP 06:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Get out there and write! Writing is good for you, and certainly better than admin tasks... Just be glad I dump most of my admin problems on Angus instead of you... I keep forgetting you are an admin. Reviewing vs. writing. After staring at Ranulf for almost 9 hours today, on and off, I think reviewing is easier. UGH. I like the oddball guys though: Stigand, Ranulf, Hubert. The ones who the monks hated, I like. Does that say something about me? Hm.. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably nothing that my latest project doesn't say about me... Cheers, CP 06:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art D'Lugoff

Definitely alive. I spoke to him on the phone yesterday. In fine form. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that his consulting job might be a bit difficult if he were dead. Haha. Cheers, CP 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lois Nettleton

If Nettleton was 80 years old as per her Variety obit, that makes her year of birth 1927, not 1929, as per my arithmetic. Can you update since page is protected? Thanks. Morninghasbroken (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Tracy (film)

Thanks for reviewing it. I have a feeling that there's something missing, and I've corrected all of the suggestions you've made. Go see if there's anthing else that needs to be done. Wildroot (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I shall check it out shortly. Cheers, CP 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Much obliged for the barnstar, it is most appreciated! Also glad to see you've come out of retirement for the time being. Your work on the centenarians list is extensive and the tables you developed really pulled the article together. Again, many thanks! Longevitymonger

[edit] Hello again

I've done some serious addition to the Cannibal Holocaust article, specifically in the production section. I had previously put it up for a peer review to make sure my prose was up to standard, but it generated no responses. As Raul654 has agreed to have CH on the main page sometime in March, I'd like some quick feedback. Seeing as you've helped me out in the past with this sort of thing, I'd appreciate it if you took a quick look to make sure everything is in shape. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I will check it out later today. Cheers, CP 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Being an idiot, I didn't think of a featured article review. I've added it for FAR, so appropriate comments should go there. Helltopay27 (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I'm on it right now. Cheers, CP 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! I left my comments on the FAR. Cheers, CP 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to the comments you've left. Thanks a million again; you've really been invaluable in my article editing. Helltopay27 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supercentenarians

The fllags can be removed, the places of birth can be moved to outside the date listings. We need to look back and see who added the places of birth initially, if it's a reliable editor or a subject matter expert then they should remain, perhaps with a CN flag.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps update

This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Tristan Tzara • Impalement arts Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 215 articles (44 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 8 June 2008 | edit

[edit] For your information

Hi Canadian Paul. FYI. Wanting to alert you to a discussion where I mentioned you by name. I'm still too involved to do anything myself, but I'm still following the various discussions around age-related and longevity and supercentenarian articles. I'm now off to comment on the Ruby Muhammad RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll look over it tomorrow. Cheers, CP 06:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angus L. Macdonald entry

Hi Canadian Paul. I've added a lot of information on the Angus Lewis Macdonald entry that you assessed as a stub on 15 September 2007. I still have a bit of work to do cleaning things up, fixing grammar, spelling etc. However, the entry is basically finished as far as I can see. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks. Bwark (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---Thanks a lot for your comments. Much appreciated. Bwark (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good

Hi! Good to know that you are back to wiki! Thanks for that! I was very sorry that your article was stolen... I know that this is very hard, because a similar story happend to me. But wiki is not only one user - so keep up your good and hard work!

And I want to ask you about George Prud'Homme. Isn't the correct spelling of his first name "Georges"? And if so, could you be so kind and move the article to the correct spelling? Thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. I think Georges is correct as the Canadian Olympic Committee also spells his name with s. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great to see you around again. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I think I have found two more candidates to move which need your help. At first Jean DeLarge as the given link and especially Belgian sources did not write his name with a capital L, so the name must be written Jean Delarge. The second one is Truxton Hare here the given link and also Bill Mallon spell his name Truxtun Hare with u. Here I think it would be fine to add a footnote for the spelling with o? What do you think? Many thanks for your help and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved both, since the references seem to agree with you. I didn't add the footnote to Hare, but of course you are more than welcome too. Cheers, CP 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again many thanks for your help. Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Hill (cyclist)

Not that I do mind, but you literally state on your own userpage "I will never again write an article for Wikipedia"? Extremely sexy (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous! But thankfully Paul did!! Thank you Paul! Again I can only say that it is great to have you back! Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bart is very right though. I wasn't too great at keeping that pledge was I? In my defense though, it benefits my own personal sense of OCD more than it benefits me, and I wouldn't consider that the article is written very well at all. It's not even unstubby enough to qualify for WP:DYK. The spirit of my declaration is that I don't want to spend massive amounts of time on an article that's going to get "stolen". I don't think I spent much more than 10-15 minutes on Hill. But I should try to stick to that pledge a bit more, to give my words a little credibility. Cheers, CP 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What a day: that very first sentence "Bart is very right though." coming from you is I have to say unbelievable. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank King (cartoonist)

Many thanks for your article Frank King (cartoonist). It was excellent. One of the best thing about Wikipedia is the WikiProject Wisconsin. I love Wisconsin history and geography. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but all I did was create the stubby party of it. I think it's a great example of what a whole bunch of editors coming together, each adding a little bit, can do though! Cheers, CP 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Can you help me out with my infobox? I need some help with it. I have it there it is just not showing like the way your infobox is.(Gordon24fan (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Done. Cheers, CP 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cheers.(Gordon24fan (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Sonja McCaskie

Sorry I'm a little new at this...I didn't realize it was deleting his post...I assumed it was adding mine below it.

I'm just saying considering the sensationalism behind the story that it should at least be moderated. The way a Yahoo or MSN group is. Before it could be posted to the public at large, it should be examined for content, slander etc. It's been almost 45 yrs and many people in the area are still traumatized by the event. I'm just asking that it shouldn't be completely unprotected.

A little more sensitivity than the normal Wiki page is in order. She had family, friends and children involved. The press was brutal to her and she wasn't even around to defend herself. I'd hate for it to happen again. The page had already been defaced once...moderation of it isn't the end of the world. Perhaps a little consideration is in order?

Do a little research about the event. Talk to the people involved...read what historians of the time think and feel about it. It's still an event that makes policy in the modern times...It's not just any generic page to many people. Then decide.

MT —Preceding unsigned comment added by MistressTaboo (talk • contribs) 04:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi Paul, please allow me to ask you again for your help to move two pages. First Kazimierz Pazdzior to Kazimierz Paździor (correct Polish spelling) and second Howard Davis Jr. to Howard Davis, Jr. (with comma). If I remember right, the convention says this title needs a comma? Thank you and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, CP 00:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I would like your help, please...

I see you deleted deleted an article on Muhammad Rahim. I would like you to userify this article, its edit history, and talk page, to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim. I want to compare its content with Muhammed Rahim, before I expand it.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! There was no talk page. Also, I suppose I should have redirected that spelling to the new one. Ah well. Cheers, CP 00:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering

I am wondering how this user who was blocked for 24 hours, and is part of this sock puppet inquiry, was still editing during that period. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Hi Paul! Again I do not know whom to ask... But I hope you can help me again. I would like to bring all our Olympic track and field athlete bios in line. Usually the term "athlete" is used to describe the qualifier between the brackets. But then one user moved some of them and used the term "athletics" (E.g. John Norton (athletics)). But according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) we have to use "athele". So my question is, if you can help me to move them back? I will search for them and write you a list if you are so kind? Many thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll do Norton right now. Just leave me a list and I'll do any others that you find. Cheers, CP 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am very happy, that you are so helpful in all this cases! Here is my first part of the list (all up to 1936):

James Connolly (athletics) Albert Tyler (athletics) John Bray (athletics) John DeWitt (athletics) Samuel Jones (athletics) Charles King (athletics) James Mitchell (athletics) George Underwood (athletics) William Frank (athletics) Joseph Forshaw (athletics) Charles Jacobs (athletics) John Tait (athletics) John Taylor (athletics) Benjamin Adams (athletics) Richard Byrd (athletics) Frank Nelson (athletics) Horace Brown (athletics)

Frank Foss (athletics) Carl Johnson (athletics) Patrick Ryan (athletics) Leroy Brown (athletics) William Cox (athletics) Earl Johnson (athletics) Steve Anderson (athletics) Alfred Bates (athletics) John Collier (athletics) Ethel Smith (athletics) Alex Wilson (athletics) John Anderson (athletics) Robert Clark (athletics) Jack Parker (athletics) Elizabeth Taylor (athletics) Robert Young (athletics)

Specials:

• John Kenneth Doherty (athletics) to John Doherty (athlete), no need for "Kenneth"
• Karl Hein (athlete) to Karl Hein, no need for brackets (sorrily I moved him before looking...)

Here I am not sure, if we want to move them:

• John Paul Jones (runner)
• Phil Edwards (runner)
• Ray Lewis (runner)
• William Miller (pole vault)

Many thanks again and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All done except William Miller. There's a Bill Miller (athlete), so (pole vault) may be a more effective disambiguator in this case. By the way, do you happen to know if Robert Young is still alive? I didn't see anything in the SSDI.... Cheers, CP 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and still the administrator of WOP. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I meant the athlete Robert Young that is mentioned above. Cheers, CP 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good joke nevertheless though. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks for your good and long work! Hmm, I havn't remembered Bill Miller (athlete), but isn't then the right qualifier for William Miller (pole vaulter)? No, I am sorry, I do not have more info about Robert Young, up to now :) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought that once it got to individual sports, it should be the sport rather the profession (ie. Mike Dawson (American football) rather than Mike Dawson (American football player) or Mike Dawson (American footballer), but I will look into it. Cheers, CP 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! But on the other side it is possible to have Bill Miller (athlete) and William Miller (athlete)? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we could do William Miller (American athlete) since, according to William Miller, there's a William Miller (Australian athlete). Would that work? Cheers, CP 22:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be perfect ... to me, but then I am sure that someone will move our William Miller (American athlete) to William Miller (athlete) with the comment that there is no other athlete with the name William Miller, because William Miller (Australian athlete) doesn't exist up to now... Kind regards (I had to go to bed now) Doma-w (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will check to see if William Miller (Australian athlete) is worth creating and act accordingly within a day or so. Cheers, CP 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine! We are not in a hurry. :) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Paul! May I bother you with part two?

Bob Bennett (athletics) Paul Collins (athletics) Dean Smith (athletics) John Bennett (athletics) Lucinda Williams (athletics) Richard Howard (athletics) John Cooper (hurdler) John Rambo (athletics) George Woods (athletics) George Young (athletics) Larry Young (athletics)

Thomas Hill (athletics) Earl Bell (athletics) Dave Roberts (athletics) Bill Rodgers (athletics) Lynn Williams (athletics) Ian James (athletics) Ben Johnson (sprinter) Dave Johnson (athletics) Mike Powell (athletics) Joe Greene (athletics)

Specials:

• David Jenkins (runner) to (athlete), because (athlete) now links to David Jenkins (figure skater)
• Axel Noack (race walker) no need for brackets?
• Mike Smith (decathlon) do we want to move him?
• Steve Smith (high jumper) do we want to move him? If not is the correct term (high jump)?
• James Walker (Guam) we have already an (athlete), so what to do with him? (Guam athlete)?
• Jack Pierce (athlete) to (baseball player) and
• Jack Pierce (track and field) to (athlete)

Thank you very much and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I will get to it shortly, hopefully sometime later today or tomorrow. Cheers, CP 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Doma-w (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

All done except Ben Johnson (sprinter), because the consensus seems to disagree for some reason. It could be argued though. Cheers, CP 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks again for your great work! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection request

As you're an admin I'm familiar with, I'm requesting a temporary semi-protection for Cannibal Holocaust. All revisions since March 5th have had to be reverted either due to vandalism or unwanted information that has repeatedly been asked to be left out. Helltopay27 (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My info box

I need help showing all the info in my info box. Can you help? (Rhinostampede (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Sockpuppetry

I'm not a sockpuppet because 1st of this is my 1st wikipedia account. Happy Editing (Rhinostampede (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

I asked you for help because I saw that you had a userbox, so i just copied what was on your page.(Rhinostampede (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Flag icons

I noted you had a previous discussion with this user regarding insertion of flag icons, and since I've run across a number of flag icon additions by User:TFBCT1 made today that I am presently removing and have left a note on his talk page about this. I just wanted to alert you to this in case the user becomes confrontational about my removal of them. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I will keep my eye on it and assist as necessary. Cheers, CP 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supercentenarians

It seems that you do a lot of editing around supercentenarian articles, which seems to be an area of great dispute. I only got involved when Lazare Ponticelli died, and noticing it was a stub, set out to improve it, as I do a lot of work around Recent deaths. Since I don't know enough about the issues, I cannot do much to help the heated arguements. It seems that User:Ryoung122 and User:Kitia got themselves blocked indefinably for their roles in it, and you just blocked User:Bart Versieck for 72 hours. I'm not sure if I agree with the rationales for some of the blocks, but I am wondering why no one has filed a request for arbitration. Being that you are directly involved and that you are an admin, may I ask you to file one to settle all these arguements? Editorofthewiki 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that no one got blocked simply for their disagreement of the mass deletion and blp issues but they did get blocked as an inderect result of it. For example, while I'm not doubting that Young made personal attacks and it does seem that he did, there were no proving of his off-site personal attacks. I simply think that, while the RFC is a first step, there are plenty of issues at stake here beside that. I think that arbitration is the way to go because it got very heated and two users got blocked that I, assuming good faith, would make valid contributions to "the wiki". I agree, blocking was used well, but I think that the indef block was a bit harsh. I would be perfectly happy with some other form of dispute resolution, but a simple RFC is not the way to go with the whole issue.

Also, Lazare Ponticelli was merged by User:BrownHairedGirl a few months ago, claiming it didn't have enough refs. After all my work, it has 7 and is at peer review, hopefully to become a GA. I invite you to help in the effort, as this would be the first GA for me. Also I am at Editor review; please see Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki and review me. Thanks a lot!Editorofthewiki 00:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Were it necessary, I could provide evidence, but that's beside the point anyhow. I do completely agree, however, that the Ruby Muhammad RfC is the wrong place to discuss longevity issues and categorization in general. I do think, however, that we could all decide on a place to discuss it informally first, rather that a formal method of dispute resolution. I think cooler heads prevailed on List of living supercentenarians, for example, which shows that consensus and compromise can be hammered out through discussion. We'd all have to agree on the place though.

As for Ponticelli, I can comment on the peer review, but I was hoping to stay out of it and then review it as a Good Article, which I have a lot of experience in (I'm retired from it for various reasons, but I can always do one every now and again). If you'd prefer my input now, I can give it if you'd prefer. As for your editor review, I have a task or two in my queue, but I'll try to get to it within a day or so. Cheers, CP 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer your input now, simply because I would like to address the issues now and then nominate it for GA. I would be happy to open a GA nom except that I don't think it would be proper to open one in the middle of a Peer review. Cheers, Editorofthewiki 02:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take some time out tomorrow to give it a proper go over. Cheers, CP 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(To Editorofthewiki) I'm not sure what a request for arbitration would solve. There doesn't seem to be much conflicts now. The only current thing is policies that some of us don't like, preferably the synthesis. It gives a somewhat poor or inspecific example from our sysnthesis problem, and our problem with having the government census being a reliable source or not. Neal (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

I haven't forgotten about either of these - I've been a bit busy, but I will get to them on the weekend. Cheers, CP 04:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, since I'm tired of the PR backlog, I have opened a GAC. Editorofthewiki 11:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll review it either later today or tomorrow, I should have the time. Cheers, CP 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed Lazare Ponticelli and placed the article on hold. You may view my comments on the article's talk page. Cheers, CP 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have adressed the issues and enjoy your promotion of the article to GA status. Editorofthewiki 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I will check out the article shortly and see if there's anything else that needs to be done. Cheers, CP 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the one problem with the article. Feel free to pass the article as a GA. Editorofthewiki 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I needed your permission. I'll check it out shortly. Cheers, CP 23:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Still living?

Of course I known your list! And I really like it! But I am sorry, up to now I have no further info about the status of the athletes you asked for... Still DoBD for all Olympians is my main interest so I hope we can improve the list step by step. By the way, are you interested to add a section to your list about the earlierst ever born (modern) Olympic competitor/medalist? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Eero Kolehmainen - [1] Topcardi (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Paul Wolf - [2] Topcardi (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that there is no place up to now... I few days ago I tried to ask here Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1928 Summer Olympics medal count if we can add the youngest/oldest medalist/gold medalist, but nobody was interested... I still think it would be nice to add infos like these to the medal counts... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move back

Hi Paul! After the discussion on our WikiProject Olympics talk page I would like to ask you to move the following two pages back to the version without spaces?

• Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 4 x 400 metre relay -> Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 4x400 metre relay
• Athletics at the 1920 Summer Olympics - Men's 4 x 400 metre relay -> Athletics at the 1920 Summer Olympics - Men's 4x400 metre relay

Thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I just copied what you gave me, so if I made a mistake, just let me know and I'll fix it. On my end, do you know anything about DoBD for Ernest Barberolle, Élisabeth d'Ayen or Karel Hartmann? Cheers, CP 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Now they are in row with the 4x100 metre events from that years. Sorrily I have no DoBD for these three. This was exact the reason why I did not start articles for them. :) Maybe you have seen, that I have done most of the rowers and that I worked on the Ice hockey at the 1920 Summer Olympics article. By the way, if you are interested please have a look at the history of this ice hockey article. [3] There was a very interesting part of my text deleted, because of copyright problems (which was correct!). Sorrily my English is to weak to rewrite the text... Thanks for the moves and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great to see you back

Yeah...now get back on that GAN backlog :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back, but the answer is not a chance. I only did Ponticelli because it fit within my interests and because I was asked specifically. After the Quadrilogy thing, I have no desire to work with GA anymore. Cheers, CP 01:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. Forgive me for being clueless, but what's the Quadrilogy thing you speak of? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The short story. The long story: Compare the current version and the timing of the changes at Alien Quadrilogy with User:Canadian_Paul/Quadrilogy (note that the section that I hadn't gotten to was the one that wasn't done) and the fact that most of the work was done in one edit. It was also right after I linked that user page on the talk page of another prolific GA editor. Makes it very difficult to assume good faith. But there's nothing that can be done - even if it could be proved, I don't own my contributions, so they have every right to do what they want. But there's no point in contributing at that level if that's the what's going to happen. Cheers, CP 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn...not much else to say really. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] December to Dismember (2006)

Ah, ha. You noticed then! :)) D.M.N. (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Machover

Gosh, I should have spotted that. I saw him in Dublin a couple of weeks ago, in fine health and very sharp of mind. Thanks, NSH001 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest people by us state North Dakota

I am new to wikapedia and I did not know how to cite sorces on the actual website so I put a link to the Grand Forks Herald newspaper for Mary S. from North Dakota on the talk page and I'll also put it here for you. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-168032442.html

Regards --Npnunda (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Hazley

Hi CP

I have restored to Category:Possibly living people to Ray Hazley. The article mentions him only in 1983 and there us no info either way on whether he is still alive 25 years later. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assumed that he was still alive because he was in Category:Year of birth missing (living people). I'll go ahead and fix that cat then. Cheers, CP 04:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, despite my edit history, I'm not stalking your contribs. I'm watching "related changes" on "possibly living people" to see if I can clean up the cat a bit with a little research. Cheers, CP 04:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul, following my edits to see if they need-cleanup isn't stalking (it's only stalking if its malicious) and I generally welcome other editors following my contribs, so no need to apologise even if you had been tracking them :)

Anyway, good for you cleaning up Category:Possibly living people. My mistake for not being clear in my categorisation: in assessing up Irish articles (currently working off the BHGbot-generated list of Untagged GAA articles) I have been trying to fix categories as I go, and have block of frequently-used categories to copy-and-paste from. A huge proportion of them were living but had no birth categ, so I used Category:Year of birth missing (living people) in my paste list and tried to remember to trim the "(living people)" off it when inappropriate. Must watch more carefully! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

[edit] Move

Hi Paul! Again I would like to ask you what do you think about the move of this article Theo Nußbaum? Is it correct to write ss or ß? The correct spelling of his name is Nußbaum. Thanks for your help and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... this one is a tricky one. Per this discussion and WP:ENGLISH, it would appear that the person who made the change is correct. If, however, you can provide sufficient evidence that Nußbaum is more popular than Nussbaum, then you might have a case to change it back. See what name is more popular and let me/the user know and we can go from there. Cheers, CP 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not a native speaker so I will not and can not decide this cases. I am only wondering (and suprised) why there is every time only a problem with the German letter "ß"? I have checked and corrected 10000s of names (really I have) and names like Bedřich Šupčík are no problem! ř Š č í? Not really English letters!? The point in the discussion about Aßbrock is: "So if they can use "ss" in German,..." Yes, can! You can also spell a "ß" in German as "sz". But can does not mean that it is correct. It's the same to "ä", I can write in German "ae" instead of, but correct is "ä"... I think the priority must be the correct spelling. Never mind... Many thanks for your help again and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barker

I am sorry I have not known that I am not allowed to rewrite and expand this article. I am very sorry. May I ask you what I have to do? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I only tried to do my very best. Sad regards Doma-w (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Tristan Tzara • Impalement arts Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 215 articles (44 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 8 June 2008 | edit

[edit] Wade Mainer

Concerning the large original discography I inserted into the Wade Mainer article. I made the discography myself through an extensive and time-consuming research on the huge 78rpm database site: http://settlet.fateback.com. --Popiloll (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technically...

Regarding [4], elinks are not references. While I am 99.99% sure they confirm the facts (based on the translated lead of the pl article), I have not verified them, hence I just entitled the section elinks, not refs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just figured that, since I added the tag it was a nice chance to mix WP:AGF and WP:IAR. Haha. Cheers, CP 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh yeah!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lazare Ponticelli. Editorofthewiki 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arménio Ferreira

I do think Arménio Ferreira is notable, especially since he was not just a personal phyisician to a President, but a Portuguese advisor to an anti-colonial revolutionary leader, which I believe is fairly rare. I believe that if you search "Arménio Ferreira Angola" on Google, you will find many listings, except they are in Portuguese, a language I cannot understand. Perhaps we should request the assistance of a Portuguese speaking editor to read the sources and make a recommendation? By the way, I appreaciate your bringing the topic to me before launching into an AfD.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hey, CP. I don't know whether you are much into projects outside of Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear your input on the formation of meta:Wikimedia Canada before we end up locking the bylaws for submission in a few weeks. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out a little later today. Cheers, CP 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of stuff to go over. I'll try to do a detailed look and make comments soon. Cheers, CP 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability discussion on Hugo Kuranda

My apologies--I did not mean you did poorly--I just wanted to make a suggestion for how people watching could know to do better. Sorry if it came out wrong. DGG (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kálmán Sóvári (wrestler)

Hi there!

I don't know whether you speak Hungarian or not, but here are some links: [5] [6]

In Hungarian ifj.=junior, id.=senior, and it is only used for father & son. As you can see, both links are routed to ujpestlexikon, since were both sportsmen of the same club, Újpesti TE, and their original name (Schäffer) was also the same. Unfortunately the site doesn't state the father & son relationship for some reason. I just can't find right now any online sources which state the relationship, but here in Hungary it is a well known thing. Also it is stated in the Olympic lexikon of Hungary, but I don't have access to that either. So this is a fact that I can't proove at the moment for 100%, but I'll keep serching. Probably I'll have access to the Olympic lexikon in a week. Also Sóvári junior's son is a frequent visitor of Újpest FC football matches, so I do know him and can ask for a proof any time. --gabute (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK icons on user page

Hi Paul, I've noticed the little icons for DYK, GA and FA contributions on the top row of your user page, and was just wondering about how you go about adding them. Could you let me know? Many thanks, Howie ☎ 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Not only for the very quick response, but also because I got it to work :) Howie ☎ 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing from Luke Ford

Luke Ford publishes gossip. He is even less reliable than IMDb. It is editor consensus that real names of porn people, living or dead, need high quality sources. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standards for redirects

Good morning. In this edit, you commented that "you basically have to prove that you've scoured every source known to man" before pages can be "turned into redirects". That's not actually the required standard.

This may be a minor point but it's one that's often misunderstood. Wikipedia:Notability sets the standards for the inclusion or deletion of entire pages including their edit histories. It provides little guidance for ordinary-editor actions like rewriting content. Converting a page into a redirect is such an ordinary-editor action. It leaves the pagehistory unchanged and can be reverted by any other editor without the need for special admin powers. Boldness is encouraged for ordinary-editor actions like that.

Of course, if the conversion to redirect is contested, that becomes an editorial issue to decide on the article's Talk page. At that point you can legitimately demand that the sources be provided. Because the pagehistory is retained, the editing process can rely on the principle of no deadline to allow the original contributor all the time he/she needs to find the sources before converting the page back from the redirect.

If you already knew all that, my apologies for the long-winded comment. Otherwise, I hope that puts the issue in some perspective. Rossami (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Hi CP. Are you by any chance any good at reviewing sports articles? I was asking as the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article has recently had its FA failed, and is currently up at peer review. I was wondering whether you could possibly review it for us? Thanks! D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy this week, but if it can wait until the Weekend, I'll certainly check it out. Cheers, CP 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it can wait. It'll probably have others reviewing it mid week, so yeah, it'll be OK to wait. :) D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bobsledders

Would you please wait until a consensus is given on these new stubs before redirecting. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edna Parker

I noticed this edit. While I'm perfectly OK with the edit, I think that declaring that your attempt to discuss the issue with me failed after waiting little more than 24 hours is a bit... I don't know, harsh? I have barely had time to read your message, let alone reply. That, however, does not mean I'm not about to. Plrk (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Some anonymous user is entering the exact current ages again for all supercentenarians who are still alive, officially speaking that is, cfr. this edit by him f.e., claiming that they are perfectly legitimite edits by him, since they were allowed for Edna Parker, but do you also agree with this, Paul? Extremely sexy (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:V, but I'm really starting to just not care anymore. I'll try leaving a message with Moondyne and see what they think. Cheers, CP 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's my post. I would argue that the anonymous user's logic is faulty - Edna Parker is the oldest person in the world, which is very different than being the second-oldest or anyone else. I'm not going to revert them, however, until I heard from Moondyne, though I certainly won't stop you if you want to revert based on this logic or your own. Cheers, CP 15:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I will revert all of them stating that Edna Parker is an exception, being the current world's oldest person. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major League Baseball

Hiya Paul. I reverted your recent edit on the Major League Baseball (video game) article. The paragraph you removed comes in the midst of several other paragraphs discussing gameplay issues, and while the tone is a bit sub-standard, I don't think it's flagrant OR of the sort oftimes found in video game articles. The whole article is a bit of a mess, placing a bizarre amount of emphasis on a single Gamespot review - but I suppose it's due to the relative lack of "mainstream" coverage of twenty year old disasters such as this. I even think the article errs a little bit on the side of "six of one, half-dozen of the other = NPOV" - the game's a dog, not just twenty years later but even at the time of its release. The article, on the other hand, seems to twist it into more of a "love/hate" situation. Whatever - --Badger Drink (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay here. Had a nice insightful message halfway typed up, decided I'd do a little multi-tasking, and right about then is when things froze up. I'll give you the short version now. I can understand where you're coming from with Wikipedia. Outside the current drama-fests of the moment, the videogame section is in absolute woeful condition. Part of this, I think, is due to the policy-based requirement on significant sources. Mainstream videogame "journalism" sucks a nut, to put it bluntly. The opinions tend to be half-baked and the writing is woeful. Factor in the certain, uh, style, of the "typical" 15-19 year old drive-by-editing crowd, and the fact that videogames are in this odd grey area - functional in ways that the Mona Lisa isn't, yet with that same "B-Movie" potential where even the world's shittiest game can be loved by many, and yet with this odd uptightness by most of the broader community (nobody's going to say Manos is a good movie, even those who get off on B-movies, but dare thee not insult a man's favorite shitty videogame, lest thee find thyself in a world of flame) - and you have recipe for trainwrecks. Sucks even more when something you put a lot of dedicated effort into gets nicely destroyed by well-meaning but perhaps less-than-clued folk.

Anyway, "short" ^{[citation needed]} version made shorter - I disagree with you inasmuch as I think that bugs can be very suitable for an encyclopedia entry about a game, especially given that they're non-subjective and are a pretty integral aspect of the nature of software. Triggering them is odd, no question - no two people play the same game the exact same way (well, outside of Pong and speed-runs). An example - back in my "heyday", if it can be called that, I was a master at glitching the AI in hockey games. You name the game, if it was on the SNES and had pucks and sticks, I could figure out the exact way to score a goal at any given moment, given possession of the puck and possibly a certain range of players, with 85% success. Flash-forward a decade later, and even though I remember the movements and at least the basic notion of the timing, I'm hard-pressed to succeed on anything more than luck. Bugs are nearly-always replicable, but certain factors such as timing and "happenstance" can serve to make things tricky - i.e., a particular (hypothetical) bug may be triggered by the player swinging the bat three times and connecting with the ball on frame x of the third swing, but only if the fielders then "choose" (via a combination of the rudimentary AI and the RNG) to move to the left. Said hypothetical bug would occur 100% of the time that these conditions were fulfilled, but said conditions would be tricky to fulfill on demand. That said, I'll try to find sources for these claims, as I agree they would benefit strongly from such. --Badger Drink (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (and no, you don't want to see what the "longer" version was like!)

By all means, edit away! --Badger Drink (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Kilpatrick

Hi CP, I'm afraid you'll have to point me to the policy that says that {{Birth date and age}} is not for use for possibly living people as I can't find it. Cheers --JD554 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a little chuckle now as it seems we're both using the same guidelines for our stances :-) The way I see it is that there is no evidence to suggest that he is dead, so why not have his age? After all, 90 isn't particularly old in affluent western countries. Also the quote you've provided from Category:Living people says "may be removed", which would suggest (to me at least) that it's optional. The only reason I mentioned policy above is that you mentioned it in your first message to me. I can see that everything here can be taken both ways and, as you seem to be quite firm in your stance, I'm more than happy for you to change it again - although I wouldn't quote the change as policy or it not being allowed. PS I don't know if you still do, but I used to live in Winnipeg as well ... small world! Cheers --JD554 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please explain more fully?

You made a big excision about a month ago, without supplying an edit summary, or leaving a note on the article's talk page.

Could you please return to that article's talk page and explain your edit?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. My apologies again for any confusion that this has caused. Cheers, CP 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Economics#Failed "good article" nomination

Hello, again, CP. Concerning the above, now at Talk:Economics/Archive 10#Failed "good article" nomination, I have a question (motivated by a practical concern that cropped up on the Econ Talk page recently). Your earlier reply there might suggest that only the NPOV template was not there. But at the time of your posts (Sept. 21-22, 2007), there wsa only the Refimprove template. My question is this: To your knowledge, were any or all of the templates listed in Talk:Economics#Failed "good article" nomination other than Refimprove ever on Economics from onset of its FA status (or before)? (Over a couple of years, I cannot recall seeing such others.) If that is an easy question to answer, I'll look for it here. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain that I understand your question. I know at the time that I quick-failed the article, only the refimprove tag was there. Past that, I had never even seen the article, so I cannot tell you what other tags were ever on it without meticulously reviewing the article's edit history. Sorry. Cheers, CP 14:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. That confirms what I thought: that you were including possible reasons for a quick-fail, not that all or even more than one such necessarily had been there. You gave a very circumspect answer there (very appropriately I believe). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Read your user page...agree with points

Hi Canadian Paul...thanks for your comments about the Canadian blues page. I just roughly junked a bunch of info into the article to get it started. I have just improved some of the excessive list issues by relocating the lists to their own list articles (e.g., List of Canadian blues festivals and venues), while leaving a summary in the main article. I read your user page, and I have to say I identify with your frustration. There is so much $%^#@ being put up on Wikipedia, and not enough warm bodies to dig through it all and do quality control, deleting incorrect info if needed.........................I aggressively practice the BE BOLD philosophy...If I see POV Original Research full of Weasel words ("Many people believe that (insert name of minor pub rock band here) are one of the most influential bands in the history of pop and rock music."). I don't put "Needs source", I just delete! Anyway, I also have "quit" for short periods, due to frustrations...In may case, it was a page where one editor had "ownership issues" (The Wilco article). I put in a short quotation about the band by a music critic from the New York Times, and an editor reverted it, saying it "didn't fit the section". I pointed out that reverting shouldn't be used just based on a subjective opinion...the material has to be incorrect! : ) Anyway, thanks for your comments on the Canadian blues section.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Géza Kalocsay

Hi!

I know it is almost unbeleivable, but Géza Kalocsay didn't die in 2007. The article you referred [7] is talking about another Hungarian footballplayer with exactly the same name, but with a different lifeline. Pay attention to to other Kalocsay's different date (7 December, 1914) and place (Szeged) of birth, and different career. I was discussing this in a forum with football historians, and we concluded, that the two Kalocsay's are not connected at all. --gabute (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I figured either we or they just got the birthdate wrong since they were so close (as is very prone to happen on Wikipedia and obituaries). Cheers, CP 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Uncategorized good articles is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Tristan Tzara • Impalement arts Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 215 articles (44 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 8 June 2008 | edit

[edit] Otolemur crassicaudatus

Paul, could you please help me with User:Otolemur crassicaudatus? He has been harassing, censoring, 3RRing not to mention making a personal attack against me both on his talk page history and the ANI thread. He has also calling the kettle black on myself, when I only tried to calmly discuss a relatively minor style issue with him. The thread has not been getting much attention, and I think that I need a particular admin to help, a particular admin that I trust will do the same thing, (a particular admin that isn't on semi-wikibreak). And that admin is you. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look at the situation now. Cheers, CP 05:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's in mediation now, so there's not much that I can do, but I would point out his statement in the mediation area that "I have never made any personal attack" is false, since he did call you an "uncivil troll," in the ANI thread. I think you've both made a few mistakes on this one, personally, though. Cheers, CP 05:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oswald of Worcester

I think I got it all taken care of. Please let me know if there is more needed! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'll check it out shortly. Cheers, CP 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saskatoon Neighborhoods

Thank you for assessment of Talk:Greater Saskatoon Catholic School Division. Made more comments regarding school/neighborhood merger at Talk:List of neighbourhoods in Saskatoon, would you wish to reply with your two cents as well? Thank you. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try and take a look at it either tonight or tomorrow. Cheers, CP 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but I will have to get to this on Monday. Cheers, CP 06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E.V.O.

I reverted out of the assumption that you were restoring both images, which you weren't in retrospect. I'm fine with two images, just that the third final boss image not only is unnecessary, but explains little about the game and overstuffs the article.

As for images, one screenshot of the fish world is a necessity - for the longest time, I believed E.V.O. to be only a fish game (never got terribly far into it then), so it would show a common area of the game. The second image could be an evolutionary chart. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncivil comments

First of all, your edit description is Snarky, Dictionary definition of Snarky, "to nag, find fault with"[8]. I only give as good as I get. Second, what I choose as a hobby is none of your buisness, third go ahead and ban me if you wish. Fourth I was going with what they were reporting on CTV News Net but the source for the letter had not yet been posted to the net, So assume some good faith next time, oh stringent follower of Wikipedia rules. --Cloveious (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

On 14 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William S. Livingston, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Carmelo Camet

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'll check it out a little later today, when I'm more in the mood for serious editing. Cheers, CP 19:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

heh. If you want fun, come over and read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church. THAT's fun. (rolls eyes) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even clicked the link yet and I KNOW that's going to be great. I'm definitely going to have a peek at that as well later. Cheers, CP 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully addressed the concerns. Now to check out that FAC... Cheers, CP 23:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You did. I don't see lack of sources as something that should hold back a GA. FA, yes, if you can't cover pretty completly, it probably shouldn't be a FA (which is why large numbers of my bishops may never make FA). And may I just say it's great to see you editing again! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I think Hubert Walter will be going to FAC tonight or tomorrow. Wish me luck! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review - no, I don't think Camet will ever be a FA - I'm just happy to see him listed as a GA. As for Walter, good luck, though I don't think you will need it. Very briefly skimming, I noticed in the Walter article one sentence the begins with however and one paragraph that was less than three sentences (and many of the latter in the RCC article). Just my two cents! Cheers, CP 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bart Versieck

Hello Canadian Paul. I'm a little concerned about your block of the above user. Don't you think three months of slightly excessive? Fair enough, make it two weeks, but three months should be discussed before you make it, given he is an established editor, especially considering they were minor changes (even given he's been blocked for editing talk page comments previously). Ryan Postlethwaite 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi CP - I've started a discussion here about this block because I think we see things very differently so it would be best to get wider input. I'd appreciate your comments there. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] template:Infobox Military Person

Hi Paul, I have a question regarding the template:Infobox Military Person. I noticed that you have made a number of changes to the "birth date" paramter. The comment you left always reads "Birth date and age are not used in this infobox (see template documentation))". I have read this documentation a couple of times now but I can't deduce from the information presented that the template:birth date and age may not be used. Could you explain your reasoning behind this please. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My subjective opinion has always been that it's unnecessary and strange stylistically, but subjective means nothing on Wikipedia. So to answer your question precisely, note that the example infobox does not use birth date and age. At the very least, this means that it is certainly not mandated by consensus to have birth date and age. Nor does it recommend anywhere in the documentation that it should be there. I find it unnecessary and awkward, so I remove it if I see and point people to the official example. Having said that, if there's consensus to have it on there, I don't remove it, but I've never seen it really argued by even two users on the same article that it should be there. I used to remove "age in years and days" off of Edna Parker but, when I saw that multiple users were adding it back in, I discussed whether or not it constituted a violation of WP:V. Turns out that consensus said it didn't, so I don't remove it anymore. The obvious retort is that there is no picture either but, in my defense, when I started pointing people here, there was one and, furthermore, it is suggested to have a picture both in the documentation and general Wikipedia policy on illustrating Wikipedia.

Sorry if that's a bit incoherent, but I'm particularly busy and distracted today.Cheers, CP 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that your reasoning is implicitly derived while explicitly referring to a documentation that is stating neither. Makes perfect sense to me?! I can follow that you have a personal style preference. Please have a look at the Günther Rall article and how it looks. The second row now states "10 March 1918 –". To me that dash is dangling. If you don't like the age after the date why don't you use the "|born=" tag of the Infobox template? At least it doesn't look like everyone is waiting for him to die. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about that aspect of the style - I tend to use both (see, for a different example, John Babcock), although technically your version is more in compliance with WP:DATE. In any case, whatever you'd like, I won't change it. Cheers, CP 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Pevney

Can you please add this LA Times URL for the late Joseph Pevney: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-pevney29-2008may29,0,660163.story

It is the only site to conclusively say Pevney died on May 18, 2008. The Desert Sun doesn't give the date of his passing. I tried adding the LA Times URL with my 24.87 IP ( I forgot to log in) but kept hitting a brick wall. The cite web thing is a pain. Thank You, Leoboudv from Metro Vancouver, BC (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it, otherwise I would have been happy to. Cheers, CP 05:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Personally, I don't understand the cite web system well. I struggled with it mightily. But I'm glad someone fixed the problem. As you can guess, I'm a Trekkie and I think Pevney was perhaps the best Trek director with The Trouble with Tribbles, City on the Edge of Forever, The Devil in the Dark, etc. They were all mostly classics. But Pevney had a long and wonderful life to die at 96. In contrast, my Vancouver Canucks prematurely lost Luc Bourdon today and he was only 21. What a shame! Regards, Fabian from BC Leoboudv (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supercentarian Vandal

Sounds good Paul. People can change. Whatever you decide. Regards, --Npnunda (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Tristan Tzara • Impalement arts Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 215 articles (44 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 8 June 2008 | edit

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)