User talk:JayHenry/archives1

[edit] DYK

On 25 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting, 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.

[edit] re:Hippos

Hai JayHenry, I am a student on Leiden university and doing my master thesis on pleistocene dwarf hippos from the mediterranean. I work in the National Museum of Natural History in Leiden (Naturalis). I am currently overlooking the taxonomy. The name is Hippopotamus minor. If the genus Phanourios is used it should be Phanourios minor and not minutus. minor come from Desmarest and mintus from Cuvier. Since Desmarest was 2 years earlier than Cuvier, his name has priority over Cuvier's. When I finish my thesis I will look further into wikipedia at the hippos especially and probably post pictures. This is the Cretan, Cypriot, Sicilian and Maltese. Hopefully I have answered your questions, if not you can mail me directly at Naturalis. -Basvanhuut 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hai Jayhenry, I have added some discussion point on the cretan and cypriot hippo. I was wondering if you could take a look and say what is your opinion. I would appreciate that very much. Discussion can leads to good ideas and keeps you alert. Thanks in advance. Greetings --Basvanhuut 09:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jayhenry, The idea about putting all the Madagascar hippos together is good on my opinion. I did not study them, but I know the taxonomy is not clear. For as far as I know there are 3 or 4 hippos known from madagascar. These hippos are all Hexaprotodon and not Tetraprotodon, so 6 incissors instead of 4. I could look up some literature here at the library. My thesis will probably lead to a publication. I will keep you posted Best regards Basvanhuut 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My comment on Signpost suggestions talk page

Hi Jay. I just want to make sure that you understand that I wasn't saying that anyone had done anything bad. The only reason I was concerned about the Benoit thing was because when the first edit was made that said he'd died, there was no source, and in fact the media hadn't picked up the story and nothing had been released by the authorities on his death. The original editor has actually admitted as much that it was a terrible coincidence. Thus I was making the point that it was really original research. The reason I said it was a violation of BLP was because it stated that a subject was dead with no verification. Imagine the potential distress if Benoit hadn't actually died! Thus it's a violation of BLP.

I just want to make sure that you understand this and that I'm not intentionally being harsh. The only reason I said anything on the Signpost page was to suggest (or in fact warn) editors to be careful about this story. If anything I said made you upset, or if I wasn't clear about my motives, I apologise. I just want us to be careful about this story. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, as a total aside, I really like your opuses page. I have a similar thing, but probably not as extensive, on my focus article page. This has nothing to do with the previous comment, but when I see an editor who's so willing to edit the main article namespace I feel pretty happy for Wikipedia as a whole! I just don't see enough article editing... so I'd just like to say "thanks" for your hard work. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] from john green

Hi, Jay, I just wanted to say thanks for the spirited (and committed) defense of the wikipedia page about me. I really appreciate it. I have found myself wishing there were more content on the page, but never wishing that there was, like, random things I happened to say on blogs taken wildly out of context. So thanks. -John

[edit] Hi there!

Hi. This is grundle2600. My user name is a reference to the video game "Adventure" on the Atari 2600. "Grundle" is the name of the green dragon in that game. See Adventure (Atari 2600).

[edit] general concerns about stuff at AfD.

Your compromise was ignored in large part because of the large number of less useful lists that had preceded it. The first one of a number of similar things sets the pace, and people who want to delete a whole class will know enough to start with the weakest. The only tactic is to then nominate the strongest oneself, but this can be defeated by their then nominating separately each of the others. I think when defending classes of pages in the future, people who like the class of things should say when a weak one comes up, that they !vote to delete this, but will support anything more important. I see it both ways--for some things, I am trying to set a pattern of deletion, and for some things just the opposite. Decisions at a random group like Afd can be greatly influenced by the randomness of people who show up and what they pay attention to--I look once a day, but do not comment on most of the items. There are only a few who tend to comment on everything. This is aided by the ban on canvassing--obviously if there were not the ban, then everything could be kept if there were 8 or 10 people who would support it, unless there was equally strong opposition. But one can still canvass an interested group in a neutral way. It is not forbidden to announce a debate without indicating which way, provided you don't single out individuals, but something like a president's list could be announced at the history and the presidents workgroups for example. Not everyone there would vote to keep, but most would, if it were any good.

More generally, this sort of dynamics happens in face-to-face meetings also, but not as strongly because typically a much larger percent of the possible people are there. But to try to sneak something through when only your supporters are present has been a device used for centuries, and still effective.

What is not typical is that there is a very strong reluctance to improving things at AfD, and I think that should be addressed in general. I improve bios while they are there, and some others do the same, but there is nothing more common than for someone to say, it's notable, based n the following 3 references, and then not put them into the article so newcomers to the debate will see it. This is different from most groups--generally the way of getting something done is to amend the motion while its on the floor, so people dont have the usual length of time to react. It rarely works here, for better or worse, though some of the people more experienced in committee work do it very well.

That's another factor, which is that experienced people have an advantage. Obviously experience here at WP debates, but also from outside. I am experienced in committees, from university committees but also some geographically dispersed ones that do the business on the phone in conference calls, and some of the people here are a good deal more so. Use of postings--or even IRC is a different art, however, but I've some experience in that also. The reason important things work better in person is that it is easier to see when someone is really upset, and one can appeal non-verbally to the others. also, everyone has to leave in an hour or so, so some decision must be made, which can either encourage compromise, but also gives an opening to last minute reversals. (The last few days of congress or a state legislature are good examples.) (And some Afds have had sudden reversals also. The end , as well as the beginning, can be a strong position. )

The method I like best for things I think worth the trouble is to bring things up again, calmly, not pressing very hard, at intervals of several months. WP works much faster than that, so people who do have a long range plan and patience enough not to get into uncooperative modes along the way, can accomplish a good deal for whatever it is they support. (The way I keep from gettingto angry is to work on several different things. Most WP people concentrate on one, and then they tend to get into fights. Your user page says you're thinking of a 20-year period. I think in terms or 2 or 3 years.. (Please excuse my using your page for the rough draft of an essay)

[edit] Thanks for your recommendation, JayHenry.

in regard to the new article on Cecil Morgan. I will no longer send anything to Did You Know? Everything I have sent with one exception has been rejected and often ridiculed as "not unusual". One thing that was accepted for DYK was later removed from Wikipedia falsely on grounds of non-notability.

I am just contented to get my material included. No DYK for me.

Billy Hathorn

[edit] DYK

On 1 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Icadyptes salasi, 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.

[edit] Crocodiles, lions and hippos, oh my!=

I don't know how to do referencing and things but I can give you the information about where I found the information. Michaelritchie200 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I got my information from The Book Of General Ignorance. The exact words are,

Not many animals are stupid enough to attack a hippo ... They dispose of lions by plunging them into deep water and drowning them, crocodiles by biting them in half, and sharks by dragging them out of the water and trampling them to death.

Michaelritchie200 07:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ford fording the ford

Haha. Now that made me laugh. I thought about that and for a moment wished this was Uncyclopedia. : ) IvoShandor 11:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support, if virtual

Thanks very much for letting me know you'd support me. I appreciate it. I'm already really getting my feet wet with the extra buttons. Daniel Case 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost conflict of interest

Taking up your offer to take this discussion to user talk, I'm curious about those ArbCom cases you mentioned. It would put more meat on the debate for me to see some examples of real wiki problems with inadequate separation of power.--Chaser - T 02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chaser, I'm happy to discuss the philosophy behind a separation of powers principle on talk. And I privately e-mailed you a selection of ArbCom cases and RfCs that were highly contentious. I doubt that everyone is going to agree that all the cases I sent you indicate a problem, but I think most people will agree that there is some problematic behavior in there (and actually, just ask any wikipedian: 'what have been the 5-worst blow-ups on Wikipedia?' and see if you don't see any conflict that might be related to the sort of thing I'm talking about).

Also, I really want to again emphasize how much respect I have for Ral315. This is just not a personal thing at all. I really respect and like Ral315; as an aside I really like and respect several of the candidates that I opposed; Majorly who I've seen around a lot, is another example. But this is a general philosophical principle about how groups best function (principles being generally unpopular in wikipedia, I probably have many people who now think I am incredibly wrongheaded, have the wrong mindset for the project, just don't "get it", etc.) So I'm happy to engage and try to explain my position so that, even if we ultimately disagree, we can understand where others are coming from. --JayHenry 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite too. By the way, the statements in parentheses in the paragraph above don't hold true - if everyone thought the same way, then there would be no innovation, nor room to grow. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, even in the Essjay controversy, it is not a matter of having a class of super-users or anything like that. I actually consider that the mess would have been exactly the same, as the issue was not that a bureaucrat/arbitrator/IRC group contact/etc. broke the community's trust. It was that one of the most trusted users broke one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and there would have been outrage regardless of the amount of hats that he was wearing. There's no way to quantify that, though, so I guess we're both left to pure speculation; however, I think that the hats are a function of the community's confidence in one's judgment, not the other way around. While I won't give names, I think there are a few users in high-ranking positions within the community that should not be there. That they have a bit or two extra does not mean I have a blind trust in them, for assorted reasons.

I do agree that we have many trusted users; I do not agree that we need to make users pick and choose one "career path" and lose chances of getting involved in other areas. In the real world, that causes people to pick a career path, and use illicit means to reach higher positions within that same path, be it by connections, bribes, etc. If I know that I can't expand my field of opportunities, I may as well form a coalition that will allow me to retain the power I've fought hard for. That stems from a rigid checks-and-balances system; on the other hand, with a fluid checks-and-balances system, in which people are given the ability to rise upwards transparently, such things don't happen. Such a fluid system is more appropriate to Wikimedia's volunteer nature - trying to tell users to do something they may or may not particularly want just causes them to burn out more easily.

In a fluid system, there will be significant overlap between power groups, but due to users' own tendencies to concentrate on what they do best, there will never be complete overlap. The key to such a system is its flexibility: if you are afraid of a bureaucrat making a decision once a year to promote one of his buddies, make it easy to lose bureaucrat status. But that is impossible to do in the current climate, which has elevated bureaucratship to a goal in itself, instead of a way to serve the Wikipedia community.

More importantly, I just don't see Ral's position in the Signpost as a position of power at all; he just gets to do all the grunt work, and rarely any glory. That's what makes the conflict-of-interest issue baffling in my point of view. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity (2nd nomination)

You commented that there was a discussion, I looked at all the talk pages for each article suggested to be merged into the by age one, there was no active discussion at the time I put it up for deletion. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nature (journal)

I passed it as a GA -- nice work. The only trouble is I am not sure where to stick it here -- I ended up creating a new magazines and journals section. HOpe this suffices. There doesn't seem to be a general sciences section, though that would probably be useful. best, -- phoebe/(talk) 08:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I thought about all of those places -- education, general science, publications... I don't think education is quite right, but it's kind of a toss-up in my mind between general science and some sort of publications section. We also don't have a good section for non-fiction or "reference works" like they use here. It could be useful from a usability standpoint if the same classification was repeated across wikipedia, then we could see the gaps better... Anyway, I find it hard to believe that there aren't other "general science" articles out there that might get nom'ed, so it would probably be useful to create that category for GA.

RE: the superfluity of manga... there's a certain kind of dedication often on those very specific, fan-club types of articles to get them polished and nom'ed for whatever level they can be. I don't see the same level of passion on the general articles, core articles, or ones that you or I think might be "important".. I don't know what to do about this, as they often more difficult to write. I also think there are probably a lot of "hidden" nearly-GA quality articles out there that no-one has taken charge of nominating and polishing. There must be a project out there for this!

Anyway, I'm a science librarian (so have handled many an issue of Nature) and I learned something from the article, so again, nice work :) -- phoebe/(talk) 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneer, Go Home!

On 6 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pioneer, Go Home!, 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.

On 10 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Malagasy Hippopotamus, 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.

Rigadoun (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ral315 RfB

Hi Jay,

Thanks for requesting my input, although I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure whether my eccentric thought patterns should influence anyone but myself! :) I believe that, if Ral were truly serious about running for b'crat and addressing those concerned by the Signpost issue, he would have resigned his post as editor-in-chief already. I know there are other capable folks able to handle the task of putting the thing together; if the position is as "hands-off" as the more-forgiving side of you is now thinking, Ral wouldn't be losing anything. I don't believe anyone would have objections to his continuing to report for the Signpost, on non-RfA matters.

If I were Ral, with objections having been raised to a conflict-of-interest, I would have made a decisive choice: resign the editor-in-chief job and continue on to a unanimously successful RfB; or, if I valued my Signpost work more, withdraw the RfB. His failure to address the COI issue directly does worry me -- I expect b'crats to be sensitive to the appearance of legitimacy, ready to recuse themselves if there is even the slightest hint of compromising circumstance. My standards are high, but being a b'crat is a very contentious job. Such circumspection in a candidate is a great positive sign for the future; the lack of it is, contrariwise, disquieting.

If Ral really gets the message regarding COIs, he may always return to RfB after resigning. I do not for one moment accept the excuse that the "editor-in-chief" has little power at the Signpost. Even if that is true, the hifalutin sound of the title creates the implication of power. If an over-blown title is Ral's undoing, I won't regret that. He might always have chosen to reflect the humility of his office by calling himself "delivery boy", but he didn't. When one calls oneself "editor-in-chief", one should expect to be regarded as a person of importance. These two important jobs, in particular (maybe even more than b'crat and ArbCom), don't fit together very well. The wiki-press needs to have a healthy skepticism of those in high places, and not permit even the appearance of being beholden thereunto. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

Thank you, JayHenry, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, JayHenry, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

[edit] Ral RfB

I think one of the things is that is *is* a newsletter; unlike a number of the other writers for the thing, I do this professionally. It had never even occurred to me that people would think of the positions as being in conflict; people on the Board or working for the project in different capacities are no in conflict by holding administrative or bureaucrat bits, and editor of the newsletter isn't that important. The only issue I see that can cause conflict is if we writers for the Signpost started to throw our weight behind him constantly, he'd get the accusations of cabalship. The issue should be negligible; the positions really are not in conflict, if things are clarified as they would be in a professional environment. If either was a position of advocacy, it might be more of a problem, but both the editor and bureaucrat positions are defined by neutrality guidelines. --Thespian 05:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your respectful comments. I hadn't had time to revisit the issue again until now, so this was the first I saw of Cecropia's comments. I appreciate the concerns about the story being biased (although I'm a bit puzzled why nobody bothered to raise it there), and I've added a quote from you that helps make the discussion about Ral315 more balanced. Obviously, it's not actually possible to fully do justice to the debate in the context of a brief news summary. As the change comes more than a day after publication, it's not really possible to undo the effects that have already taken place, but I'm not sure what can be done about that.

I didn't notice that the bylined reporters had also supported Ral315's request, which gets into the thorny problem of how much a reporter must be restricted from expressing opinions even outside the pages of the newspaper or what-have-you. As you may know, some journalists refuse to vote at all on principle, while others find this a bit ridiculous and see no problem with journalists holding personal opinions so long as this does not show in their reporting.

From some of your observations elsewhere, it seems you have a decent grasp of the challenges in keeping the Signpost running. When it seems weak and amateurish, that's because what's there is all people have come up with. It always needs more people putting more diligent effort into reporting, especially since there's no particular limitation to its size. Its coverage could potentially be much broader in both subject matter and ensuring that important perspectives are covered. You, or people like you, seem like a good way to bring in additional perspectives without disrupting the effort. If those perspectives manifested themselves in the form of actual work product the Signpost can publish, I think you'd find it was much appreciated and would resolve some of your concerns. --Michael Snow 17:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat

Thanks for your comments. I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to keep your concerns in mind as I perform my duties. Andre (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Jay

I hadn't logged on to Wikipedia for a while and just saw your message. I'm kinda bummed because I won't be able to mess around on the wiki or the cove while at work (which of course, is the whole point!) Anyway, if you want to keep in touch, email is probably the best way to go (although that's blocked too). Looking forward to more PQ in August! OwenIsCool 23:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WikiProject_Novels_announcements}} there.
  While you are updating your userpage, don't forget our userbox {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/User WPNOVELS}}.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but other methods are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines / template outlines some things to include.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How dare you insult Hungry Hungry Hippos strategies?

At least you have a sense of humor. I need to find mine.[3] Oh, I just found out something important, Hungry Hungry Hippo is redlinked! KP Botany 04:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

sniff, sniff. I'm so touched. I knew I'd eventually do something barnstar worthy on Wikipedia. I will treasure this always. KP Botany 05:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT

Hi. I was just re-reading through the AfD for Chess Rules, and I saw you make this point. The same editor who is trying to get these articles for chess deleted also used similar tactics and arguments to get Glossary of sumo terms. It seems picking and choosing articles to prove a point goes against WP:POINT the way I just read it. Anyways, hopefully someone will close the chess rules AfD soon. XinJeisan 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template Question

Thanks for your offer to help. I have created User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired and am having one minor problem. Every NFL draft has an article about it (for example: 1997 NFL Draft). I have successfully created a feature that when someone enters a year for the draftyear function, it creates a link to that draft article. I am trying to do the same with debutyear and finalyear so that they would link to the appropriate season. Thus entering debutyear=1997 should result in [[1997 NFL season|1997]]. You can view the template test page at User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired/test. Any help would be much appreciated. I'm watching this page so you can either comment her or on the template talkpage and i'll see it. Thanks for your offer to help, it is much appreciated. Jmfangio| ►Chat  10:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK Next Update

Minor changes (and even major changes) to the wording are acceptable, but if possible it is best to suggest the changes on the nomination page beforehand, to check it is OK with the nominator, as sometimes people will change the wording just before it goes live and inadvertently change the sense at the same time. Thanks for your help, we only need a few people doing it occasionally to make a big difference. Yomangani^talk 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your humorous hammer response on TenPoundHammer's second RfA, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters award you the Barnstar of Good Humor. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-French relations

No problem. I like DYKs :) Keep up the good job! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippo taxa

You do have sources for it on the Hippo page and the Taxonomy section is quite robust. My point was in part that "The Hippo is the closest land relative of the cateceans" and "the cateceans are the closest living relatives of the Hippo" are two distinct points. You need to source the relative unrelatedness of the Hippo to Ruminantia and Suina as much as its relatedness to cateceans. Hope that makes sense.

Also, I'm concerned that after ref 10 no more research papers appear. For generic descriptions (e.g. oldest Hippo turns 55) newspapers are fine, but for facts of biology you ought to have scientific sources. Good luck, Marskell 07:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK Credits

Thanks for doing that, I had to go out. Yomangani^talk 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clara the rhinoceros

I have removed the template from the article after consulting the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject:Biography. I had assessed it since a template was previously put onto the article without realized that animals are not in the scope of the project. Sorry about that mistake. Captain panda 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austin M. Knight

Thanks for the suggestion to nominate Austin M. Knight for DYK. I had not previously realized that feature had any use beyond self-gratifying publicity, so your note about how DYK helps attract more editors was very helpful! I've inlined the references and submitted the article. Morinao 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippo reply

(I like to start new threads if there's a couple intervening!)

I think it would be fine to cite a good book for academic disagreement, rather than all the papers. But if you can, go to google scholar etc. and look for the papers themselves; if they've been cited more recently, you may find a useful update. I see that you've done much work and that refs have started to increase, particularly in the Description section (for an animal as well covered as the Hippo, I would expect to see more than 20 or 25 all round). So good then—glad you're having fun! I plan to update my comment on the FAC within a day or two. Marskell 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantium under the Komnenoi, and Did You Know?

On July 25, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantium under the Komnenoi, which you suggested for DYK. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for suggesting this article for DYK! I'm proud to see it has succeeded in reaching the main page today, and I owe you my thanks for suggesting the idea. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 14:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On 25 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article When Heaven and Earth Changed Places, 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.

I had an article I wrote and one I suggested make it on the same update! Yay! --JayHenry 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, 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.

[edit] Hello Again

I'm baack :-). Okay, so I'm trying to bite off a pretty major "template" issue and I'm wondering if you would help. The community has built a new template for use on National Football League player pages ({{Infobox NFLactive}}). You can see it in place on an article like Michael Vick. {{Infobox_NFL_player#Team_colors}} lays out the accepted colors for NFL teams. On NFLactive, I would like tohave the currentteam field dictate what colors should used for primarycolor and secondarycolor. I can easily work it in so that if the colors are "queried" i can pull them in. This seems similar to the {{flagicon}} feature, but it is pretty advanced. Do you have any suggestions? I've tried reading some of the stuff on it, but I'm obviously missing something. I have marked this for watching if that will help. Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Steal my thunder why don't you :-)! You rule, spectacular work! Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That was a great edit you made to the template. How exactly do the colors fill themselves in? I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to template stuff.►Chris Nelson 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• D'oh you beat me to it...forgot about that darn bug :-) Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, being that you are more template-savvy than I, do you think you could un-autolink (if that's the right wording) the position section? See my comment here about why I feel it's necessary.►Chris Nelson 04:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah sorry, one more request. Is there any way you can make the whole NFL debut section optional, as in it only appears when it has info filled in? For rookies, it created some ugly stuff. See Ted Ginn, Jr. for an example.►Chris Nelson 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please be aware that there are some heated debates over the template. I obviously welcome your adjustments and such, but please be aware that a wiki alert is in place so that differences between Chrisjnelson and I can be worked out. There is some discussion needed about his requested "adjustments" and with all of the current "issues" already opened, it might be best if we wait until these issues are dealt with. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well just because Jmfangio doesn't want to discuss other unrelated issues doesn't mean the rest of us can't.►Chris Nelson 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I took this reply here because I felt this shouldn't take up any more of the template talk page's space (it's already done WAY too much of that). I appreciate your attempts to help, but I have absolutely no desire to discuss anything with him ever again. However, I'd love if you could discuss the issues I asked about earlier, located here and here. Thanks.►Chris Nelson 05:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bertramka

Hi Jay! Many thanks for your kind comments on Bertramka. I was not aware of how the DYK operated, so I've learned something. I only found your message tonight. I am not technically minded, and have just been struggling with learning how to operate a digital camera and, in the last few days, since returning from Prague, the techniques of uploading onto computers, wiki commons etc. I've now added an image to the Bertramka page and made some improvements, and also created two new articles so that there are no red links in Bertramka. I have put in a nomination. I don't know whether it will be considered too late, but thought I could give it a try, dating it today. Incidentally, I can see the bot nomination under 21 July but cannot find it in the "edit" mode. Perhaps me being technically stupid again?

I'd like to tell you the connection between Mozart and hippos but I can't. Cheers. Hikitsurisan 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generations reformatting

I posted to the Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion#Template:Generations a suggestion to reformat this awful table into a useful navigation box. I'd be interested in your thoughts at the tfd. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am looking again at both the box and the theory as a whole. DGG (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

re-read, and checking Google Scholar also. the basic theory is not generally accepted academically. It's extreme fringe--the seminal work has been referred to zero times in the major American history journals , 2x in journals about Chinese history, and a total of 56x only, half web sites, the others almost all journals in applied social science--one mainstream anthropological journal. For a general theory of world or american history, that's trivial attention. 13th generation, possibly the best known, only 47 times,again mostly web & peripheral subjects--one good history ref. saying it's important.

it's better known popular--the theory is import as pop history, but the article outrageous POV, with criticism section repeatedly removed. It and the others are a walled garden. To save myself aggravation, I wont touch it.

The only articles which stand up are the ones where they have adopted other peoples ideas and appropriated it.

What is wrong with your compromise is that it does exactly what it should not do--it puts the template highlighting a fringe theory on other articles where the theory does not in most scholar's opinion apply. I'd have less objection to a nav box that included only their own articles, but that wouldn't be complete. It wont be complete anyway, for they've never been able to write and keep articles for all the periods. I will conceivably accept a box that includes gen. XY Z and C, but it is altogether wrong to call their theory to the attention so prominently of those looking at the article of the Great awakening or the Jazz Age. I await your comments before posting. I have no objection to articles on pseudo-social science any more than pseudo-science, as long as it doesn't pretend to be mainstream. I don't insist on calling it pseudo-. In fact, I've argued elsewhere against using that term.

By the way, the proposal should have included the related template: U.S.Generations. But it might be well to wait until this succeeds. if it fails, i will nom them in a month or so both together. I'm sorry if this isn't the response you expected.DGG (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

DGG (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your comments--thats why i posted them to you first & have not yet posted on the page. and it is true that in the long discussions I sometime forget that I have spoken before--let alone who proposed what. I also need to check the templates--I did think there may be another one out there. I've meanwhile been trying to figure something out, that will provide a way to get the articles linked and still not obtrude.I think I've worked out something & will add it to the discussion. DGG (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding

You say "The system has no purpose outside the context of Hofstadter's book." That's a pretty non-intellectual understanding of the book GEB, the system PQ (logic), and the wikipedia. Do you know what it means for one statement to be a "syntactic consequence" of another? Because FS, and PQ are pretty useful in elucidating that concept. Gregbard 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Congrats for a big fat hippo FA..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes more concise articles are easier as you can have a well-defined topic. Some of the dino FAs are on critters with limited material. I think its a great idea. Look at all the FA whales and now cats...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit to T:TDYK

Hi, I'm sorry, but I had to place back your removal of the July 22 nom. July 22 has expired; it is 8 days old, and five days is the limit. Please pick articles from only the last five days. Please do not add this to the next update. regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok. Everyone makes a little mistake once in a while :) Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hank Green

Ah, I see. Well caught. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lonelygirl15

the reason is that this should be deleted is because its not even a tv show--Physik 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hi Jay. Thanks for reviewing me over at WP:ER. You're the first one to review my edits. Thanks for all your suggestions; I'll definitely follow them! See you over at the LGPedia! *silver*► 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kubadabad Palace

Thank you for your kind words Jay. I will think about your suggestion a little while more, but I think I will target a featured article on that one. I am filling in the red links for the moment. Thanks again. Cretanforever 23:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, and for keeping an open mind. I also have to say that I very much agree with you, that some of the opposers with a "long memory for a slight" have made for a frustrating experience. I've had several people come to me over the last year and basically say that if I want to make admin, the thing to do is to start a new account, keep my nose clean for a few months, and then I'll get voted in as a nobody with a clean record. I probably could have brought multiple accounts to admin status by now. But, that's not who I am. I've made the decision to stay on one account, as me, and work through things, learning from my mistakes and steadily improving. I'm confident that I can maintain my sense of integrity, and make mistakes, and still go on and make admin someday.  :) Best wishes, --Elonka 05:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks! RMS Dunottar Castle makes Aug 6th DYK.

It was your recommendation that made it happen. -- Ctatkinson 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template help again

I wanted to adjust {{Infobox NFLactive}} so that when player has no notable achievements, the highlights formats with a blocked bullet and the message. Not surprisingly, the workaround does not seem to fix the problem. Got any ideas? Let me know if i did not explain myself well enough. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• You rock! I'm gonna look for a barnstar. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Svidersky AfD

Howdy! On the Anna Svidersky AfD you expressed sentiments to keep the content regarding the notability of the aftermath following her death. I recently created the Mourning sickness article with a section ascribed to Svidersky and the reaction to her death. My intent is to respect the content that you and other "Keep advocates" have wished to retain but still maintain the encyclopedic focus on what is actually notable about Anna Svidersky. If you have an opportunity, feel free to review the article and give me any feedback about what I can do to improve it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfD

I noticed that you voted to keep the Wp:an/i and Wp:afd redirects at the Redirects for deletion page. I also voted to keep these redirect pages. I thought that if they were removed, then I would not automatically get to the pages I was looking for if I happened to type all lowercase letters, which would be pretty inconvenient. However, it turns out I was wrong. The software will automatically send someone to the appropriate page, even if they type all lowercase, and even if the redirect pages are deleted. It's just like a redirect, but without the redirect page. Deleting them will remove needless clutter in mainspace searches. With this knowledge, I wonder if you might consider changing your vote to delete. Thanks, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippo FAC

PS: Do you want me to start on the fixes? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I actually just drifted by following another FAC I actually happened on. I do check potential biological FAC's from time-to-time, but I guess I'll keep watching this one for now. Not sure I can keep 100% of my wikiattention on it though, I'm currently also embroiled in another...rather heated IfD. Not zoologically-related though, but you know how these AfD/IfDs quickly sap our wikienergy. :P Shrumster 14:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked it over and it's getting better. Personally, it still needs a lot of work though. And I still do have issues with the structure, it's not something I can readily turn off. But I've already given permission to just discount my vote on the FAC so don't worry about that. Getting really close to wikiburnout so I'm probably just going to stop for a while. Shrumster 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pygmy Hippopotamus

re: Prehistoric Species, you are saying "this acts as a disambiguation page". The most straightforwards way to deal with this (and pretty standard as far as Wikipedia is concerned) is an actual disambiguation page with a notice at the top, like "this page is about the extant species Choreopsis liberiensis, for other species called "pygmy" or "dwarf hypopotamus", see Pygmy hippopotamus (disambiguation)". Another solution is to properly refocus the section as "similarly named species", but honestly, that still makes the content superfluous. Dwarf Hippopotamus (and its lowercase parent Dwarf hippopotamus) would then be redirected to that page.

re: "Evolution", I think the section as is is simply way too detailed for the topic at end. As I read through it, I kept thinking "but where is this species involved??". The first 5 paragraphs could easily be, for the purpose of this article, condensed to maybe 2, with a link at the top {{See also|Hippopotamidae#Evolution}} for the detailed evolution of the family as a whole. Also, try to specifically mention the species early in the section.

Does that make more sense to you? Circeus 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Evolution section looks much better. There's still a few things that confuse me, though.

• If Choeropsis and Hippopotamus diverged "as far back as 8 mya", wouldn't that push the divergence back prior to Archaeopotamus, the ancestor of Hippopotamus? Looks like you mean "the branches that would become", not the genus themselves.
• Also, when you say that Archaeopotamus is the ancestor of "the modern hippopotamus" I think it should be clearer that this excludes the species being discussed.

Other than that, it looks great. Maybe the fact that Choeropsis and Hexaprotodon are quite distant on the tree should be mentioned in the earlier bit about the disputed placement?

I'm still iffy about the "other species" section. Now tat I'm looking at it, shouldn't C. madagascariensis be mentioned earlier, since it is the closest related species in the classification used for the article? Circeus 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A new section is entirely unwarranted. Such content should, in my opinion, be in the first part of the section (probably right after the superfamily mention), along the line of "C. liberiensis' closest parent was the Madagascan Pygmy Hippopotamus (Choeropsis madagascariensis)". I had a shot at transferring the content. How does it look? It makes it necessary to add some citation for the content to which it was tacked, though, since it now looks like the Madagascan Hippo cites cover the entire paragraph... Circeus 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your support and kind words. Yes, I can get it that the hook can sometimes be tricky and once a person gets into a certain thinking, it is difficult to get out of it. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here ya go btw

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For continued contributions to various templates Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay - here's a new one!!!

I think i may be able to stump you. For {{Infobox NFLactive}} if the current team is set to "Free agent", could we automatically add them to Category:National Football League free agents? If so, and there are no "technical" concerns, I'm all ears. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now that was cool! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 12 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mauve Gloves & Madmen, Clutter & Vine, 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.

[edit] Thanks for your comment

Thank you very much for your enthusiastic comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your note. I appreciate it. Andre (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CUR-CHICOTW

I would appreciate your comments on the newly redesigned {{CUR-CHICOTW}}--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we there yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from Scartol

I want to thank you for your kind comment on the DYK proposal page. I'd like to see my article about Robert E. Murray featured, but even if it doesn't ever make it onto the page, it's really nice to get some positive feedback after months of what has only ever been negative commentary from admins in this place. -- Scartol 02:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks again. I really appreciate your assistance and support. You've kept me from wanting to throw in the WikiTowel. -- Scartol 13:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 15 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dele Olojede, 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.

[edit] DYK

On 16 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Tuohy, 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.

[edit] If you are around

I have a question that isn't so much "how to implement" something, but rather - what's the best way to implement it. If you are and don't mind helping, LMK! I can either ask here or on my talk page..whichever works best for you. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, i'm back in the swing of things - so if you are still willing to chat, the conversation is still up at my talk page. Thanks again. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Just FYI, there's another comment for you on my tp. If you want to do other things and leave this to us, that's certainly okay by me :-). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award Annals links

I am concerned that you are interpreting too strictly WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. These guidelines can be interpreted so as to reject all external links, or to include all external links, depending on the temperament of the interpreter. The purpose of the guidelines is to promote and guide critical thinking about what is helpful and what is not.

Why do you think the links useless? You went so far as to say the pages were not about the Pulitzers at all. Pulitzer_Prize_for_Biography_or_Autobiography is a page that lists the winners of that prize, and I inserted a link that lists the winners/finalists of that prize ranked according to other honors they have received. It is extra, useful information that is unlikely to be included in WP. It's inclusion is easily allowed by the guidelines, and the others similarly. KennyLucius 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happyslip

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that, as suggested by User:Jreferee, I nominated Happyslip for DYK [Did You Know?]: see here. The article is also a B-Class now (see Talk page). If it succeeds, however, it will be put on main page in a day or two, so let's keep in contact through the talk page ;) cheers -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Svidersky part deux II

Howdy! I hope you don't mind the second interruption but there is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving disagreements over the outcome of the last AfD. We'd like to get some additional input so that we can amicably resolve those disagreements and your thoughts would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK August 23

On 23 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article JayHenry, 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.

Wow, that was a serious violation of WP:COI for me to have written that article and nominated it for DYK! Good thing nobody noticed... I need the publicity. --JayHenry 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: On Wikistress

Hi JayHenry -- Many thanks for your comment, and sorry for taking so long to respond (I was deep in writing a couple of DYK articles, and then getting some sleep...) It's actually rather timely -- a few weeks ago I would have said that I'd experienced a lot less stress this time round; however, at the moment, a number of tiny things are beginning to niggle again. I really must walk away for a cooling-off period! I've been finding DYK an excellent haven where article creation is actually valued -- which seems increasingly rare in much of the rest of the encycopedia, unfortunately.

I do have a couple of articles that I would love to get to Good status eventually: bovine papillomavirus and William Gaskell. (Listed buildings in Nantwich, Cheshire might be another possibility, perhaps as a list, though I need to get around to adding all the photos I've been taking.) Any help, advice or encouragement would be sincerely appreciated, as I have to admit I tend to put off working on them in favour of the much easier gratification of my urge to remove red links. Cheers, Espresso Addict 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Days Before the Shooting

On 26 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Three Days Before the Shooting, 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.

[edit] Thanks for the star

The whole thing was kind of surreal. With a couple of exceptions, the first several responses were deletes. I kept thinking: OK, any second there'll be a tidal wave of astonished keeps to confirm this isn't a Twilight Zone episode. In the end it came, but it took its sweet time about it. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strauss etc.

Hi, I decided that I don't really want to get involved in that particular mess. But I totally agree that most of those article should be rolled into the article about the book - there are both notability (undue weight) and IP issues with reproducing their whole "theory" at length in wikipedia. --Peta 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They're quite painful to read - the early ones are just composed of marketing babble and don't actually say anything of note. I'd probably just make a forth column on the book page and summarize each one in a sentence or two, then redirect back to the book article. --Peta 05:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK thanks!

Thanks for the update - i saw that - and thought - how cool!! :-). Let me know if you have some time to look into the sort by winning percentage issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK - The Virgin Islands Daily News

On 30 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Virgin Islands Daily News, 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.

[edit] Did you know...

On 3 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Carroll (journalist), 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.

You wrote an article about a different John Carroll? Well congrats on the DYK, its a very interesting article there. Thanks for the Barnstar, and your help on the article and its process!--Patrick Ѻ 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

		Thanks...
	Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. Even though you didn't support my candidacy, I did greatly appreciate your comments, which I will certainly put to good use in improving myself as an editor. I do plan to make another request in a few months, once I have improved upon your concerns. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Eggan

You did quite well, and the article is being defended well, & clearly headed for a keep. I cannot figure what bothered the nom., a usually reliable editor. Only real thing it needed was to have the actual articles and number of references for the most-cited papers added. I did it with Web of Science, but Google Scholar would have done fairly well. And I went through and removed some more remnants of PR talk & there's still a little more to go. I have never seen a PR job that didnt need re-editing, but this was bette than most. DGG (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 5 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article M200G Volantor, 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.

[edit] Citation style in M200G Volantor

I just noticed that the article you started employs an interesting citation style trick. Could this be the way for all articles? There's now a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, so you might want to leave a note. GregorB 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] silent generation

I think this term is used other than Strauss and Howe , and the article reflected it. As there was in my opinion no consensus to merge on the talk page--no discussion in fact of this particular one-- I am restoring it in place of the redirect. I yield to none in my lack of enthusiasm for the Generations pseudotheory, but this one is an encyclopedic subject. DGG (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA: Question

Answered. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Best. Question. Ever. Joe 02:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audioslave

I reckon there's quite a bit that could be moved to articles Audoslave's albums and singles, esp. the critical reaction to each album. I'll copyedit afterwards; it'll be a better time to tackle concerns about flow. CloudNine 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pablos Hippos

Man that is the most insane story! It has clear conservation issues of a critter that could be a pest - I'd write a paragraph or two and put it under conservation or captivity bit - either is OK. (Wow cool...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Ever go back to Romania? I went there but am frustrated as have roots there and doing genealogy there is next to impossible....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link removals

Hi JayHenry, thanks for your message and the reference links. I don't completely understand why the links were removed however. The links are very similar to an actor having a link to imdb.com - which is quite common throughout wikipedia. UgcDb.com is like an "imdb" but for user-generated content. It's a relatively new site. The contributions are very similar to wikipedia as well - the contributions come from dedicated editors and the community. Some other users have added the links to ugcDb.com profiles in wikipedia and they're still present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froopstr (talk • contribs) 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: NPOV

I fully agree. You see, my comment was not meant to criticise yours, but rather as an explanation of why I agree with your basic contentions. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban Ki-moon

No, it's perfectly fine. Thank you so much for taking interest in this person & developing it into a featured article. You've done a great job. : ) Yes, I'll see if I can make any improvements on the article some time later.(Wikimachine 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Do you have time for a peer review?

Hello there. Given your past generosity toward my editing work, I wonder if you have time to do a peer review of Honoré de Balzac, a page I'm looking to nominate as an FAC. There's a request at WP:BIOPR or you can just leave comments on the HdB talk page. (Or on my talk. Wherever.) Thanks in advance! — Scartol · Talk 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering for the peer review.

Do you mind if I jump in and make minor WP:MOS fixes myself?)

No, go for it. I'm curious to see what slipped through my day-long combing with MOS in hand.

P.S. I've recently submitted a peer review myself

I'll have a look when I can, probably this weekend. Thanks again. — Scartol · Talk 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look at that. I had some time tonight. It's at the place. Cheers! — Scartol · Talk 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the HdB review. I was hoping to get away with just minor repairs, but I will defer to your experience and find myself some more sources. As for a link to a review indicating the value of a source I do have – where does such a thing go? (I assume not in the article itself?) — Scartol · Talk 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the list of works – is the problem that there are so many works, or just that the subheads take up so much of the TOC? I can fix the latter with changing subheads to simple bold type. Cheers. — Scartol · Talk 12:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of wisdom. I'm going to take your advice and visit the UW library to get some more info and cull from the two External Links items you mentioned, just to give it as much oomph as I can before we descend into the FAC netherworld. I'm glad you told me about the "oppose" format; I can see myself getting chagrined about that. (And you know how fragile my ego is, heh.) Cheers for all your support and guidance. — Scartol · Talk 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough for reminding me of my proximity to the UW Madison libraries. Today I checked out eight good books about Balzac, realism, and naturalism. (They gave me a card since I'm a HS teacher in the area.) Next stop: FAC! — Scartol · Talk 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've finished my latest major revision. If it's not ready for an FA nomination now, I'll eat my shoes. (Note: I own shoes made out of fine gouda cheese.) Thanks as always for your support and let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. (I'm going to hold you to your offer of a vote in support of FA status once the nom is open! That was you, right?) — Scartol · Talk 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked: "So when is Balzac heading over to FAC?" I was just telling Awadewit how jealous I get seeing other folks racking up the stars. WillowW made some good notes, which I need to implement (basically, adding some details about his adult life and rearranging the info in Style and Legacy a bit. Now that school's started, I'm often pretty wiped out in the afternoon/evening. So it may have to wait for the weekend. (Geez, I just wrote "evening" there instead of "weekend". I'm so out of it.) I have this horrible fear that someone's going to come along and fix the stuff that needs fixing and then nominate it and take all the credit. I need a nap or something. – Scartol · Talk 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm off to fix a few link-related things and then post the nom itself. So it may be up by the time you read this. Also, can I take your comments as verification that Awadewit is a she? I spent some serious time scouring the userpage for a sign one way or another and I couldn't find a thing. Of course it doesn't matter, except I hate using the wrong referential pronouns. Scartol · Talk 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: NPOV

I fully agree. You see, my comment was not meant to criticise yours, but rather as an explanation of why I agree with your basic contentions. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban Ki-moon

No, it's perfectly fine. Thank you so much for taking interest in this person & developing it into a featured article. You've done a great job. : ) Yes, I'll see if I can make any improvements on the article some time later.(Wikimachine 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work in getting Ban Ki-moon promoted to FA status. Nice work! PC78 07:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, congrats on the FA! Well done. – Scartol · Talk 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 17 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ryan White Care Act, 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.

Thanks again Jay. Where do you get all this really eclectic variety of articles from? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

JayHenry,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Dreadstar

[edit] Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

I will do my very best to live up to the trust that has been placed in me, and I hope to earn yours one day as well. Dreadstar † 09:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just trying to help out

I hope I'm not intruding - please let me know if I am. I noticed over at Scartol's page that you mentioned you were having trouble with access to good libraries. Usually, large state universities let residents of the state check out books. Is that an option for you? (I can't believe your alma mater won't let you check out books! Perhaps if you gave them $10 million?) Also, most public libraries participate in interlibrary loan. You could get the most important or rarest books that way. I am a big fan of wikipedians doing hard core research, so anything I can do to assist that process, I will. Awadewit | talk 03:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

hate to be a wet blanket, but nobody is likely to get rare books that way. Fortunately, everything before 1920 will soon be on Google Scholar. State universities vary, and are certainly worth trying. DGG (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abolish?

You are seriously overreacting. Nobody is trying to abolish anything, a page move is not a big deal, and whereas several people on the admin board said not to do it because it wouldn't help, nobody said that it would actually cause problems. If several people see a benefit and nobody sees a harm, that sounds like a good action to me. >Radiant< 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Well, of course I don't mind waiting around for a while more. But I don't think there is substantial objection to this change (and it really isn't a big chance to begin with). At least, the only objection raised so far is that it might not help. Other than that the objection is mainly from a trio of aggressive editors that continually sidetrack discussions into ad hominems. This is all rather unfortunate, and to my knowledge Wikipedia lacks the means of dealing with such people. >Radiant< 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am aware of that. Unfortunately nobody seems to be willing to tell them that. This makes for a one-sided situation with a lot of sniping going on atm. >Radiant< 13:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] <ref>, etc.

Hi,

Thanks for the comment on <refhide> on my talk page. I'm at a loss as to how and where to push cite.php extensions as well. I got the idea <refhide> via previous discussion about the "hidden section trick" mainly here. See the example using the "hidden section trick" here, which is conceptually similar to the <refhide> usage I described.

Actually, I'd like to see several enhancements to cite.php, but I'm afraid that bundling them up, even for discussion, might make it seem like too much change. The changes I'd like to see break down to several unrelated changes, and perhaps it's best to introduce them one at a time.

All together (and not really well thought out yet), the changes would include

1. A way for editors to control ordering of expanded references - Refhide provides that.

2. A way to put subheads (actually arbitrary blocks of wikitext) in an ordered lists of references.

In an article, this would look something like:

References

This is a subhead

1.This is a numbered reference.

2.This is a numbered reference.

This is a subhead

3.This is a numbered reference.

This might be produced in an ordered list of reference definitions with some wikitext like:

<refhide>
<refhead>'''This is a subhead'''</refhead>
<ref name=abc>This is a numbered reference.</ref>
<ref name=def>This is a numbered reference.</ref>
<refhead>'''This is a subhead'''</refhead>
<ref name=xyz>This is a numbered reference.</ref>
</refhide>

In Cite.php, it looks to me as this can be easily implemented by adding processing of the new <refhead> tag so that it would be stacked with $this->stack( $str, 0 );. function stack{$str,$key} in Cite.php currently considers numeric arguments in $key to be illegal. This could be changed to allow a numeric zero and process it by stacking it with a zero value for the 'number' element of the $this->$mrefs[$key] array. A zero value for ['number'] is currently not used, and could be detected during unstacking to generate the subhead format instead of the numbered reference format.

3. A way to have multiple named reference sections, so that the cite.php mechanism which editors could use to generate multiple separate footnote sections as they deem appropriate (for table footnotes, footnotes to sections and subsections, etc.) As I see it, this could be done (speaking generally -- I've never been an object-oriented programmer) by having an array of objects of class Cite (let's call it $list), changing all instances in Cite.php of $this-> to $this->$list['refname'], adding an optional list="listname" parameter to <ref>, and defaulting that optional parameter to "references") if not supplied.

All of the above is backwards compatible with existing wikitext.

I've thought about testbeding this stuff myself, but I don't have a testbed wiki to do it on. I've tried putting Wamp, Mediawiki, and Cite.php up on a couple of WinXP systems I have, and haven't been able to get it going. I have a hosted website out there, but its host has php-4 and mediawiki requires php-5. I have a linux system, but my linux system manager skills are numerous years out of date.

I hope some of the foregoing was interesting and/or useful. -- Boracay Bill 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(later) I saw your response on my talk page, and have responded there. -- Boracay Bill 04:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Chinua Achebe

Thanks for making the CA cat. Since I've already had a full week to catch my breath from HdB, it's time for me to undertake my next insanely-intense WP assignment. My main problem is going to be images – I'm going to have to use some related stuff, I expect. Thanks again. – Scartol · Talk 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cosmic freakin' order, as a friend of mine used to say. Yeah, I'd like to take Achebe to FA, since he's the most important author to come out of Africa in the 20th century. Things Fall Apart is one of the most important (and excellent) books I've ever read, and both he and that book deserve highly-polished pages. It took some work to find an actual biography – most of the stuff I've found are in-depth explorations of his novels. I've never read his Conrad piece, so I'll have to reserve judgment until I do. Alas, I recently found out that I can login from school, so now I'm editing here instead of grading papers. Bad teacher! Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LG15

Um, whoa. Creepy, much?

Yes, it's me :) I'm still working on getting in contact with Greg. He's been crazy-busy prepping for that live KM event on Saturday, so I'm not even sure I'll be able to get in touch with him before next week. I promise as soon as I know, I'll let you know!

And I must officially scold you for missing chat last night! *scold*

--Zoeydahling 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine fine. I still call "creepy" though. Come on IRC, I'll tell you the latest? I don't want to post it publicly.. and I'm too lazy to open up my e-mail. Yep. --Zoeydahling 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

(Just leaving a note here in case you haven't watchlisted/miss my comments amongst everything else) You opposed, stating that "I'm unhappy with the behavior here and here. I understand these are your friends; do you understand the concerns about this behavior?" Well, the answer is no - I don't see what "behaviour" you refer too. Could you please elaborate? Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow of God

On 23 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arrow of God, 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.

[edit] Did you know

On 24 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 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.

[edit] Re: Your RFA was successful

Thanks, JayHenry! I'll do my best to wield the mop & bucket wisely. Regards, Espresso Addict 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carson

Thanks for your very helpful comments about Rachel Carson. I've tried to address all your concerns, and I invite you to evaluate the revisions. Thanks again, ragesoss 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your very helpful review of Rachel Carson. ragesoss 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 28 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast, 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.

[edit] Template review

I've made a template – {{MoSElement}} – which is designed to give an article's talk page a place for listing which optional standards the page is following. I wonder if you could have a look and tell me if I'm missing anything? Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 13:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to keep bothering you, but at Awadewit's suggestion I've made a Template Tutorial. I have no idea what your level of template skill is, but I'd love to have someone kind beta-test it for me. Would you be able and/or willing? Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 23:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I happened upon this discussion and have used the MoSElement template in an article that JayHenry is reviewing: Harold Pinter; see Talk:Harold Pinter. Thanks. --NYScholar 10:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks

As I suspected I didn't need to. At any rate I was having a rather pissed off evening already, so it was less of me being apologetic and more me trying to avoid being uncivil. :) -WarthogDemon 18:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Pinter

JayHenry: I have updated my comments in Talk:Harold Pinter after making the changes that you suggested in your earlier comments and replies to mine; I have posted an update there and also at User talk:WillowW#Harold Pinter, addressed to both of you. I appreciate the help of both you and Willow with the "good article" review, and I hope that you will both be able to pass it now. As I've said, I have to turn back to my non-Wikipedia work. Thanks again! :-) --NYScholar 07:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007

The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your support and encouragement, especially during the FA-ization of Honoré de Balzac, I offer this humble token of thanks. – Scartol · Talk 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the Barnstar of High Culture uses a Hollywood star as its image? – Scartol · Talk 12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... that really is bad. The book you created is much better. --JayHenry 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey, you qualify for this...

		The Featured Article Medal
		To JayHenry for his trois FAs..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am so proud! --JayHenry 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : RfA/R 2

Since you talked about single-letter usernames, you might be interested in something rather parallel... ;) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a little gem of an article. I love finding this sort of stuff on Wikipedia. --JayHenry 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Just a sidenote: I have had/do have interaction with other Wikipedians, I just prefer to do so on IRC, which is why I don't have a ton of talk-space edits. You also voiced concerns about how my bot was so great but I didn't have that many edits. While this is true, if I had taken the time I put into my bot and put it into other areas of Wikipedia, I would have more edits which would put me up around that of other administrators passing RfA. My bot has over 40k edits, which, due to the nature of bots, could be considered mine. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 07:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C of the EU Peer Review

Hi, thanks a lot for your comments for the peer review on Council of the European Union, they've been very helpful. I think I've sorted out the points, but history and powers may still be lacking (very hard to get data on these). I'd be greatful if you could tell me if I've sorted out the points enough. Thanks for your time. - J Logan ^t: 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, I am such a bad person, I haven't done this yet!! --JayHenry 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments, once I manage to get the information for it I should be able to sort it now, very helpful, thanks! - J Logan ^t: 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

On 13 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ana's Story, 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.

Did you know? was updated. On 13 October 2007, a fact from the article A Man of the People, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WjBscribe 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] African Affairs

On 13 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article African Affairs, 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.

[edit] WP:DYK 25 Woot! Toot!

Not sure if you're into this kinda thing but you qualify, noticed you add yourself to the list. Allow me to toot said horn.

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Awarded to JayHenry for 25, errrr 28, rather, great contributions to Did You Know?. Keep up the great work and know that your contributions are appreciated by me, and, at the risk of overstepping my bounds, the rest of the community. Onward ho! IvoShandor 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, keep on keepin' on and such. I don't think Mattisse is worthless, but I am utterly confused by his constant and often wholly confusion opposition me at DYK. IvoShandor 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Dear JayHenry, ______ __ __ __ /\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\ \/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/ /\___/ \/__/ For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes. The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Expand for picture....

[edit] Picture of the Week

A picture that you uploaded entitled Dead Javan Rhino.jpg has been selected as Picture of the Week on the Portal Indonesia for the Week 46, 2007. Thank you for your contribution to promote images of Indonesia.

— Indon (reply) — 11:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Rhino Foundation

On 16 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Rhino Foundation, 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.

[edit] Churchill quote

Thanks for this. I like it even better that way, and am going to fix it on my userpage forthwith. And thanks for compliment! Professor marginalia 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help and suggestions about the new article I created on the book about South Park. I love the way you have organized your user page. Do you mind if maybe in the future I copy some of the elements from it? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cillian Murphy FA

I'm not saying that MeltyGirl ignored all of the suggestions, only the ones that she disagrees with. SandyGeorgia has given some other examples of problems with the article such as unreliable resources (IMDB), there is at least one example of mismatched sources, then there is of course the tone of the article which seems to read more like a fan site than an encyclopedia full of weasel words. No featured article should be in the category of "articles with unsourced statements". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm catching up with everything tonight, and I can't thank you enough for all your help with the article and the process. I thought everyone was supposed to take your attitude of seeing all the good things and then helping out with the few things that aren't quite right, in the interest of improving Wikipedia, rather than closing the door on something that's just about there for a few minor things. The whole blue eyes objection has been really baffling, so thanks for using Nexis on that to really demonstrate that verifiability is undeniable; no one was listening to me. Anyway, two things: in the interest of sticking with one consistent style, can you please hold off on using citation templates? I have found it easier to just type the citation style I want, and that's the existing style in the article. Also, I have a question for you: you cited an LA Times story in the lead: Abramowitz, Rachel. "When Irish eyes are beguiling", The Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2007. I am willing to bet that it's the same story that I read on the LA Times site at that time, titled "Cillian Murphy: More to offer than pale blue eyes," which is already sourced throughout the piece. Can you check to see if this is a duplication? I don't have Nexis access. Thanks! --Melty girl 04:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I now see your quote in the history from the article you cited is a quote from the article I got under a different title by that same writer. They are the same article. So I'm going to collapse the two citations into one. Cheers, Melty girl 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)