![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
According to this list, made by the Smithsonian Institution, there are 435 outdoor sculptures in Chicago. Since it is a federal gov't webpage, the images should be ok for us to use (although few of the entries have pics). Certainly their list could help us find more sculptures to make pages for. It can be sorted by date, artist or title of the work. Speciate 23:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the list you sent me, and I sent myself the list text via e-mail. I'll see if I can produce a Wiki-formatted table of the data sometime soon, though my time is really crunched this week. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If I had my druthers, I'd like to see more infoboxes than templates. Also, I find multiple templates on a page distracting. As to a transportation template, it seems too broad. Airports, 'L' stations, and gov't entities like the RTA will end up sporting the template over time. How would it be an improvement over a simple category? Speciate 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have done all the semi automated peer reviews you requested now - please let me know if there are others that need the script run. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
// Script from User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + ' http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
Oh, I thought we had already had that debate, and a consensus was reached that the page was to be deleted when our list page had all the info from the deleted page. So I was just playing executioner to a decision that had already occurred. Has anyone objected? I say let it ride. Speciate 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Awarded to Tony for irrepressible article writing about Chicago. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For some very, very fine article work. We need more editors like yourself. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I award you this Barnstar of Diligence for all your fantastic work improving the quality of Wikipedia on the "front line". It's sad that sometimes people are not recognised for improving the encyclopedia directly at the same frequency of those who do more prominent jobs in other namespaces, and it is an imbalance of truly epic proportions if this perception is true. You and people like you deserve all you get and more, because you are the one who makes Wikipedia a better encyclopædia. Cheers, Daniel 08:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
It's no problem. I've had a little experience with tables (just look at my userpage), so I kind of knew what to look for. I'm still at a loss why it decided to format itself that way, though. Congrats on all those stars, by the way! Happy editing! Hersfold ( talk/ work) 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The list looks okay to me as far as FLC potential (although you might want to fix the fact the tables use headers for all cells ASAP). What do you mean "with several supporting lists"? There is no "master list" to this article that I could find (if theere was one, it would be something like " List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game players" or "rosters", cf. 2007 Cricket World Cup squads). Circeus 20:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Players | Team | Position | Experience | Votes |
---|---|---|---|---|
American League | ||||
Players here | ||||
National League | ||||
and here |
Done. Nice work. Smokizzy ( talk) 20:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got a couple things to say about this edit I made. First, I began making that edit at midnight my time. It took me over 2½ hours to make this edit, meaning I spent a great deal of time last night, a lot more than was necessary. Secondly, I went to sleep last night, knowing that you were obviously gonna come back to revert all my hard work for no reason. It is really frustrating to have somebody undo all the hard work I did, all 2½ hours of it. Although I suspected that you would revert me because you like to assume ownership of this article, it's still enormously frustrating that you actually did it. I was trying to improve the article greatly, which I did by removing every single tiny little detail, and spent a great portion of my time trying to fix it, which again, I did. You really don't know how badly it feels to work so hard on something, just to see it go up in smoke. Well, that's how I felt this morning, when I saw all my hard work go right by the board. By the way, did you even bother to read my version? Or did you just revert it because it wasn't yours? And I'll talk more about that in the last paragraph.
And I want to get back to you on the "every single tiny little detail" part. Firstly, this is an encyclopedia, not a complete biography, which means not every single little detail of Young's life needs to be mentioned. Additionally, not every single game, every single little statistic for every single game, especially all the games that you mentioned that had little or no signigicance. In my opinion, the only single games that are absolutely necessary are the Young/Lee brawl, his no-hitter he lost in the 9th inning, his first ML start, his first ML win, and first ML shutout. You mentioned far too many individual games, at my count, 23. I doubt that Young had a combined 23 near no-hitters, brawls, and firsts. So why does every other game need to be mentioned?
There is absolutely no way that you can say that my edit wasn't a good one. I trimmed the article down to a third its size, while still keeping all the vital information. I trimmed the amount of references from 119 to 22, by removing all the unnecessary references, such as box scores and recaps. Box scores aren't needed for links if you're only using them to reference a particular game stat. You can reference all the stats to his MLB.com or B-R player site, which gives all his stats for all individual games.
Some of the information you had is barely important. It doesn't even border the threshold between unimportant and minutely-important; it's so far down on that scale. For example, does it matter that Young led the daily voting at what times and what dates? Doesn't it only matter if he leads the final vote? Which I kept? Does it matter how he pitched in his last game before the All-Star break? Again, a single game that has little or no importance at all. For the brawl, does it matter that Giles, Peavy, and Gerald Perry got into the fight? Does it matter that Perry was also suspended or that Peavy and Giles were fined? And "Appealed suspensions are held in abeyance until the process is complete." This isn't the place to discuss MLB's rules. "[Young] avenged his streak ending loss to the Dodgers, improved his home game earned run average to 0.52 in his fifth home start." Again, a game with little or no importance." How can you honestly tell me that all of this information is necessary?
Finally, I have looked at the edit history and have seen that you have made a bulk of the edits to this article. That also is what led me to assume that you would revert my edit at first sight. I just want to direct you to a little rule, known as Ownership of articles. So you don't have to go look there, it says, "Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders... You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing 'your' stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia." But the most important rule is the one that you clearly have seemed to ignore, so here it is in bold print:
“ | If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. | ” |
I'll assume you know what this quote means. If you don't want any of your contributions to be changed by anybody else, then don't submit those contributions. It doesn't matter if this going to be a WP:FAC. You can't use that as an excuse to prevent me from making an edit. You can't use anything as an excuse to prevent me from making an edit. In your response on my talk page, you say, "You can see in the edit history that I have been actively editing this article this weekend." Just because you were working on the article for some time recently doesn't mean that you are the only one who can edit it. Your recent revert, to me, clearly shows that you think that this article belongs to you and that you are the only one who can edit it. If anybody else thinks that some content doesn't belong, you revert it without giving it a second thought. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my edit that, as I might add again, spent me 2½ hours to do, and you reverted it in probably 2½ seconds.
In my opinion, you reverted my edit for two reasons. First, you say that I can't edit it because it's gonna be a FAC and that it should stay the way you had it until that time comes. Second, you don't want your edits to be, as my recent edit clearly exemplifies, mercilessly edited by anybody. If you don't want anybody to mercilessly change your contributions, then simply don't submit your contributions. You can't assume ownership of articles and revert anybody who tries to do a major edit to it, under no circumstances. And I am willing to bet that you didn't even give a small glimpse at my version. I bet that you didn't even bother to read it; that you just saw that I had made a greatly huge edit to it, and had it reverted because it wasn't your version. You can't prevent me from editing this article, or any article, because you don't want anything you give to Wikipedia to be altered. If that's the case, then don't submit your contributions unless you are willing to have them altered. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, aside from the fact that you say we want to go in two different directions with this article (which I don't think we are, because I'm keeping all your information in, just trimming it down and removing all the excess references, like boxscores. Box scores take up so many links in your version, which can all be replaced if you link as a reference just one website that lists game-by-game stats for the player, like ESPN.com.), what don't you really like about my version? I mean I know it's a lot shorter than yours in size, but that's because I only majorly trimmed down the references.
I edited the article again, but in an effort to try to help you out, I placed hidden comments in the article next to where I made my edits. I wanted let you know why I changed every little thing I changed in the last edit. I didn't finish it, but I think that what I did to that article, leaving the hidden comments in the article to give a reason for every single change I recently made to that article, would be a great help to you.
But aside from all that, is there anything really bad about the version of that article that I had? –– Ksy92003 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I replied.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you look at my revision I changed it from two seasons to none seeing that he hasn't completed this one as of yet. However, I do appreciate your new criteria, but I prefer not to be reverted like a common vandal. Thanks, Yanksox 23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll look at the pics now. But, it looks like another editor has already gone through the article and removed all of the details. I saw you readded the ERA thing....I'm not sure about that...because we don't need a day by day anyalsis of it. Thanks and Happy editing! Hornberry 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- At least 3 or 4 Users now have pointed out that the additional pictures do not add anything to the article.
- You have added many redundant references in the article. For instance, you reference his profile where it says he had so many points & so many rebounds in a basketball tournament in college. That reference is enough. To additionally link to the boxscores for each of those games is redundant, and cluttering the article. For a player with only 4 major league seasons, you had 115+ links. Doesn't that seem excessive? If we apply this same formula to an athlete who has played for 10 years? 15 years? what is it going to look like? The article is going to be overrun with references.
There probably should be some sort of open discussion on this. Since Young is a baseball player, and this discussion would likely effect the standards used to refrence/cite other plaeyrs, I suggest a discussion be started here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball. Bjewiki 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-- GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I know this sounds dumb, but where do I signup on the WP Chicago page to 'officially' become a member?
I was also looking for some guidance to this question:
I have begun cleaning up/ merging some of the 'orphaned' neighborhoods with the community areas that they are a part of; How would we go about doing this w/ the Villa District, which is a part of the Irving Park, Chicago community area since villa is a Landmark district? Precedent indicates that neighborhoods are a part of the community area article, but how do we arrange it when its a chicago landmark and avoid confusion since only this part of Irving Park enjoy this status?-- Orestek 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC) -- Orestek 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall such a conversation, and I wasn't aware of that shortcoming. Feel free to remove the sorting. Circeus 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of them...I'm not going to be specfic because we can choose. The image doesn't look as good without the images because it really shows Youngn warming up or pitching. Hornberry 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And... why exactly can I not crop out the clock or the scoreboard? Any particular reason for that? The reason why I cropped it in the first place is because I think the photo should focus more on Chris Young, rather than the lovely scoreboard and clock at Wrigley Field. I don't see the reason why it needs to be in the picture when the photo is of Chris Young. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I want to create a category to put all the various charities, clubs, groups, associations, non-profits etc that are based in Chicago into. But when I looked at NYC and LA, I can't figure out which is the most broad; Organizations based in Chicago or Associations in Chicago. What is the standard? Speciate 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! If you're after getting the fact onto today's template in particular, feel free to add your preferred blurb to the Next update template. Barring any unforeseen content disputes, it'll get in when the template is next updated. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
...here you go:
Rigadoun (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Re Okajima's rookie status on the All-Star Final Vote page: there were two tables that listed him, the past winners and the 2007 candidates. When I saw the page a bit ago, the winners list was correct; I corrected the 2007 candidates list. Ashill 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A question: In your signature, what does "tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM" mean?
By the way, I'd like to point out one thing. It seems that when it comes to this article, everybody else and I share the opinion that you have given too much detail on very minor events. So based on consensus, you are in quite the minority. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated before, I guess you missed this, there was a mass-page move that caused a lot of controversy amuck Wikipedia and I am unbiased against whichever revision it is supposed to be at. As there is a guideline for this, and not a policy, there are exceptions to some situations and I do not know enough about every subject to know if that exception applys. If this is about a single article, take it to the talk page of the article, and request clarification about whether or not it should have the spacing or not. — Moe ε 18:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The article
Paul Cornell (lawyer) you nominated as a
good article has passed
, see
Talk:Paul Cornell (lawyer) for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
LordHarris
00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed some sort of edit expansion and a bit of some delete and reverting going on with Harrisburg, Illinois. I have made comments on the Talk:Harrisburg, Illinois, but figured I would get some other input on the issue. I know you don't deal with a lot outside of Chicago, but would like your comments on that Talk page if you feel up to it. Also noticed the nomination went through. Awesome! We just had White Pines Forest State Park pass GA, so this will help the list.-- Kranar drogin 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your statement on the Chris Young edit was incorrect. Both User:Ksy92003 and myself ( User:Bjewiki) have disputed your "Boxscore & Recap for game" reference style. Ksy92003 did it on your very own Talk page, and I did it at the Baseball project dicsussion. Bjewiki 15:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice someone placed Rookery Building on hold? I went ahead and addressed the comments. The picture comments shouldn't keep it from GA, as photos aren't strictly required by GA. I had a book so I expanded the light court stuff a bit, couldn't resist a Wright remodel. : ) Hope that helps. IvoShandor 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I come to you to apologize for all of my behavior towards you. Last night I had a change of heart and realized that everybody would benefit if I back off from editing the Chris Young article. It's just one article, and I've seen by your qualifications that you do know how to develop a featured article, and I respect that. I still believe that it can be majorly trimmed, but I don't doubt that you will be able to do what is necessary to improve the article. I trust you and will back off from that article. Again, it's only one article, so I don't feel I need to give as much attention to it as possible. Because it's the All-Star Break, I'm spending this time by working on another project, which you would see by my edits last night, by fixing re-directed links.
I've gotten in a lot of disputes with other users in the past, and I believe that the best thing I can do is back off from all the projects that I have been working on that caused my disputes. I know we've had disputes, but all have been about this one particular article. I don't want to have a huge dispute because of one article, so I'm gonna back off from that article and trust that your qualifications prove that you can get this article to be a FAC. I wish you the best of luck editing in the future and hope you can continue to improve articles to FA status, and I'm regretfully sorry for the tension I've caused you and the disputes we've gotten into in the past over this article. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Boy Tony, I really don't know that one. I don't even know who created those maps or anything. I suppose you could put that template in there, and then just create your own map by removing the red and adding in the red for a new village, etc. I personally would just go with the Geobox, which puts a dot on the map automatically for you, but I can understand using the Template:Chicagoland municipality for all Cook County cities/villages.-- Kranar drogin 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
When you created that Feature List, do you have to have any of the articles that are on the list as a "B" or a "GA", or can they all be stubs with the list having the most info to attain FL? Just wanted to know as I am working on a couple lists here for the county I live in.-- Kranar drogin 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a glitch, looks like I just missed closing out one of the three tables. I had only edited three including the Bonds article, no typos on the other two. -- Holderca1 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The article may not be perfect Tony, but it's very comprehensive and well written in most parts. I think it should stay a good article. Sportskido8 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you currently have listed three articles for review at WP:FAR; I just wanted to remind you to review the instructions at the top of the FAR page, specifically:
Some editors do run more than one FAR at a time, but these editors are usually actively involved in improving the articles nominated at FAR. It doesn't seem that you've edited any of the articles you've nominated, so I just wanted to remind you to take care that FAR, or any given WikiProject (like Baseball) isn't overwhelmed with a lot of articles to improve at once. It's good to put articles lacking citations through at a pace that allows for improvement by the involved Projects, and two baseball articles at once might strain resources. Perhaps you could pitch in and help improve a few of the articles you've nominated, or some other articles at FAR. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't the one who nominated it, I believe it was User:Happyme22 who nominated and then he withdrew the nomination himself in his edit summary when he removed it from the list WP:GAC (which I have on my watchlist and I merely removed the tag from the article talk).-- Konstable 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to get back to you about comparing List of Chicago Landmarks versus the official list of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois. I've been rather busy these past few days. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the Socony-Vacuum Building at 59-67 E. Van Buren St. (aka the Buckingham Building or the New Athenaeum) is listed on the National Register, but isn't a National Historic Landmark. According to the Chicago Landmarks list, it isn't even a Chicago Landmark either.
If I find out anything more, I'll let you know. In the meantime, you can check the Chicago Landmarks page against the National Historic Landmarks link that I gave you above, to see if the list is correct. I'll try to get around to checking it, but I can't make any immediate promises. I'm still not fully recovered from CONvergence (convention) last weekend. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well at the time I withdrew it, User:Info999 added a lot to the Reaganomics section, but there there was a debate to whether it should belong, whether it was factual, etc. I didn't want to chance that screwing up the GAC, so I removed it for the time being. I've been away for a while, so I'm going in to fix up the article now. Best, Happyme22 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you classified Christkindlmarket, Chicago as a stub class article, but the reviewer from WikiProject Germany classified it as start. WP:STUB states that stubs contain "only a few sentences of text" and WP:ASSESS states that "it is usually very short".
I'm usually not to much of a stickler and usually don't really care if something is classified start vs. stub, but I thought since two reviewers have assessed it two different ways, it might be confusing. In addition it seems like it might fit better as a "start" class, considering it contains just a little bit more information then a standard definition and includes 12 sentences. What are your thoughts?
I'm also bringing this up to better classify future ratings of other articles that you and I might assess. Thanks, Chupper 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are street gangs. I assume somebody is claiming those guys are/were members. I didn't add any individuals to the categories. Speciate 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. There are several things I'd like to add before taking it to peer review, but I'll keep you updated. Zagalejo 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that I have made a couple minor changes to this template, which I think improved it. I also stated in my edit summary that I don't particularly think this template is necessary because I still hold the opinion that the players going to Ivy League schools have little significance and have no impact on their playing ability. I also did say that despite this opinion, I still have to make edits to improve Wikipedia. In other words, although I dislike the idea for this template, I still have the responsibility to make edits that will only contribute positively, regardless of whatever opinion I may hold. So please review the edits that I have made, and hopefully you will see that they improve the template.
My reason for linking both NY Yankees and all Dartmouth Colleges was because I feel that, in templates, each one should be linked; it helps flow better and it doesn't make much sense to not link all of them, especially because, as small as the template may be, I know some people don't want to have to search for the link to an article because they see a black link. For example, if somebody is interested in Mike Remlinger, and wants to see Dartmouth College, they might not want to search for where the link to tht is, which in this case would be under Red Rolfe, three players over. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I always see you do good work in both article writing especially your Chicago and baseball related articles and in wikipedia namespace, and I wonder if you want to be nomintated for adminship status. You been in the project for over a year and you are one of the most experienced non-admins we have. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand, let me know when you are ready so I can create your RFA. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, that planned building project has been scrapped. I deleted the article yesterday because it was an expired PROD, and according to the latest edits to the article, and discussion on the talk page, Trump pulled out of the venture and construction stopped. If you think this is not the case, I'd be happy to undelete the article (and restore the navigation template link).-- ragesoss 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather make a dedicated template for this. Which ton do you need, by the way, short or long one?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually,the removal was correct, to a point, since I had made a mistake when adding them back in. Circeus 01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guy, I have been busy as of late. Went to the races this weekend. I'll try and assist you tomorrow, I think we have until Tuesday, correct?-- Kranar drogin 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from the Manual of Style you linked me: "These guidelines also apply to tables, considered by themselves." In other words, if a link appears twice in a table, fine, don't link it, but just because it appeared in previous prose or a table, doesn't mean you shouldn't link it. Consider each table by itself, and link it appropriately. -- Golbez 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I did give the article a full review. You can see the results of my review on the talk page of that article. Considering the lead section is a summary, I'm usually not too much of a stickler about referencing the lead, as long as the summarized content is referenced elsewhere in the article. If this was a nomination to FA, the circumstances would be different.
If you feel the article has not achieved GA status, feel free to have it reviewed again. Chupper 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again Tony. I don't know if you read my user talk page, but unfortunately current events are not eligible for DYK. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, I just voted neutral on the list being featured. Pats Sox Princess 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Way cool, thanks! I will wear the star with honor.
Slambo has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Slambo (Speak) 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I asked a friend to look over the article and give his opinion. His issues and suggestions are on my talk page. Please take a look. He brought up some interesting points. Even though the article has been promoted to GA, there is always room for improvement and I hope you continue to address concerns. Regards, Lara Love 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
See notes at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Image_licensing on your image licensing question. jeffjon 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the plan was to upgrade all existing templates to support ranges and dimensions, but I am rather short on time just now to tackle that. However, your inquiry helped me realize that {{ in to cm}} would basically be a copypaste of {{ ft to m}} where only the unit names and the conversion factor need to be replaced. So, enjoy :)— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As Salaskan said on my talk page, deletion debates are not decided by vote count, but by weighing the arguments and the policies/guidelines backing said arguments (if any). There were two "keep" arguments, one is the assertion that it is a defining characteristic, without explaining why this is so (note that one can watch a movie several times without noticing where it was shot, and that a movie can easily be shot in 5-10 different locations). The other is that the categories are small, but that is pretty much irrelevant because we delete small categories as often (or more) as we delete large ones. Hence the delete-side has better arguments. HTH! >Radiant< 08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
apologies for the delay in responding to your requests. i have been on a short wikibreak for a variety of reasons, including having to replace my personal laptop. a new one is ordered and will be here this week! anyway, regarding the statues, check out this reference:
additionally, check out this link for references on all artwork at the building including ceres:
i'll start following the FAC discussion more closely and will contribute where i can, especially regarding referencing. seems as if nobody has issues with the content...yet:) LurkingInChicago 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I am going to rate all Chicago projects from now on as I am going through all the Illinois tags. I see a lot of the Chicago ones, and that should help drop down the 7000 articles you guys have unassessed a little bit. I just got done doing 1300 for Illinois, and now that Satyr is running the bot for us we are going to have a lot more (almost 700) last I checked. So, I am going to get busy on that soon here I hope.-- Kranar drogin 03:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the best way is to center each cell individually. A quick search and replace took care of it (Yay, WikEd!). Circeus 15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Before you get going, would you consider "Artworks of the Art Institute of Chicago"? That would be more inclusive. Speciate 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright... I moved it back because all the other articles in that category have "Cook County" in the name. But if you ask me, is it necessary? We haven't ever included the county names when talking about cities. For example, I don't live in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. It isn't Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada or Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. I will move all of those articles in that category unless somebody can provide a good reason why "Cook County" should be included in the title of the article. Ksy92003 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
These aren't actually my articles. I've been cleaning up the headings and links, and replacing the use of nicknames by proper names. I have not added any references or info boxes. I don't know who is creating them. I use the ref tags myself when creating footnotes. I am surprised, though, that an article could be nominated for AfD because of bad formatting. That seems very unWikipedia-like. I don't know much about these people, but they seem deserving of Wikipedia articles as far as I can tell. I don't much care, though. Ground Zero | t 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) -- Lentower 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. I responded rudely and tersely to your suggestion about summary boxes on Raul's talk page. I'm sincerely sorry for my abrupt rudeness; I've also posted an apology at Raul's talk page. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I respect your rational discussion of edits; can you please weigh in on the use of 'slaughter' at Talk:The_Holocaust#NPOV_revisited? — Parhamr 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well done again Tony! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I left a message for you over at Talk:Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you sir. Chupper 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your queries at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of tuberous sclerosis. If I can clarify anything else, let me know. Cheers, Colin° Talk 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have placed Crown Fountain on hold for GA, per my notes on the talk page. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm not in agreement that this template belongs in the article itself. However, rather than going back and forth in the article itself, I've posted a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject. I won't revert further on this template until comments have been gathered from a broader audience. -- MisterHand ( Talk to the Hand| Contribs) 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Carabinieri 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's OK. Take your time to make the article as good as possible. Also note RGTraynor's comments. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You're an outstanding editor, and words of gratitude just don't do you justice for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Hi. I've added a few more minor fixes needed. Epbr123 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there was still a conversation going on. I just tried to archive those nominations where there was no discussion for at least a couple of days. Crzy cheetah 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I found two categories that have been lost because they were not made into subcategories of any other Chicago categories. They are Category:Chicago blues musicians and Category:Chicago blues ensembles. I added them as subcategories and listed them on the project page and the bot page. Could you check to make sure I did it right? Speciate 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in the discussion I have started there. This template shows up in main space over and over again and seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of WP:SELF (while a guideline-it is an important part of the MOS). It also seems to be an attempt to replace {{ underconstruction}}. I am interested in your answer to my question on the template talk page. IvoShandor 13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply to message posted at User talk:Peter Isotalo:
I noticed that you changed the Harrison Ford importance rating. I believe he should be a Category:Mid-importance_Chicago_articles based on the WP:CHICAGO Official importance scale that you can see on this category page. Do you not feel that he falls into the category of individuals that had (B) a prominent national and/or international role that had a large impact on non-Chicagoans and but had a limited role as a Chicagoans. I feel it is fairly clear that this accurately describes Harrison and his role to the Chicago project. I will revert you change and await comment if you disagree. Please respond to my talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the reference for the Will Rogers text and remove the comment brackets. The source is Houghton Mifflin, so we shouldn't get much push back. Regarding the article and my absence.....I have been in the middle of a massive job search effort and haven't been putting much time toward Wiki in general and when I have I seem to have been pursuing adding infoboxes for NRHP articles. I'll try to drop into the FAC page and work on the various objects and suggestions. And as always, I GREATLY APPRECIATE your efforts to drive this article toward FAC. LurkingInChicago 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Espresso Addict 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that any comments about this should be placed on the AfD page, but I've got to ask you something about this... first of all, I replied to your comment on the AfD page, but I've got to ask you this... do you know that Barry Bonds will hit home runs numbers 755 and 756? If so, then you should be able to tell me when, who the opposing pitcher is, what the count is, who is on base, what inning, what the score was... in other words, you would have to be clairvoyant, a psychic... which brings me back to the crystal-balling. Ksy92003 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
According to this list, made by the Smithsonian Institution, there are 435 outdoor sculptures in Chicago. Since it is a federal gov't webpage, the images should be ok for us to use (although few of the entries have pics). Certainly their list could help us find more sculptures to make pages for. It can be sorted by date, artist or title of the work. Speciate 23:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at the list you sent me, and I sent myself the list text via e-mail. I'll see if I can produce a Wiki-formatted table of the data sometime soon, though my time is really crunched this week. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If I had my druthers, I'd like to see more infoboxes than templates. Also, I find multiple templates on a page distracting. As to a transportation template, it seems too broad. Airports, 'L' stations, and gov't entities like the RTA will end up sporting the template over time. How would it be an improvement over a simple category? Speciate 00:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have done all the semi automated peer reviews you requested now - please let me know if there are others that need the script run. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
// Script from User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + ' http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js' + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
Oh, I thought we had already had that debate, and a consensus was reached that the page was to be deleted when our list page had all the info from the deleted page. So I was just playing executioner to a decision that had already occurred. Has anyone objected? I say let it ride. Speciate 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Awarded to Tony for irrepressible article writing about Chicago. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For some very, very fine article work. We need more editors like yourself. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I award you this Barnstar of Diligence for all your fantastic work improving the quality of Wikipedia on the "front line". It's sad that sometimes people are not recognised for improving the encyclopedia directly at the same frequency of those who do more prominent jobs in other namespaces, and it is an imbalance of truly epic proportions if this perception is true. You and people like you deserve all you get and more, because you are the one who makes Wikipedia a better encyclopædia. Cheers, Daniel 08:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
It's no problem. I've had a little experience with tables (just look at my userpage), so I kind of knew what to look for. I'm still at a loss why it decided to format itself that way, though. Congrats on all those stars, by the way! Happy editing! Hersfold ( talk/ work) 17:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The list looks okay to me as far as FLC potential (although you might want to fix the fact the tables use headers for all cells ASAP). What do you mean "with several supporting lists"? There is no "master list" to this article that I could find (if theere was one, it would be something like " List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game players" or "rosters", cf. 2007 Cricket World Cup squads). Circeus 20:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Players | Team | Position | Experience | Votes |
---|---|---|---|---|
American League | ||||
Players here | ||||
National League | ||||
and here |
Done. Nice work. Smokizzy ( talk) 20:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got a couple things to say about this edit I made. First, I began making that edit at midnight my time. It took me over 2½ hours to make this edit, meaning I spent a great deal of time last night, a lot more than was necessary. Secondly, I went to sleep last night, knowing that you were obviously gonna come back to revert all my hard work for no reason. It is really frustrating to have somebody undo all the hard work I did, all 2½ hours of it. Although I suspected that you would revert me because you like to assume ownership of this article, it's still enormously frustrating that you actually did it. I was trying to improve the article greatly, which I did by removing every single tiny little detail, and spent a great portion of my time trying to fix it, which again, I did. You really don't know how badly it feels to work so hard on something, just to see it go up in smoke. Well, that's how I felt this morning, when I saw all my hard work go right by the board. By the way, did you even bother to read my version? Or did you just revert it because it wasn't yours? And I'll talk more about that in the last paragraph.
And I want to get back to you on the "every single tiny little detail" part. Firstly, this is an encyclopedia, not a complete biography, which means not every single little detail of Young's life needs to be mentioned. Additionally, not every single game, every single little statistic for every single game, especially all the games that you mentioned that had little or no signigicance. In my opinion, the only single games that are absolutely necessary are the Young/Lee brawl, his no-hitter he lost in the 9th inning, his first ML start, his first ML win, and first ML shutout. You mentioned far too many individual games, at my count, 23. I doubt that Young had a combined 23 near no-hitters, brawls, and firsts. So why does every other game need to be mentioned?
There is absolutely no way that you can say that my edit wasn't a good one. I trimmed the article down to a third its size, while still keeping all the vital information. I trimmed the amount of references from 119 to 22, by removing all the unnecessary references, such as box scores and recaps. Box scores aren't needed for links if you're only using them to reference a particular game stat. You can reference all the stats to his MLB.com or B-R player site, which gives all his stats for all individual games.
Some of the information you had is barely important. It doesn't even border the threshold between unimportant and minutely-important; it's so far down on that scale. For example, does it matter that Young led the daily voting at what times and what dates? Doesn't it only matter if he leads the final vote? Which I kept? Does it matter how he pitched in his last game before the All-Star break? Again, a single game that has little or no importance at all. For the brawl, does it matter that Giles, Peavy, and Gerald Perry got into the fight? Does it matter that Perry was also suspended or that Peavy and Giles were fined? And "Appealed suspensions are held in abeyance until the process is complete." This isn't the place to discuss MLB's rules. "[Young] avenged his streak ending loss to the Dodgers, improved his home game earned run average to 0.52 in his fifth home start." Again, a game with little or no importance." How can you honestly tell me that all of this information is necessary?
Finally, I have looked at the edit history and have seen that you have made a bulk of the edits to this article. That also is what led me to assume that you would revert my edit at first sight. I just want to direct you to a little rule, known as Ownership of articles. So you don't have to go look there, it says, "Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders... You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing 'your' stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia." But the most important rule is the one that you clearly have seemed to ignore, so here it is in bold print:
“ | If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. | ” |
I'll assume you know what this quote means. If you don't want any of your contributions to be changed by anybody else, then don't submit those contributions. It doesn't matter if this going to be a WP:FAC. You can't use that as an excuse to prevent me from making an edit. You can't use anything as an excuse to prevent me from making an edit. In your response on my talk page, you say, "You can see in the edit history that I have been actively editing this article this weekend." Just because you were working on the article for some time recently doesn't mean that you are the only one who can edit it. Your recent revert, to me, clearly shows that you think that this article belongs to you and that you are the only one who can edit it. If anybody else thinks that some content doesn't belong, you revert it without giving it a second thought. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my edit that, as I might add again, spent me 2½ hours to do, and you reverted it in probably 2½ seconds.
In my opinion, you reverted my edit for two reasons. First, you say that I can't edit it because it's gonna be a FAC and that it should stay the way you had it until that time comes. Second, you don't want your edits to be, as my recent edit clearly exemplifies, mercilessly edited by anybody. If you don't want anybody to mercilessly change your contributions, then simply don't submit your contributions. You can't assume ownership of articles and revert anybody who tries to do a major edit to it, under no circumstances. And I am willing to bet that you didn't even give a small glimpse at my version. I bet that you didn't even bother to read it; that you just saw that I had made a greatly huge edit to it, and had it reverted because it wasn't your version. You can't prevent me from editing this article, or any article, because you don't want anything you give to Wikipedia to be altered. If that's the case, then don't submit your contributions unless you are willing to have them altered. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, aside from the fact that you say we want to go in two different directions with this article (which I don't think we are, because I'm keeping all your information in, just trimming it down and removing all the excess references, like boxscores. Box scores take up so many links in your version, which can all be replaced if you link as a reference just one website that lists game-by-game stats for the player, like ESPN.com.), what don't you really like about my version? I mean I know it's a lot shorter than yours in size, but that's because I only majorly trimmed down the references.
I edited the article again, but in an effort to try to help you out, I placed hidden comments in the article next to where I made my edits. I wanted let you know why I changed every little thing I changed in the last edit. I didn't finish it, but I think that what I did to that article, leaving the hidden comments in the article to give a reason for every single change I recently made to that article, would be a great help to you.
But aside from all that, is there anything really bad about the version of that article that I had? –– Ksy92003 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I replied.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you look at my revision I changed it from two seasons to none seeing that he hasn't completed this one as of yet. However, I do appreciate your new criteria, but I prefer not to be reverted like a common vandal. Thanks, Yanksox 23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll look at the pics now. But, it looks like another editor has already gone through the article and removed all of the details. I saw you readded the ERA thing....I'm not sure about that...because we don't need a day by day anyalsis of it. Thanks and Happy editing! Hornberry 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- At least 3 or 4 Users now have pointed out that the additional pictures do not add anything to the article.
- You have added many redundant references in the article. For instance, you reference his profile where it says he had so many points & so many rebounds in a basketball tournament in college. That reference is enough. To additionally link to the boxscores for each of those games is redundant, and cluttering the article. For a player with only 4 major league seasons, you had 115+ links. Doesn't that seem excessive? If we apply this same formula to an athlete who has played for 10 years? 15 years? what is it going to look like? The article is going to be overrun with references.
There probably should be some sort of open discussion on this. Since Young is a baseball player, and this discussion would likely effect the standards used to refrence/cite other plaeyrs, I suggest a discussion be started here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball. Bjewiki 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-- GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I know this sounds dumb, but where do I signup on the WP Chicago page to 'officially' become a member?
I was also looking for some guidance to this question:
I have begun cleaning up/ merging some of the 'orphaned' neighborhoods with the community areas that they are a part of; How would we go about doing this w/ the Villa District, which is a part of the Irving Park, Chicago community area since villa is a Landmark district? Precedent indicates that neighborhoods are a part of the community area article, but how do we arrange it when its a chicago landmark and avoid confusion since only this part of Irving Park enjoy this status?-- Orestek 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC) -- Orestek 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall such a conversation, and I wasn't aware of that shortcoming. Feel free to remove the sorting. Circeus 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of them...I'm not going to be specfic because we can choose. The image doesn't look as good without the images because it really shows Youngn warming up or pitching. Hornberry 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And... why exactly can I not crop out the clock or the scoreboard? Any particular reason for that? The reason why I cropped it in the first place is because I think the photo should focus more on Chris Young, rather than the lovely scoreboard and clock at Wrigley Field. I don't see the reason why it needs to be in the picture when the photo is of Chris Young. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I want to create a category to put all the various charities, clubs, groups, associations, non-profits etc that are based in Chicago into. But when I looked at NYC and LA, I can't figure out which is the most broad; Organizations based in Chicago or Associations in Chicago. What is the standard? Speciate 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! If you're after getting the fact onto today's template in particular, feel free to add your preferred blurb to the Next update template. Barring any unforeseen content disputes, it'll get in when the template is next updated. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
...here you go:
Rigadoun (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Re Okajima's rookie status on the All-Star Final Vote page: there were two tables that listed him, the past winners and the 2007 candidates. When I saw the page a bit ago, the winners list was correct; I corrected the 2007 candidates list. Ashill 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A question: In your signature, what does "tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM" mean?
By the way, I'd like to point out one thing. It seems that when it comes to this article, everybody else and I share the opinion that you have given too much detail on very minor events. So based on consensus, you are in quite the minority. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated before, I guess you missed this, there was a mass-page move that caused a lot of controversy amuck Wikipedia and I am unbiased against whichever revision it is supposed to be at. As there is a guideline for this, and not a policy, there are exceptions to some situations and I do not know enough about every subject to know if that exception applys. If this is about a single article, take it to the talk page of the article, and request clarification about whether or not it should have the spacing or not. — Moe ε 18:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The article
Paul Cornell (lawyer) you nominated as a
good article has passed
, see
Talk:Paul Cornell (lawyer) for eventual comments about the article. Well done!
LordHarris
00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed some sort of edit expansion and a bit of some delete and reverting going on with Harrisburg, Illinois. I have made comments on the Talk:Harrisburg, Illinois, but figured I would get some other input on the issue. I know you don't deal with a lot outside of Chicago, but would like your comments on that Talk page if you feel up to it. Also noticed the nomination went through. Awesome! We just had White Pines Forest State Park pass GA, so this will help the list.-- Kranar drogin 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your statement on the Chris Young edit was incorrect. Both User:Ksy92003 and myself ( User:Bjewiki) have disputed your "Boxscore & Recap for game" reference style. Ksy92003 did it on your very own Talk page, and I did it at the Baseball project dicsussion. Bjewiki 15:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice someone placed Rookery Building on hold? I went ahead and addressed the comments. The picture comments shouldn't keep it from GA, as photos aren't strictly required by GA. I had a book so I expanded the light court stuff a bit, couldn't resist a Wright remodel. : ) Hope that helps. IvoShandor 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I come to you to apologize for all of my behavior towards you. Last night I had a change of heart and realized that everybody would benefit if I back off from editing the Chris Young article. It's just one article, and I've seen by your qualifications that you do know how to develop a featured article, and I respect that. I still believe that it can be majorly trimmed, but I don't doubt that you will be able to do what is necessary to improve the article. I trust you and will back off from that article. Again, it's only one article, so I don't feel I need to give as much attention to it as possible. Because it's the All-Star Break, I'm spending this time by working on another project, which you would see by my edits last night, by fixing re-directed links.
I've gotten in a lot of disputes with other users in the past, and I believe that the best thing I can do is back off from all the projects that I have been working on that caused my disputes. I know we've had disputes, but all have been about this one particular article. I don't want to have a huge dispute because of one article, so I'm gonna back off from that article and trust that your qualifications prove that you can get this article to be a FAC. I wish you the best of luck editing in the future and hope you can continue to improve articles to FA status, and I'm regretfully sorry for the tension I've caused you and the disputes we've gotten into in the past over this article. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Boy Tony, I really don't know that one. I don't even know who created those maps or anything. I suppose you could put that template in there, and then just create your own map by removing the red and adding in the red for a new village, etc. I personally would just go with the Geobox, which puts a dot on the map automatically for you, but I can understand using the Template:Chicagoland municipality for all Cook County cities/villages.-- Kranar drogin 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
When you created that Feature List, do you have to have any of the articles that are on the list as a "B" or a "GA", or can they all be stubs with the list having the most info to attain FL? Just wanted to know as I am working on a couple lists here for the county I live in.-- Kranar drogin 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be a glitch, looks like I just missed closing out one of the three tables. I had only edited three including the Bonds article, no typos on the other two. -- Holderca1 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The article may not be perfect Tony, but it's very comprehensive and well written in most parts. I think it should stay a good article. Sportskido8 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you currently have listed three articles for review at WP:FAR; I just wanted to remind you to review the instructions at the top of the FAR page, specifically:
Some editors do run more than one FAR at a time, but these editors are usually actively involved in improving the articles nominated at FAR. It doesn't seem that you've edited any of the articles you've nominated, so I just wanted to remind you to take care that FAR, or any given WikiProject (like Baseball) isn't overwhelmed with a lot of articles to improve at once. It's good to put articles lacking citations through at a pace that allows for improvement by the involved Projects, and two baseball articles at once might strain resources. Perhaps you could pitch in and help improve a few of the articles you've nominated, or some other articles at FAR. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't the one who nominated it, I believe it was User:Happyme22 who nominated and then he withdrew the nomination himself in his edit summary when he removed it from the list WP:GAC (which I have on my watchlist and I merely removed the tag from the article talk).-- Konstable 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to get back to you about comparing List of Chicago Landmarks versus the official list of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois. I've been rather busy these past few days. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the Socony-Vacuum Building at 59-67 E. Van Buren St. (aka the Buckingham Building or the New Athenaeum) is listed on the National Register, but isn't a National Historic Landmark. According to the Chicago Landmarks list, it isn't even a Chicago Landmark either.
If I find out anything more, I'll let you know. In the meantime, you can check the Chicago Landmarks page against the National Historic Landmarks link that I gave you above, to see if the list is correct. I'll try to get around to checking it, but I can't make any immediate promises. I'm still not fully recovered from CONvergence (convention) last weekend. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well at the time I withdrew it, User:Info999 added a lot to the Reaganomics section, but there there was a debate to whether it should belong, whether it was factual, etc. I didn't want to chance that screwing up the GAC, so I removed it for the time being. I've been away for a while, so I'm going in to fix up the article now. Best, Happyme22 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you classified Christkindlmarket, Chicago as a stub class article, but the reviewer from WikiProject Germany classified it as start. WP:STUB states that stubs contain "only a few sentences of text" and WP:ASSESS states that "it is usually very short".
I'm usually not to much of a stickler and usually don't really care if something is classified start vs. stub, but I thought since two reviewers have assessed it two different ways, it might be confusing. In addition it seems like it might fit better as a "start" class, considering it contains just a little bit more information then a standard definition and includes 12 sentences. What are your thoughts?
I'm also bringing this up to better classify future ratings of other articles that you and I might assess. Thanks, Chupper 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are street gangs. I assume somebody is claiming those guys are/were members. I didn't add any individuals to the categories. Speciate 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. There are several things I'd like to add before taking it to peer review, but I'll keep you updated. Zagalejo 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that I have made a couple minor changes to this template, which I think improved it. I also stated in my edit summary that I don't particularly think this template is necessary because I still hold the opinion that the players going to Ivy League schools have little significance and have no impact on their playing ability. I also did say that despite this opinion, I still have to make edits to improve Wikipedia. In other words, although I dislike the idea for this template, I still have the responsibility to make edits that will only contribute positively, regardless of whatever opinion I may hold. So please review the edits that I have made, and hopefully you will see that they improve the template.
My reason for linking both NY Yankees and all Dartmouth Colleges was because I feel that, in templates, each one should be linked; it helps flow better and it doesn't make much sense to not link all of them, especially because, as small as the template may be, I know some people don't want to have to search for the link to an article because they see a black link. For example, if somebody is interested in Mike Remlinger, and wants to see Dartmouth College, they might not want to search for where the link to tht is, which in this case would be under Red Rolfe, three players over. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I always see you do good work in both article writing especially your Chicago and baseball related articles and in wikipedia namespace, and I wonder if you want to be nomintated for adminship status. You been in the project for over a year and you are one of the most experienced non-admins we have. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand, let me know when you are ready so I can create your RFA. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, that planned building project has been scrapped. I deleted the article yesterday because it was an expired PROD, and according to the latest edits to the article, and discussion on the talk page, Trump pulled out of the venture and construction stopped. If you think this is not the case, I'd be happy to undelete the article (and restore the navigation template link).-- ragesoss 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather make a dedicated template for this. Which ton do you need, by the way, short or long one?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually,the removal was correct, to a point, since I had made a mistake when adding them back in. Circeus 01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guy, I have been busy as of late. Went to the races this weekend. I'll try and assist you tomorrow, I think we have until Tuesday, correct?-- Kranar drogin 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from the Manual of Style you linked me: "These guidelines also apply to tables, considered by themselves." In other words, if a link appears twice in a table, fine, don't link it, but just because it appeared in previous prose or a table, doesn't mean you shouldn't link it. Consider each table by itself, and link it appropriately. -- Golbez 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I did give the article a full review. You can see the results of my review on the talk page of that article. Considering the lead section is a summary, I'm usually not too much of a stickler about referencing the lead, as long as the summarized content is referenced elsewhere in the article. If this was a nomination to FA, the circumstances would be different.
If you feel the article has not achieved GA status, feel free to have it reviewed again. Chupper 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again Tony. I don't know if you read my user talk page, but unfortunately current events are not eligible for DYK. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, I just voted neutral on the list being featured. Pats Sox Princess 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Way cool, thanks! I will wear the star with honor.
Slambo has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Slambo (Speak) 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I asked a friend to look over the article and give his opinion. His issues and suggestions are on my talk page. Please take a look. He brought up some interesting points. Even though the article has been promoted to GA, there is always room for improvement and I hope you continue to address concerns. Regards, Lara Love 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
See notes at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Image_licensing on your image licensing question. jeffjon 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the plan was to upgrade all existing templates to support ranges and dimensions, but I am rather short on time just now to tackle that. However, your inquiry helped me realize that {{ in to cm}} would basically be a copypaste of {{ ft to m}} where only the unit names and the conversion factor need to be replaced. So, enjoy :)— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As Salaskan said on my talk page, deletion debates are not decided by vote count, but by weighing the arguments and the policies/guidelines backing said arguments (if any). There were two "keep" arguments, one is the assertion that it is a defining characteristic, without explaining why this is so (note that one can watch a movie several times without noticing where it was shot, and that a movie can easily be shot in 5-10 different locations). The other is that the categories are small, but that is pretty much irrelevant because we delete small categories as often (or more) as we delete large ones. Hence the delete-side has better arguments. HTH! >Radiant< 08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
apologies for the delay in responding to your requests. i have been on a short wikibreak for a variety of reasons, including having to replace my personal laptop. a new one is ordered and will be here this week! anyway, regarding the statues, check out this reference:
additionally, check out this link for references on all artwork at the building including ceres:
i'll start following the FAC discussion more closely and will contribute where i can, especially regarding referencing. seems as if nobody has issues with the content...yet:) LurkingInChicago 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I am going to rate all Chicago projects from now on as I am going through all the Illinois tags. I see a lot of the Chicago ones, and that should help drop down the 7000 articles you guys have unassessed a little bit. I just got done doing 1300 for Illinois, and now that Satyr is running the bot for us we are going to have a lot more (almost 700) last I checked. So, I am going to get busy on that soon here I hope.-- Kranar drogin 03:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid the best way is to center each cell individually. A quick search and replace took care of it (Yay, WikEd!). Circeus 15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Before you get going, would you consider "Artworks of the Art Institute of Chicago"? That would be more inclusive. Speciate 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright... I moved it back because all the other articles in that category have "Cook County" in the name. But if you ask me, is it necessary? We haven't ever included the county names when talking about cities. For example, I don't live in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. It isn't Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada or Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. I will move all of those articles in that category unless somebody can provide a good reason why "Cook County" should be included in the title of the article. Ksy92003 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
These aren't actually my articles. I've been cleaning up the headings and links, and replacing the use of nicknames by proper names. I have not added any references or info boxes. I don't know who is creating them. I use the ref tags myself when creating footnotes. I am surprised, though, that an article could be nominated for AfD because of bad formatting. That seems very unWikipedia-like. I don't know much about these people, but they seem deserving of Wikipedia articles as far as I can tell. I don't much care, though. Ground Zero | t 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) -- Lentower 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. I responded rudely and tersely to your suggestion about summary boxes on Raul's talk page. I'm sincerely sorry for my abrupt rudeness; I've also posted an apology at Raul's talk page. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I respect your rational discussion of edits; can you please weigh in on the use of 'slaughter' at Talk:The_Holocaust#NPOV_revisited? — Parhamr 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well done again Tony! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I left a message for you over at Talk:Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you sir. Chupper 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your queries at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of tuberous sclerosis. If I can clarify anything else, let me know. Cheers, Colin° Talk 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have placed Crown Fountain on hold for GA, per my notes on the talk page. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm not in agreement that this template belongs in the article itself. However, rather than going back and forth in the article itself, I've posted a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject. I won't revert further on this template until comments have been gathered from a broader audience. -- MisterHand ( Talk to the Hand| Contribs) 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Carabinieri 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's OK. Take your time to make the article as good as possible. Also note RGTraynor's comments. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You're an outstanding editor, and words of gratitude just don't do you justice for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Hi. I've added a few more minor fixes needed. Epbr123 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there was still a conversation going on. I just tried to archive those nominations where there was no discussion for at least a couple of days. Crzy cheetah 18:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I found two categories that have been lost because they were not made into subcategories of any other Chicago categories. They are Category:Chicago blues musicians and Category:Chicago blues ensembles. I added them as subcategories and listed them on the project page and the bot page. Could you check to make sure I did it right? Speciate 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in the discussion I have started there. This template shows up in main space over and over again and seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of WP:SELF (while a guideline-it is an important part of the MOS). It also seems to be an attempt to replace {{ underconstruction}}. I am interested in your answer to my question on the template talk page. IvoShandor 13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Reply to message posted at User talk:Peter Isotalo:
I noticed that you changed the Harrison Ford importance rating. I believe he should be a Category:Mid-importance_Chicago_articles based on the WP:CHICAGO Official importance scale that you can see on this category page. Do you not feel that he falls into the category of individuals that had (B) a prominent national and/or international role that had a large impact on non-Chicagoans and but had a limited role as a Chicagoans. I feel it is fairly clear that this accurately describes Harrison and his role to the Chicago project. I will revert you change and await comment if you disagree. Please respond to my talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I added the reference for the Will Rogers text and remove the comment brackets. The source is Houghton Mifflin, so we shouldn't get much push back. Regarding the article and my absence.....I have been in the middle of a massive job search effort and haven't been putting much time toward Wiki in general and when I have I seem to have been pursuing adding infoboxes for NRHP articles. I'll try to drop into the FAC page and work on the various objects and suggestions. And as always, I GREATLY APPRECIATE your efforts to drive this article toward FAC. LurkingInChicago 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Espresso Addict 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that any comments about this should be placed on the AfD page, but I've got to ask you something about this... first of all, I replied to your comment on the AfD page, but I've got to ask you this... do you know that Barry Bonds will hit home runs numbers 755 and 756? If so, then you should be able to tell me when, who the opposing pitcher is, what the count is, who is on base, what inning, what the score was... in other words, you would have to be clairvoyant, a psychic... which brings me back to the crystal-balling. Ksy92003 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)