![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
An article that you have been involved in editing, United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009. Thank you. — Markles 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravecky ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) didn't go well. I thought you were making good progress with the FAC. After I saw it, I realized it's been a while since you tried an RFA. Do you still have any interest in running that other gauntlet? Happy new year, too! Gimmetrow 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The second and third paragraphs in the Legal issues section are probably about the same case— Hansberry v. Lee. Though I can not read ref [6]. However two other cases that preceded Hansberry v. Lee may deserve attention: Burke v. Kleiman (decided in the Illinois Supreme Court in 1934) and Corrigan v. Buckley (dismissed by the US Supreme Court in 1926 for the want of jurisdiction). The Burke v. Kleiman is the most interesting case, because a plaintiff in it was Olive Ida Burke, who was the wife of Mr. Burke—a defendant in Hansberry. Corrigan is also interesting, because the covenants started to proliferate after the Supreme Court upheld their constitutionality by dismissing this lawsuit (see [1] for details). Ruslik ( talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow... how is it not apparent that the peeps at GAR do not find any POV? I mean, that's heir #1 problem! In fact, after reading the GAR, I think I was too kind on the review. The peeps said it all, but I will add a little something to it. Leujohn ( talk) 05:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Tony,
Hope your New Years and Christmas were merry and bright. Taking a look at Washington Park Court District, hmm. We need this, I think its the landmark nomination or documentation, which would have some info on things of an architectural nature most assuredly. Can you get that? From the Landmark Commission maybe? If you can, and then scan it in and email it to me, I could use it to expand the article. I am finding some info, I think, on Google Books. Give me a few minutes to look some of what I am finding over and I will compile some sources on the article's talk page. I will also see what I can do about Schulze Baking Company Plant, I should be able to dig up some good info on that one. -- IvoShandor ( talk) 19:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't appear this page is being updated regularly do we know if the bot who maintains it might be offline, not working etc. - Marcusmax( speak) 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Washington Park Court District at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Art LaPella (
talk) 08:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the image of Pam, my homegirl, peace MrShamrock ( talk) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Fort Dearborn article was moved yesterday without discussion. I've put out a request to have it moved back to its original location. As you've edited the Fort Dearborn article in the passed, please weigh in on the discussion on the current Fort Dearborn talk page. Shsilver ( talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
( Here?) On mine, the "edit" button is directly to the left of the column with the two templates. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:fixBunching says stacking templates causes some browsers to experience "bunched up and dislocated section edit links (normally some of these will be displaced down the page—frequently well down the page— and several will occur on the same line)."(!) So whenever templates are stacked we should remember to avail ourselves of this handy fix. It says its "fixBunching" name and discreet placement "prevents its being overlooked" (compared to the curlybeginningbracket-pipe, pipe-template, pipe-hyphen, pipe-template, pipe-curlyendbracket, going down the line when using instead wikitable markup). Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you.
RandomHumanoid(
⇒) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Blowout (sports), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RandomHumanoid( ⇒) 07:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wonder what the reason for changing Election Day to election day? Is it being used as a different part of speech? Sorry for what is probably a stupid question but I have no clue. Thanks and Here's the Diff §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you happen to have a photograph of the sign I could draw from? If not, I can estimate it based on the Rush St. one, but I'm not sure how accurate it would be. Thanks. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Originally you've submitted it under politics and government, so I've first added it to that section of the giant GA list after passing it, but constitutional law is perhaps more appropriate, so I've put it there too. I don't know if this is likely to cause any problems (e.g. double counting by bots). Please fix as necessary. Xasodfuih ( talk) 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 11:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Tony - hope my edit summaries from last night didn't sound snippy - I was just trying to pack info into a too short space, way too late at night. Also hope you saw my comment on the talk page - more than happy to talk about it all. Looking forward to continuing to work with you to improve this article - we're going to have lots of good sources and I am certain a wealth of quality material to add as this next phase begins. Cheers Tvoz/ talk 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The article
Julius Franks you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Julius Franks for things needed to be addressed.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tony! Thanks for the note on my talk page :) I don't remember doing any football articles, but I could have just forgotten; I'll have to take a look through my archives! Yes, I tend to bounce around quite a bit - makes things more interesting that way. I stopped reviewing for a while and didn't realize what a large backlog had built up - right now I'm trying to work my way through a bunch of the articles that are still there from November and early December...no matter what the subject... I'm working my way down the Social sciences and society list right now, so I should get to your politics articles in a few days unless someone else grabs them first. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 04:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your appreciation -- Eliyak T· C 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello - I have reviewed Byron Brown, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:
|
The Milhist A-Class medal | |
For prolific work on Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Bob Chappuis and Elmer Gedeon, in December 2008 and January 2009, you are hereby awarded the military history A-Class medal by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations and keep up the hard work! JonCatalán (Talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Self-portrait as the black Jimmy Connors in the finals of the New Negro Escapist Social and Athletic Club Summer Tennis Tournament.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I have started a discussion about using "1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee" as part of the Jack Kemp infobox. I'm interested in your take. Thanks. Hekerui ( talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I am just trying to figure out this tfd, and would like to know your views on {{ Infobox Settlement}}. According to the nominator there is only 7 instances of this occurring in article space. But there seems to be another infobox showing up in neighborhoods like Clearing that doesn't seem to be either of the two. In fact these occur in roughly half of the neighborhood articles. Is this one of the infoboxes being discussed or something else. Because if this is another infobox then a lot of time would be consumed changing articles over to {{ Infobox Settlement}}. - Marcusmax( speak) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please lend me your "ears":
I was very impressed by the achievements you boast - good articles, FA's. I don't think the Jack Kemp FAC is the first time that we have met. I don't know what you think of me, but I am certainly not as much a part of wikipedia as you are. Whatever arbitration powers I have in FAC are insignificant except insofar as my claims are accurate (that's the way it's supposed to work, at least).
I am conflicted about whether I should support the FA Candidature of your article, I find it's writing quality good, with the perhaps final exception of some organizational issues (which are very important by the way) like the way paragraphs are organized. One paragraph that really stood out for example started on one subject and then went on to talk about a country club and possible corruption regarding it.
I like the article. I think it's very good. I feel that the change from "gay rights" to "gay rights including the of openly gay teachers to teach" was beneficial. I feel like a similarly beneficial change could be enacted for the civil rights legislation part. I especially feel that Jack Kemp's effort should not be easily confused as the efforts of anti-segregation speakers, since segregation legislation was a very important part of civil legislation which was defeated before he ever took office. In part the problem could be related to the lack of coverage of civil legislation, especifically in wikipedia, of post-segregation civil rights legislation, as that makes it difficult to relate the events...
Please lend me your thoughts.-- Kiyarrlls- talk 06:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of an expansion? It is just 19 characters short of meeting the 1500 minimum characters of readable prose criterion. - Mgm| (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see comments there. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to give it a look later this week - you want it to be higher or lower priority than looking at the changes you made to Byron Brown? Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Dolekemp1996.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Tony. My point is this, if we add 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee to Kemp's Infobox. Then we'd have to add Republican congressional nominees, HUD Secretary Nominee etc. GoodDay ( talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've got Nav box gripes, there. GoodDay ( talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
File:0871516.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Jack Kemp, Joanne, Judith.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Jack Kemp, Joanne, Judith.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do several of the ref citations you added to the Barack Obama inauguration araticle have such opaque names, as indicated here, and here.
Are you using some kind of editor aid that creates random names such as: "AFtsaOi" and "AVGttPIoBO"? Naming refs in this manner impairs the ability of a subsequent editor to have a memorable nmemonic when tracking down the source article citations.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 13:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned your awesome work here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Deletion_wars:_I_propose_a_novel_solution Please comment if you care too. travb ( talk) 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)}}
Assuming you're talking about this edit, I removed it because I didn't see how it was worth mentioning in Jack Kemp when the previous sentence indicated that Kemp didn't actually appear on field for the Giants at any point during the season - I'm sure there were lots of interesting things that happened to the Giants that year on the field, but since Kemp wasn't a part of any of them my view is that they don't need to be mentioned in his article. As I noted in this edit, I have no objection to my copyediting being wholly or partially reverted. In my view, the article's more FA criteria-compliant without that bit, but it's not a huge deal either way. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article
DuSable Museum of African American History you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. –
Ms. Sarita
Confer 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder: There's still one more thing to take care of in the review. I did respond to you on my talk page but I'm not sure if you saw it. The last thing is listed in the "Prose" section, at the very top. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any more questions. – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have passed the article. Thank you for your patience throughout the review. Keep up the good work. – Ms. Sarita Confer 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you knew that the image for the Template:ChicagoBarnstar was removed by a bot and needs fixing. Thanks for your help! -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about the AfD. -- Josh Atkins ( talk - contribs) 14:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it is yet appropriate to nominate this article for good article status, per quick-fail criterion 5, current event with set end date. Don't you think you should at least wait a couple days, especially with unresolved issues such as attendance numbers and Kennedy's illness? - Running On Brains 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
←Userfied to User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's first 100 days :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:20080120 Washington Convention Center Inaugural Ball Sign.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 06:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you are the article creator, highest-edit count editor and nominator, it's hard to choose one of the credits. I guess this one will be ok. Greetings and looking forward for cooperation in the future. -- Tone 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You asked: "The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day that President Obama used as a Day of Service was sort of part of the inauguration week activities. Does it belong in the article?"
Can you provide me a link with the difference of the edits? I can't seem to find the specific time when you started re-expanding the article.-- TRU CO 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Fountain of Time at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Mgm
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 05:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)
Neither Justia nor Findlaw has those opinions. ussc template should not be used. The reason for this is less clear. Probably, those cases are not considered significant. Ruslik ( talk) 10:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. You are preaching to the choir about sources. And that's why I noted it in the discussion. Nice job on the article, BTW. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Stan
Tony: I'm not ready to strike my oppose yet, but I was working on the Franklin Knight Lane article and I came across this: go to page 69 which I'm sure you'll fall on with glad cries!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been around much lately, I've been busy with other things both on WP and in real life. I will try to add some more stuff to the articles tomorrow. -- Eastlaw talk · contribs 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I realize that the article does quote the text elsewhere, but, to my mind, it seems incongruous to declare that any analysis begins with the text and then to fail to quote the text, relying on the reader going elsewhere (even elsewhere in the article). While I might agree that it would be overkill if the text was lengthy, we're not talking about reprinting ERISA here. Quoting one clause - a single sentence - hardly distends the article, and I think would greatly aid lay reader comprehension. Simon Dodd ( talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, when you have a moment, could we address the issue I raised on the talk page following your revert? Simon Dodd ( talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to your improvements and comments I've passed DeShawn Sims. I hope you'll continue to contribute by improving more articles and take the time to review a couple dozen of the backlog ;)-- Crossmr ( talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Table looks much better, I've supported now jimfbleak ( talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you answer my question at DYK. - Mgm| (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
To promote my discussion WP:IRE, I'm trying to get people to reference unreferenced articles. To that end, I've put up a reward on the Wikipedia:Reward board for anyone who references a fully unreferenced article from the Category:All articles lacking sources (or three articles that meet the DYK criterion of 1500 readable prose characters). Since you write a lot of DYK entries, you know as no other how important references are. Could I convince you to take a shot at this and earn a shiny barnstar? - Mgm| (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
How could they not be in the public record? No Buffalo media reported the results? That seems extraordinary to me. Anyway, do they mail these out to anybody who asks (or, failing that, anybody who asks and pays the required fee)? If so, I'd call that publication of a sort, and I think it should clear WP:PRIMARY. I'd say source it as something like Results of the 2005 Buffalo mayoral election, Buffalo Board of Elections, 2005. The might just be my view, though; worst case scenario you can leave it out, though I can see why you wouldn't want to do that. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 22:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Spencer T♦ C 11:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tony -
That's fine - I'll just wait a couple of days. It actually works out fine; my laptop died last night so I now have limited access to a desktop until it's fixed (or I buy a new one, oh joy). Thanks for the note, though. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I was surprised you reverted my Blago modification where I shoved the crazily-long intro into a "Summary" section. The new lead already abides by WP:LEAD, whereas after your revert, the lead is again 15 times as long as it ought to be, full of detail. Tempshill ( talk) 20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I read at the Jack Kemp Peer Review that the pre-1981 NYT archive is not accessable for you. Well I have great news, I have discovered a way to access the entire NYT archive for free! Each article's url contains what I call a res code. For example, the url for the preview of "Dahomey Transfers Power Peacefully"' is (res code in bold):
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0712F9355A137B93CAA9178ED85F468785F9
You can access the entire artcle by simply plugging the res code after http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=. For example, the Dahomey Transfers full article is at (res code again in bold)
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=FA0712F9355A137B93CAA9178ED85F468785F9
Hope this helps. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 17:51, 31 January 2009 (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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
An article that you have been involved in editing, United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009. Thank you. — Markles 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravecky ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) didn't go well. I thought you were making good progress with the FAC. After I saw it, I realized it's been a while since you tried an RFA. Do you still have any interest in running that other gauntlet? Happy new year, too! Gimmetrow 05:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The second and third paragraphs in the Legal issues section are probably about the same case— Hansberry v. Lee. Though I can not read ref [6]. However two other cases that preceded Hansberry v. Lee may deserve attention: Burke v. Kleiman (decided in the Illinois Supreme Court in 1934) and Corrigan v. Buckley (dismissed by the US Supreme Court in 1926 for the want of jurisdiction). The Burke v. Kleiman is the most interesting case, because a plaintiff in it was Olive Ida Burke, who was the wife of Mr. Burke—a defendant in Hansberry. Corrigan is also interesting, because the covenants started to proliferate after the Supreme Court upheld their constitutionality by dismissing this lawsuit (see [1] for details). Ruslik ( talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow... how is it not apparent that the peeps at GAR do not find any POV? I mean, that's heir #1 problem! In fact, after reading the GAR, I think I was too kind on the review. The peeps said it all, but I will add a little something to it. Leujohn ( talk) 05:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Tony,
Hope your New Years and Christmas were merry and bright. Taking a look at Washington Park Court District, hmm. We need this, I think its the landmark nomination or documentation, which would have some info on things of an architectural nature most assuredly. Can you get that? From the Landmark Commission maybe? If you can, and then scan it in and email it to me, I could use it to expand the article. I am finding some info, I think, on Google Books. Give me a few minutes to look some of what I am finding over and I will compile some sources on the article's talk page. I will also see what I can do about Schulze Baking Company Plant, I should be able to dig up some good info on that one. -- IvoShandor ( talk) 19:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't appear this page is being updated regularly do we know if the bot who maintains it might be offline, not working etc. - Marcusmax( speak) 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Washington Park Court District at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Art LaPella (
talk) 08:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the image of Pam, my homegirl, peace MrShamrock ( talk) 10:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Fort Dearborn article was moved yesterday without discussion. I've put out a request to have it moved back to its original location. As you've edited the Fort Dearborn article in the passed, please weigh in on the discussion on the current Fort Dearborn talk page. Shsilver ( talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
( Here?) On mine, the "edit" button is directly to the left of the column with the two templates. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:fixBunching says stacking templates causes some browsers to experience "bunched up and dislocated section edit links (normally some of these will be displaced down the page—frequently well down the page— and several will occur on the same line)."(!) So whenever templates are stacked we should remember to avail ourselves of this handy fix. It says its "fixBunching" name and discreet placement "prevents its being overlooked" (compared to the curlybeginningbracket-pipe, pipe-template, pipe-hyphen, pipe-template, pipe-curlyendbracket, going down the line when using instead wikitable markup). Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you.
RandomHumanoid(
⇒) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Blowout (sports), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RandomHumanoid( ⇒) 07:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wonder what the reason for changing Election Day to election day? Is it being used as a different part of speech? Sorry for what is probably a stupid question but I have no clue. Thanks and Here's the Diff §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you happen to have a photograph of the sign I could draw from? If not, I can estimate it based on the Rush St. one, but I'm not sure how accurate it would be. Thanks. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Originally you've submitted it under politics and government, so I've first added it to that section of the giant GA list after passing it, but constitutional law is perhaps more appropriate, so I've put it there too. I don't know if this is likely to cause any problems (e.g. double counting by bots). Please fix as necessary. Xasodfuih ( talk) 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 11:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Tony - hope my edit summaries from last night didn't sound snippy - I was just trying to pack info into a too short space, way too late at night. Also hope you saw my comment on the talk page - more than happy to talk about it all. Looking forward to continuing to work with you to improve this article - we're going to have lots of good sources and I am certain a wealth of quality material to add as this next phase begins. Cheers Tvoz/ talk 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The article
Julius Franks you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Julius Franks for things needed to be addressed.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tony! Thanks for the note on my talk page :) I don't remember doing any football articles, but I could have just forgotten; I'll have to take a look through my archives! Yes, I tend to bounce around quite a bit - makes things more interesting that way. I stopped reviewing for a while and didn't realize what a large backlog had built up - right now I'm trying to work my way through a bunch of the articles that are still there from November and early December...no matter what the subject... I'm working my way down the Social sciences and society list right now, so I should get to your politics articles in a few days unless someone else grabs them first. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 04:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your appreciation -- Eliyak T· C 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello - I have reviewed Byron Brown, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:
|
The Milhist A-Class medal | |
For prolific work on Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Bob Chappuis and Elmer Gedeon, in December 2008 and January 2009, you are hereby awarded the military history A-Class medal by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations and keep up the hard work! JonCatalán (Talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Self-portrait as the black Jimmy Connors in the finals of the New Negro Escapist Social and Athletic Club Summer Tennis Tournament.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I have started a discussion about using "1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee" as part of the Jack Kemp infobox. I'm interested in your take. Thanks. Hekerui ( talk) 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I am just trying to figure out this tfd, and would like to know your views on {{ Infobox Settlement}}. According to the nominator there is only 7 instances of this occurring in article space. But there seems to be another infobox showing up in neighborhoods like Clearing that doesn't seem to be either of the two. In fact these occur in roughly half of the neighborhood articles. Is this one of the infoboxes being discussed or something else. Because if this is another infobox then a lot of time would be consumed changing articles over to {{ Infobox Settlement}}. - Marcusmax( speak) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please lend me your "ears":
I was very impressed by the achievements you boast - good articles, FA's. I don't think the Jack Kemp FAC is the first time that we have met. I don't know what you think of me, but I am certainly not as much a part of wikipedia as you are. Whatever arbitration powers I have in FAC are insignificant except insofar as my claims are accurate (that's the way it's supposed to work, at least).
I am conflicted about whether I should support the FA Candidature of your article, I find it's writing quality good, with the perhaps final exception of some organizational issues (which are very important by the way) like the way paragraphs are organized. One paragraph that really stood out for example started on one subject and then went on to talk about a country club and possible corruption regarding it.
I like the article. I think it's very good. I feel that the change from "gay rights" to "gay rights including the of openly gay teachers to teach" was beneficial. I feel like a similarly beneficial change could be enacted for the civil rights legislation part. I especially feel that Jack Kemp's effort should not be easily confused as the efforts of anti-segregation speakers, since segregation legislation was a very important part of civil legislation which was defeated before he ever took office. In part the problem could be related to the lack of coverage of civil legislation, especifically in wikipedia, of post-segregation civil rights legislation, as that makes it difficult to relate the events...
Please lend me your thoughts.-- Kiyarrlls- talk 06:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of an expansion? It is just 19 characters short of meeting the 1500 minimum characters of readable prose criterion. - Mgm| (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see comments there. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to give it a look later this week - you want it to be higher or lower priority than looking at the changes you made to Byron Brown? Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Dolekemp1996.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Tony. My point is this, if we add 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee to Kemp's Infobox. Then we'd have to add Republican congressional nominees, HUD Secretary Nominee etc. GoodDay ( talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've got Nav box gripes, there. GoodDay ( talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
File:0871516.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Jack Kemp, Joanne, Judith.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Jack Kemp, Joanne, Judith.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do several of the ref citations you added to the Barack Obama inauguration araticle have such opaque names, as indicated here, and here.
Are you using some kind of editor aid that creates random names such as: "AFtsaOi" and "AVGttPIoBO"? Naming refs in this manner impairs the ability of a subsequent editor to have a memorable nmemonic when tracking down the source article citations.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 13:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Dravecky ( talk) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned your awesome work here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Deletion_wars:_I_propose_a_novel_solution Please comment if you care too. travb ( talk) 12:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)}}
Assuming you're talking about this edit, I removed it because I didn't see how it was worth mentioning in Jack Kemp when the previous sentence indicated that Kemp didn't actually appear on field for the Giants at any point during the season - I'm sure there were lots of interesting things that happened to the Giants that year on the field, but since Kemp wasn't a part of any of them my view is that they don't need to be mentioned in his article. As I noted in this edit, I have no objection to my copyediting being wholly or partially reverted. In my view, the article's more FA criteria-compliant without that bit, but it's not a huge deal either way. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article
DuSable Museum of African American History you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. –
Ms. Sarita
Confer 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder: There's still one more thing to take care of in the review. I did respond to you on my talk page but I'm not sure if you saw it. The last thing is listed in the "Prose" section, at the very top. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any more questions. – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have passed the article. Thank you for your patience throughout the review. Keep up the good work. – Ms. Sarita Confer 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you knew that the image for the Template:ChicagoBarnstar was removed by a bot and needs fixing. Thanks for your help! -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about the AfD. -- Josh Atkins ( talk - contribs) 14:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it is yet appropriate to nominate this article for good article status, per quick-fail criterion 5, current event with set end date. Don't you think you should at least wait a couple days, especially with unresolved issues such as attendance numbers and Kennedy's illness? - Running On Brains 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
←Userfied to User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's first 100 days :-) Xavexgoem ( talk) 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:20080120 Washington Convention Center Inaugural Ball Sign.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 06:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you are the article creator, highest-edit count editor and nominator, it's hard to choose one of the credits. I guess this one will be ok. Greetings and looking forward for cooperation in the future. -- Tone 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You asked: "The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day that President Obama used as a Day of Service was sort of part of the inauguration week activities. Does it belong in the article?"
Can you provide me a link with the difference of the edits? I can't seem to find the specific time when you started re-expanding the article.-- TRU CO 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Fountain of Time at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Mgm
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 05:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)
Neither Justia nor Findlaw has those opinions. ussc template should not be used. The reason for this is less clear. Probably, those cases are not considered significant. Ruslik ( talk) 10:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. You are preaching to the choir about sources. And that's why I noted it in the discussion. Nice job on the article, BTW. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Stan
Tony: I'm not ready to strike my oppose yet, but I was working on the Franklin Knight Lane article and I came across this: go to page 69 which I'm sure you'll fall on with glad cries!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been around much lately, I've been busy with other things both on WP and in real life. I will try to add some more stuff to the articles tomorrow. -- Eastlaw talk · contribs 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I realize that the article does quote the text elsewhere, but, to my mind, it seems incongruous to declare that any analysis begins with the text and then to fail to quote the text, relying on the reader going elsewhere (even elsewhere in the article). While I might agree that it would be overkill if the text was lengthy, we're not talking about reprinting ERISA here. Quoting one clause - a single sentence - hardly distends the article, and I think would greatly aid lay reader comprehension. Simon Dodd ( talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, when you have a moment, could we address the issue I raised on the talk page following your revert? Simon Dodd ( talk) 21:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to your improvements and comments I've passed DeShawn Sims. I hope you'll continue to contribute by improving more articles and take the time to review a couple dozen of the backlog ;)-- Crossmr ( talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Table looks much better, I've supported now jimfbleak ( talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you answer my question at DYK. - Mgm| (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
To promote my discussion WP:IRE, I'm trying to get people to reference unreferenced articles. To that end, I've put up a reward on the Wikipedia:Reward board for anyone who references a fully unreferenced article from the Category:All articles lacking sources (or three articles that meet the DYK criterion of 1500 readable prose characters). Since you write a lot of DYK entries, you know as no other how important references are. Could I convince you to take a shot at this and earn a shiny barnstar? - Mgm| (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
How could they not be in the public record? No Buffalo media reported the results? That seems extraordinary to me. Anyway, do they mail these out to anybody who asks (or, failing that, anybody who asks and pays the required fee)? If so, I'd call that publication of a sort, and I think it should clear WP:PRIMARY. I'd say source it as something like Results of the 2005 Buffalo mayoral election, Buffalo Board of Elections, 2005. The might just be my view, though; worst case scenario you can leave it out, though I can see why you wouldn't want to do that. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 22:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Spencer T♦ C 11:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tony -
That's fine - I'll just wait a couple of days. It actually works out fine; my laptop died last night so I now have limited access to a desktop until it's fixed (or I buy a new one, oh joy). Thanks for the note, though. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I was surprised you reverted my Blago modification where I shoved the crazily-long intro into a "Summary" section. The new lead already abides by WP:LEAD, whereas after your revert, the lead is again 15 times as long as it ought to be, full of detail. Tempshill ( talk) 20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I read at the Jack Kemp Peer Review that the pre-1981 NYT archive is not accessable for you. Well I have great news, I have discovered a way to access the entire NYT archive for free! Each article's url contains what I call a res code. For example, the url for the preview of "Dahomey Transfers Power Peacefully"' is (res code in bold):
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0712F9355A137B93CAA9178ED85F468785F9
You can access the entire artcle by simply plugging the res code after http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=. For example, the Dahomey Transfers full article is at (res code again in bold)
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=FA0712F9355A137B93CAA9178ED85F468785F9
Hope this helps. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 17:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)