User talk:Rjanag/Archive3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I assume you realize that the article that was allegedly plagiarized from is my own article (in which I own copyright). But I can take another shot at revamping it over and above eliminating my copious footnotes. Any further specific suggestions that you might care to make would be greatly appreciated. Thx.
--PraeceptorIP (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I won't have time until next week. My (limited) knowledge of linguistics is biased towards Chomskyan linguistics but I have been exposed to neurolinguistics and computational approaches at the undergraduate level. I want to get the basics right on the related articles. Can you suggest a really good article that introduces neurolinguistics? ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts related to "Did You Know?", including repairing articles. Nice work! --Orlady (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who inserted the St. George's Cross into this table (after considering the discussion on the Talk Page), I'm grateful that someone else has put it back. But in defence of the editor who deleted it, I consider that a legitimate question for disagreement and doubt (e.g. should we insert Palestine's flag above or below Israel's since Palestinians and many Muslims consider Jerusalem to be Palestine's capital and Tel Aviv's to be Israel's?), so the deletion doesn't really qualify as malicious vandalism. (Technically speaking, Sister Cities only allows the UK for the one-country per city rule, so New York City couldn't add Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast as a sister city.) Although I was born in London, my mother's side is Scottish, so Happy St Andrew's Day! —— Shakescene (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert. The editor who made that latest edit is a suspected sock puppet of Nimbley6 and was vandalizing a large number of pages, so I was just going through and reverting all of his/her edits. I might have reverted some things that weren't so clear-cut. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the reversion itself; in fact, I'm grateful. I was just saying that by itself it wasn't evidence of vandalism since there had been genuine disagreement among other editors. On the other hand, this editor left no reasoning or rationale, and apparently has been editing a bit recklessly elsewhere. (Perhaps I'm too punctilious when the result isn't affected, but I try hard to be fair to those who disagree with me. Assume good faith and all that.) [P.S., I usually prefer to keep exchanges on one page.] —— Shakescene (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a rvv on this user's edit - which didn't look like vandalism to me. Specifying Scotland, UK instead of UK. But I saw that you reverted quite a few of these edits. Has there been some decision not to distinguish cities by Scotland, Ireland, Britain universally. Not being quite up on the politics of the UK, I can see where it could be a point of contention, but also a useful geographic reference - i.e. in some cases it is nice to know if where in the UK a city is (being an American I am not up on detailed UK geography but I do know enough that people from Scotland and Ireland do not like being referred to as being a part of England - as a euphemism for the UK). For example I couldn't tell you, without looking, if Glasgow is in Scotland of Ireland - just that it isn't in England proper. I see that this user's talk page is marked as a suspected sock so you might be able to enlighten me rather than asking at a bunch of different article talk pages. TIA --Trödel 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the info - and good idea re the notice on the user's talk page - though I suspect it will list he is a sock soon enough --Trödel 13:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, an excellent edit putting the {{user page}} tag on his user page. That eliminates a fear I had, especially with another editor, that the user page could be mistaken for the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tweaking the DYN nom. If you have time, would you be so kind as to check the article for B-class criteria? Being the original author I assume I'm biased, even if I'm not, so I gave it a conservative C-class rating. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Politizer. If you have a chance, I would appreciate your review of this. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in reading an essay I just wrote on the use of info boxes. I'd appriciate hearing your opinion. The essay is at Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. Nrswanson (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Politizer, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

You are right, i said that i won`t say more in the matter and i`ll keep to that, but for the record, Ed call her a dead girl just after the attack without a corpse and just something very sad happen, none of that is definitive.

I won`t get in the matter until further info comes. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand why my pictures are attacked even though I crated it myself. As you know, Hangul was influenced by Chinese and Japanese. So I made it easier to see how it had been changed. Since you undid it without any explanation, I will undo it. Unsigned comment by Byeonggwan (talk / contribs).

No problem! BTW, thanks for reviewing my DYKs! Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Dude...wait, what" picture is actually of my cat. I added it just for fun (it is part of my userspace) and was surprised to see it was accepted for use on the page and stayed that long. If images are readded, you can always readd it. No hard feelings on this end. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 22:13

Any ideas how this could be re-written? Needs a description, history, response, usage etc, but I'm struggling to think how to put them together. The list of sources in my userspace is just sitting there waiting to be used - it would be pretty awesome to make a GA out of this, don't you think? Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I must admit that at first I was angry, but I guess that is the passion that I put behind my writing that got the better part of me. It was really no big deal and I fully understand. I'm just glad that I have been receiving a lot of positive input about my writing in Wikipedia because it means that I am reaching out to people and doing what I had aimed to do in the first place and that is to provide good educational articles. Keep up the good work and Happy Holidays. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you already know I replied at T:TDYK. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please notify the article's creator - I admit this nomination is my attempt to show him what he needs to improve in his creations, and getting a "DYK on hold" note is a good way of showing him that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. You requested an in-line citation for the Jose C. Abriol article entry at Template talk:Did you know#Jose C. Abriol. I provided it over there. Could you please kindly take a look and see if that's fine now? Thank you in advance. Thank you too for your comment. - AnakngAraw (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally on main page. Thanks again. - AnakngAraw (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Politizer. I have responded at DYK but am eager to resolve any outstanding issues. Could you be more specific about your concerns? I would be happy to send you a PDF of the entire article, if that would be helpful. The poem has not been ignored in the modern era, though most of what has been written is for an audience of academic specialist. Peter Green's article is unique in that it covers not the text but makeup. He goes systematically through Ovid's ingredients and identifies many still used today. The article has been cited by almost every subsequent commentator, and I thought it would be a foundation for a nice hook. Please tell me what I need to do. Thanks for your interest. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to tell you the hook, "*... that although Chuck Daly is a Basketball Hall of Famer now, when he served as head coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers he had a 9–32 record and was fired mid-season?", sounds like its talking about Chuck Daly, and not the article it is supposed to be talking about. (Hope you get what I mean) -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 07:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...it is. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Politizer, thanks for reminding me about my DYK nomination. I was busy in RL, and I had other things in my mind. I forgot about my DYK nomination. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about this article's DYK nomination; I've made some resultant changes to the article and responded at Template talk:Did you know. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I checked the article for sourcing before promoting it, but I failed to recognize that the hook fact was still dependent on the same Geocities source (that finally had been cited inline). It's clear, though, that she was Akihito's oldest sister -- for example, see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,800566,00.html and http://fultonhistory.com/newspaper%202/Utica%20NY%20Daily%20Observer/Utica%20NY%20Observer%201961%20a%20PDF/Utica%20NY%20Observer%201961%20a%20-%200075.pdf (image of a newspaper page that includes her death notice) --Orlady (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tested that next update on tomorrow's main page? --Orlady (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

On Template:Did you know/Next update, underneath the hooks, it says "See how this template appears on both today's Main Page and tomorrow's Main Page." Those links work for everybody. Before DYK got its fancy new structure, testing the DYK list on those main pages was one of the key steps in the "next update" instructions. It's moot now, since the hooks have gone into the queue, but I had truncated that list at 6 because those 6 hooks more than filled the available space on "tomorrow's" page. --Orlady (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Stuff at Wikipedia can be pretty bewildering, so we continually have to help each other out. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article bǎ construction, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed my article on Urbach-Wiethe disease. I've actually never done anything before on Wikipedia. This article was actually part of a class project for my Neuroscience class. We were supposed to find some topic that related to neuroscience that wasn't currently on Wikipedia, research it, and create a Wikipedia article on it. Kindof a neat project! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GTgth688k (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Should a promotional release be counted as a single? Preceding unsigned comment by IHelpWhenICan (talk) (contribs)

Oi, by the way, I'm looking at your userpage, and our interests have significant degree of overlap:China, Chinese, linguistics, etc. Be seeing you around when I become more involved... Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

On a brighter note, I hope the drama didn't obscure the bling. Cheers. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag! I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Chinese-language entertainment, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Chinese-language actors, singers, music and television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Hope to see you there! Arsonal (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You have those times during the day or night where no admin seems to be about. Been happening quite a lot lately, wikipedia definitely needs more active admins for sure. Theres only 3 reports there now, which is pretty low compared to other times i have seen them. Dont worry though, keep reverting and they'll eventually get whats coming. Cheers Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am puzzled and rather annoyed by the fact that, even though me and another user objected to the fact that the Barony of Ladyland DYK entry (like the article itself) uses the slur "papist" to define a person of the Roman Catholic faith, and even though I had submitted an alternative hook, the entry silently passed on the front page. I am not a Catholic, but I picture most self-aware Catholics would feel insulted by this; I personally feel jaded by the fact that I have been wasting my time trying to improve the selection process, at least in this case (i have been doing it sporadically for months now). In fact, I don't even know if the entry was supposed to be on the front page this soon after being proposed, so I'm ready to believe that someone willingly ignored our comments. Dahn (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I had taken it to WP:ERRORS in the meantime (as I think you have noticed since); we were seemingly both at the end of a wikipedia session, and it was pretty urgent, so I thought I'd also take it there. While this was probably started as a casual prejudice in the source cited for the hook (as I have said, it happens when sources are unilateral and colloquial), I was and am sure it getting on the front page was nothing other than oversight, and I'm glad it got sorted. Hopefully, we all learned something from the incident. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to come up with alternate hooks that would qualify and still be under the 200 characters required. The last alternate of ALT 8 meets everything required I believe. References show Davidson built a partially armored car, and invented the first military car and a fully armored car in the U.S. This way then all 5 articles can be in the hook. I have not seen a 5 article hook before, The previous hook I just did was a 4 article hook, concerning American baby food and the Gerber Baby. Thanks for working with me on this. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

... this one won't be a problem any more. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note at Template talk:DYKproblem. -- Suntag ☼ 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean my response to you to be an offense. I mean that you don't have to worry about the progress of it. I am working on the pages non-stop, and I have a large body of notes, books, entries and the rest. One of the people I was expecting is sick, and another is currently not around, so lead work, copy editing, and the rest is slow. I don't expect you to give special treatment. I just think that the statements are better suited to the talk page discussion. Could you please move them over there? I'm just concerned getting the sets together right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I rearranged the DYK - from Milton's (birthday) item to item of Milton (birthday) to avoid the awkward apostrophe. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton at DYK

Note: This conversation originally took place at Ottava Rima's talk page, and has since been removed. I am duplicating it here to make it easier to find until the dispute is resolved.

Ottava Rima, please try to be civil with other editors at DYK. I understand that you have put a lot of work into these Milton articles and it may be frustrating to see people criticizing them, but the people at DYK are here to help you, not to attack you. I have not responded to your apology at my talk page because I didn't feel ready to communicate with you yet, but after seeing your comments to Suntag I had to chime in, because I think you owe him an apology. Remarks such as "Sit and watch WP:FAC for a few weeks and you'll learn a lot" in the context where you made them are quite condescending, and this message in particular was pompous and rude—"I work on FAs. I know how to build them and how to build the encyclopedia," as if the rest of us don't know how to build an encyclopaedia and should do what you say?

The DYK page is for discussing how to improve an article to the point that it can be featured on the main page, not for arguing and attacking. It's not an AfD discussion where one person wins and one loses; it's a collaborative effort. Please try to restrict your comments there to comments about how we can work together to get your articles ready for the main page, and not to attacks and debates. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"as if the rest of us don't know how to build an encyclopaedia and should do what you say?" The absurdity of this statement lacks any ability to truly respond, but here - the person was new. He obviously doesn't understand how articles are built when dealing with complex biographies. If he watched FAC, he would see the types of articles that are established and created on said topics. Telling a new person, someone who hasn't been here that long and has obviously not made that many articles nor took them to such a state, is not "condescending". It is blatant fact. Furthermore, this statement is blatantly wrong: "The DYK page is for discussing how to improve an article to the point that it can be featured on the main page, not for arguing and attacking." The page is not for a discussing. Talk pages for articles are the discussion, or the talk page of the WP:DYK page is the appropriate place. The fact that there are people willing to clog up the DYK is a troubling event. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Suntag has been around for nearly 5 months.

Your assumption that anyone who hasn't been on WP as long as you somehow doesn't know what they're doing, is quite rude and uncooperative. So is your assumption that you have the right to boss new users around; Suntag is not new, but if he were I would remind you of WP:BITE, and of the fact that numerous policy pages (as you already know) reiterate that high edit counts and a long time at Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean an editor is better or more respected than a newer user with a lower edit count. Three DYK users now have asked you to be civil; with all due respect, you weren't at all like this last time I worked with you at DYK.

As for whether or not the DYK page is meant for discussion of improving hooks, you can ask more experienced DYKers like Gatoclass and Borgqueen if you like, but they will tell you the same thing I have; for at least the past two months, we have been using the T:TDYK as the unified place to discuss and verify DYK hooks when they're on their way to the front page; the talk page of WP:DYK, which you mentioned, is for talking about the DYK project, not for improving hooks. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC) (you may respond here, I am now watching this page)

"Actually, Suntag has been around for nearly 5 months." 5 months is an extremely short time, especially with the imbalance of the individual spending time with DYK instead of looking at the opposite end of the project - finishing pages through Peer Review and the FAC process. "Your assumption that anyone who hasn't been on WP as long as you somehow doesn't know what they're doing, is quite rude and uncooperative." Your assumption that people have equal experience and don't need to actually involve themselves with all processes of the encyclopedia before claiming to have the right to know how pages operate is presumptive and absurd. "So is your assumption that you have the right to boss new users around" Logic would state that you have things completely reversed, as Suntag claimed that there was an error, which was demonstratively false. "Three DYK users now have asked you to be civil", and I would suggest that you look at the guideline, which would show that I am being civil. If you want, I can easily start cussing, throwing person attacks, and the rest. However, I have other tasks that are more important than responding to this all night. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how much a user can learn in five months. There are lots of extremely talented and respected editors who have been here for a shorter time than that, and your assertion an editor with 5 months' experience somehow doesn't know what he's doing is a slap in the face. So is your assertion that an editor's work at DYK somehow doesn't count towards that editor's experience. Maybe you think the work you do on Wikipedia is more valuable than the work other editors do, but that doesn't give you an excuse to shit all over them.

And if you really want to go the route of judging editors based on their time at Wikipedia and the places they make their contributions...sure, let's do that. While you have been on WP longer than Suntag, he has made more edits, including more edits in the article namespace (which is what WP is all about, isn't it? Building articles and improving the encyclopaedia? I figured you would know all about that, since you "know how to build FAs and build the encyclopaedia")—here's him, and here's you. He has 75% of his edits distributed over 5 namespaces, while you have 75% of your edits distributed over 4. So if editors "need to actually involve themselves with all processes of the encyclopedia before claiming to have the right to know how pages operate," as you claimed at my talk page, then you aren't really much better than Suntag. And, while you technically joined WP in September 2007, you didn't start making over 100 edits a month until March 2008, before which you were largely inactive,[1] meaning that you've only been a major contributor here for 9 months...not a lot longer than Suntag.

So there you have it. I tried to ask you to be respectful of other editors, and instead you've decided to be a pompous ass and to belittle good editors' contributions. I didn't want to start a fight before, but I do now. As far as I'm concerned, you can take your arrogant attitude and shove it up your ass, because I'm done trying to reason with you. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but that toolserver doesn't count how much content is added to a page. It only looks at edits. When I make contributions of up to 60k at a time, that is far different than something that he does. If you want, I can go run a bot, rack up 1,000 edits quickly, and inflate my numbers. However, I don't work that way. And for your information, I've been a member of Wikipedia for over 6 years now and I also spend quite a bit of my time admining and working at other projects. Now, for this: "to be a pompous ass and to belittle good editors' contributions" Actually, he is new, he doesn't have experience within content editing, and you can pull out as many figures as you want, but he hasn't spent hours in negotiating with dozens of editors to put together a large article while going through all the MoS standards and other guiding principles. Few people can say they have. One of them is myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not start a flame war. I suggest you both take a step back and not continue this conversation, as it is hardly likely to produce anything constructive from this point. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You reverted the section I added regarding the Twitter pages Jacques has created for his characters citing that "this is trivial until it gets covered in a 3rd-party source." By the same logic, the "Easter Eggs" section of the Dinosaur Comics page is also trivial. Are these things trivial or are they not? (I'd rather you just respond here) Matterson52 (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They might be trivial; I haven't looked into it closely. But the status of the DC article has no bearing on this; you can take a look at WP:Other stuff exists for an essay regarding this kind of comparison.

But please don't go and delete information from the DC article to prove a point. If you believe the Twitter information should be included in the QC article, the best way to go about it is to start a thread at the discussion page. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to take into account is that the Dinosaur Comics easter eggs have been around for many years and are pretty commonly known part of the comic (I don't have a source handy for this, but I would venture to guess that a large number of DC readers read the easter eggs just as religiously as they read the comic itself), whereas Jacques only started doing the twitter thing a few days ago—there's no way to gauge how long it will be around, how significant it will be, or how much it will be seen as an integral part of the comic. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks Preceding unsigned comment by Nygirl410027 (talk) (contribs)

Actually I made the edit because I'm trying to keep searches for Alexander Wang the designer from redirecting to Lee-Hom Wang. Any ideas how? Preceding unsigned comment by Nygirl410027 (talk) (contribs)

Thanks for getting back to me!! Good point about the chinese/american name dilemma but I definitely think the designer will get a lot of searches as he's getting more well known. is there some way we could get a page where it lists both links when you search Alexander Wang? Preceding unsigned comment by Nygirl410027 (talk) (contribs)

Hello. You have repeatedly changed my edits to the Marmaduke page to not include an entry I wrote about a relatively popular blog named Marmaduke Explained, which is viewed by many people and is very relative to the topic of Marmaduke. I find it truly unfortunate that although I took the time to include a link to the blog as well as information about its content that you did not bother to check it, but rather mark it as insignificant and delete my posting. I do not mean to be antagonistic, despite deleting all your information, but I was frustrated by the ridiculous hierarchy here on what is supposed to be a website which is editable by all who visit it. Of course, I understand the neccessity of preventing spam, but this is one of my only contributions to this website (despite my joking creation of a page about a friend of mine) and I would appreciate it if my addition was not lost to backwoods, clusterfucked internet bureaucracy. I assure you that my posting is not spam, but it extends beyond your myopic view of what should and should not be posted on the Marmaduke widipedia page. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and after all, who are you to dictate what knowledge reaches people? I have included a link in my posting, and have kept this posting for several months previously before it was deleted. I know my actions subsequent to the edit were fairly childish, however I enjoy wikipedia and its spirit of democracy, and wish that you would not crush it with some bizarre ego trip that involves maintaining the integrity of the Marmaduke page.

Thank you,

Yournumbertwofan (talk)

As additional information, I have provided the following links to website which expound upon or make reference to the content of the blog I mentioned in my post:

• http://roflcon.org/2008/04/26/bonus-rofls-joe-mathlete-marmaduke-explained/
• http://www.lesjones.com/posts/005176.shtml blog
• http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1723880 only minimal mention
• http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/12/marmaduke_expla.html blog
• http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l%253D216520%2526a%253D216536%2526po%253D62,00.asp?p=y
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6153865
• http://roflcon.org/2007/12/20/breaking-news-joe-mathlete-of-marmaduke-explained-at-roflcon/

My assertion was not that "alot of people read the blog" but that it is a relatively popular blog, meaning that it is popular enough to garner articles on the websites of Collegehumor, PCmag, and NPR. I apologize if a simple checking of blog hits is not enough to endow something with the long coveted "notable" status which you so graciously endow. You misquote me further: I did not call Wikipedia a "clusterfucked internet bureaucracy." I was referring to the system which allows certain users to override others simply based on their own personal experience, without any further insight. Listen, I understand that you do have to prevent spam on this website. I know that anyone could come in here and edit the page of a noted dignitary or president to say "FUCK FUCK BBOOOBIES POOP", but my posting was relevant enough to instigate investigation and your deletion of it amounts to an ego trip in that it simply regards the information I posted as irrelevant, despite the fact that my previous posting of it on this website lasted for months before being taken down. I assure you, I am not trying to spam up or fill the already expansive page about Marmaduke with misinformation. I simply want to let people know about a blog I enjoy which is critical of Marmaduke. I am acting in extremely good faith, and have all the freedom to call the levels of bureaucracy on wikipedia a "clusterfuck" and to call your edits an "ego trip." God forbid I should question your authority on the subject. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to condescend me.

Thank you,

yournumbertwofan

Good lord. I mentioned the clusterfucked bureaucracy but I did not anticipate your adherence to it. You deleted my post and it was regarded as "vandalism" when I tried to repost it. One of the editors which removed my information was on trial for being a bot. I'm not sure what "edit war" you are referring to, other than my own additions to your page, which you state at the top that you welcome. Your immediate removal of my edit was very suspicious to me, as it seemed pretty authoritative. Are you on the edits to Marmaduke subscription list? I don't understand. I do not think I am acting like a child. If childish behavior to you is using bad language, then call me a a child I suppose. I did not call you any personal names and only referred to what I thought of as a hierarchy on Wikipedia as a "clusterfucked bureaucracy." I can call your edits an ego trip, which they increasingly seem to be, as you want to talk to me like I am a child, even calling me "childish". It seems as if you didn't even consider the several links I included in my last post, inculding NPR. I am trying to tell you that I made a reasonable edit to a page, one that I made before and which lasted several months before I noticed it was gone tonight. You assertion that "I am willing to bet no one will show you more sympathy than I will" is further proof that this process is an ego trip for you. If users are all equal, than I would prefer it if you left me alone. My edit is not inflammatory, and included a link to the website. If needs be, I can include all of the links I provided on your page if that is enough to validate my claim that marmaduke explained is a relatively popular blog. If all users are equal, then why does your designation of my writing as "non-notable" brand me with vandalism when I attempt to re-post the content? Please explain yourself.

Thanks,

yournumbertwofan

GODDAMIT MAN LISTEN TO ME FOR ONCE JUST PLEASE READ THIS WITH AN OPEN MIND. DON'T TRY TO REFUTE ME OR NITPICK ABOUT THINGS I HAVE SAID. I HAVE PROVIDED AMPLE PROOF THAT MY POSTING WAS RELEVANT, YOU STRUCK OUT 3 OUT OF 7 OF THE WEBSITES I PROVIDED. EVEN IF YOU STRIKE OUT THE REPEAT WHICH I JUST NOTICED I HAVE PROVIDED 3 SOURCES OF PROOF, WHICH IS ENOUGH TO PUBLISH AN ARTICLE IN A FUCKING NEWSPAPER. I SAID BEFORE THE POST HAD BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE IT WAS DELETED, AND THAT ONE OF THE THREE EDITORS YOU CITED WAS ON BOT TRIAL. PLEASE EXCUSE MY ASSAULT ON YOU AND THAT OTHER GUY, I WAS MAD THAT MY RELATIVELY INANE POST WOULD BE ASSAULTED SO QUICKLY. AGAIN, I BELIEVE YOUR HASTINESS TO INFORM ME OF THE WIKIPEDIA RULES AMOUNTS TO AN EGO TRIP, BUT HONESTLY IF YOU THINK I AM BEING AN ASSHOLE ABOUT IT PLEASE STOP TAKING IT SO PERSONALLY. YOU CALLED ME CHILDISH TWICE AFTER I USED IT ONCE. YOU REGARDED MY PREVIOUS EXPLANATION OF MY ACTIONS AS CHILDISH, WHICH I DO NOT FEEL IT WAS. WHATEVER THE FUCK AN EDIT WAR IS IS IRRELEVANT, AS I TOLD YOU MY ACTIONS AFTER THE POST WERE OUT OF FRUSTRATION. I WISH TO CONTRIBUTE WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY. I WOULD NOT TAKE TIME TO WRITE THIS BULLSHIT OTHERWISE. I HAVE EXPLAINED MYSELF TO YOU AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU QUIT ACTING THIS WAY. DESPITE YOUR IMPRESSION THAT I, A STRANGER ON THE INTERNET, THINK YOU HAVE A PATHETIC LIFE, I CAN ASSURE YOU THIS IS UNTRUE. GOOD GOD 400 PAGES?!? YOU'RE WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. I WANT TO EDIT THIS PAGE TO INCLUDE THE PREVIOUS INFORMATION WHICH I HAVE POSTED. WHY IS YOUR DELETION OF MY POST NOT VANDALISM IF WE'RE ON THE SAME LEVEL? I WOULD LIKE TO REPOST THE INFORMATION WITH MY PROOF IF YOU DON'T MIND.

THANKS

YOURNUMBERTWOFAN

Once again, you are taking this way too personally. My apologies if I have offended you. I do not care about edit warring, nor do I think I ever will. This is the internet, learn how to chill out. Not everything here is serious business. If I was blocked from Wikipedia, it would not end the world for me. As it is I have posted a ton of sources validating my claim that there is a relatively popular blog which criticizes Marmaduke on the internet which is read by people in the talk section, as you requested. If people do not believe me after this I will think people have gone defunct. You have still not answered my question about how you have designated authority over me, and I am getting tired of asking you. Why was my posting deleted after several months of being up on the page? Why was a user who is on trail for being a bot allowed to delete my posting? You know, I came here to do one simple thing, not argue on the internet like an idiot. But this whole thing has done terrible damage to my self esteem. I am sorry you do not wish to work with me again, as I think I have eloquently and passionately stated my points, which you have attempted to refute by pointing me to some rules page. I hope that the links I have posted are proof enough, and that I will finally be allowed by the grace of the Wikipedia editors, to post one chunk of information which is true and not inane regarding critcism of Marmaduke. Good fucking lord. I did not think things would be this hard.

Again, I apologize for what I did to your page and that other guys page. I was mad, and a little drunk.

Thanks,

Yournumbertwofan

Thanks for putting in the hours to help rationalize this article. Episodically over the last few years I've tried to intervene by providing documentation and citations to scholarly literature in place of or to augment point-counterpoint "opinions" (sometimes documented) I think the article will continue to ne a focal point for ideological battles but gradually some of the more tendentious claims are being toned down or weeded out. Unsigned comment by Mack2 (talk) (contribs)

You might be interested in some comments I've put into the "discussion" of the "Discrimination against Han" subsection. I think that entire section (which you have already tagged as dubious) should be cut but I've not taken that step.--Mack2 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email. \ / (⁂) 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

>Please go back and add more information about the sources you added in this edit. As it currently stands, all you wrote for the source is "Kermit Schaefer recordings," which is not enough to be useful to any reader—no one can tell what source you're referring to and no one can track it down to verify, unless you give more information. If you don't add the necessary information, your additions will have to be deleted. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. One of my references is caught up in a blanket blacklist of squidoo. I have requested a whitelist for the reference which you may notice in the source is comment out at the moment.

(Except for one specific article on squidoo, it's not clear to me by they blacklisted all its articles, but I simply asked for a whiltelist of the one web page I need.)

regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to answer you question on my talk page. Could you please explain. Maybe I am overseeing somehing. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I also referted your edit to the Gregory Balestrero article. How can there be plagiarism when the source is directly mentioned. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. We have had considerable problems over plagiarism at DYK in the past, and I've long taken the view that plagiarized articles must be disqualified on sight. I think it's the very least we can do, especially given that some users have pushed for outright DYK bans for any user caught submitting plagiarized or copyvio material. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think disqualification is fine for a first step. If a user continues to submit plagiarized material after warnings, we can think about taking stronger action. But I think most people who get an article or two rejected for plagiarism will soon get the message. Gatoclass (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Train melody, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've replied there.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note this article was recently created as an almost exact copy of Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China. I've started a sockpuppet case as a result, but not sure if you'd want to formally add it to the AfD. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This does look more complicated than I thought. I would recommend adding this article to the AfD, with a link to the sockpuppetry case, as they did have almost identical content at the beginning. If the deletion discussion is closed as delete you probably could tag the article as G4. Hut 8.5 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Pet Trust and pet protection agreement have real problems. The Hirschfeld article had real problems when first written as well. That said, with the work done by ChildofMidnight, myself, and you also, the Hirschfeld article is actually looking pretty good. We've got actual verifiable third-party sources for most of the content now, and most of the flowery, fluff has been eliminated.Cbl62 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed all the text that looked like it might have been copied. The topic itself is notable, so I removed the speedy tag. I hope this is okay with you. Thanks for your efforts to crack down on improper advertising. What do you make of the lawyer's article? She has been interviewed quite a bit, but I havent' seen an article on her. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I lean towards putting her article up for AfD on principle as none of the coverage is of her as the subject. But I guess it would survive. Probably doing a COI report would be good. It's not a subject area I'm that interested in, but I stumbled on these articles doing new page patrol, so I've tried to take some responsibility for them. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lovely picture on your user page. Very calming. Thanks for your help dealing with some article issues. Ommmmmmmmmmmmm. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It probably would have been best to delete the whole thing and start fresh as you suggested. On the other hand my interest level in that subject is such that I wouldn't have wanted to write the article. My dislike for the promotional quality of the articles, however, was such that I was inspired to try and fix them as best I could. It does seem to be an important subject. It was actually fairly interesting to investigate. I guess we're supposed to call them animal companions now, FYI. It makes sense to me, I've seen a lot of dogs take their companions for walks. Peace out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird you have twice the amount of edits I do but you've not even been here as long... – Amicon (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See this, sing this, and take this. -- Suntag ☼ 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-took the Wikipediholism test several days ago (the first time I took it was back in October or so) and my score went up several thousand points. Woohoo! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you are tangentially titillated by templates, the instructions at User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult might provide material for you to generate a template or two.

Thanks for the tip! My latest project (if you don't count {{DYKwelcome}}, which I've kind of given up on for now) is thinking about creating a multi-page how-to-cite-stuff tutorial (complete with a sandbox for "exercises"!) in my namespace, to send people to if they really need help learning how to recognize good sources, how to format references, yada yada. But once I either do that or get bored and move on (as usual, it's pretty much a toss-up which one of those it'll be) I'll definitely look into these! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've addressed your comments regarding the Steve Suter DYK nomination. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. But which is overall more preferable on Wikipedia? 简体字 or 繁体字? I've noticed that the Chinese Wikipedia is a mess because of the differences. Some parts are written in 简体字 and others in 繁体字. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunixgeek (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is in good enough shape now to qualify for DYK. I have not only eliminated almost all reference to self-published sources. I've also stricken links to the problematic articles on pet trust and pet guardian by the same original author. Cbl62 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about the "profiled" reference and changed it to "either quoted or profiled." Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I hope the lotus field works its magic. I have an image of my own that I use in such times -- a rock-walled garden in the middle of a barley field in Scotland that I visited several years ago. Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava now says he's going to take me to AN - this after I just spent another 45 minutes of my time promoting 20 of his articles to the queue. I have had enough of this guy, but unfortunately it's way past my bedtime, so would you mind keeping an eye on the AN/ANI pages and letting people know that I won't be able to participate in the discussion until tomorrow? I would appreciate that. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really think it's your fault. I mean, I am not quite that bold too. I appreciate that you took your time and reviewed the hook, and pointed out the lack of secondary sources, which motivated me to look for another source (albeit print magazine). Thanks for the cookie, it was really great, here's a piece of it, which for some reason I didn't eat. I was just thinking that you'd want to take a look at that piece (or not), for some reason. -- クラウド６６８ 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are they farming them for lotus root in the pic? Why do you think Buddha is often pictured on a lotus flower?ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I finally put on my DYK-talk-page-promised nominator hat and listed some DYK suggestions. If you have some time, please review them. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 23:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Politizer. I'm aware of the problem user. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs on the computational lithography page. Can you visit the discussion page and give me some feedback on improving the article? Please respond there rather than either of our talk pages. Again, thanks. bill devanney (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I just realised that an article I nominated for DYK is in the wrong section. I thought the date referred to the nom date, not the creation/expansion date, thus Fleet Foxes should be in December 3. Does that matter at all or is it OK to leave it as it is? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it now. Cheers! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your request. Please review Velika Planina. -- Suntag ☼ 22:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing your note regarding Ottava Rima's conduct from the DYK Suggestions page. I know that strictly speaking this isn't kosher, so if you want to restore it I will not remove it a second time. However, given the words you two have previously exchanged, I think it best to let other less involved users comment on the Ottava nominations without prejudice. Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was in Harrisburg taking photos around the State Capitol and stumbled upon the the bridge. I was impressed enough to take some photos and eventually decided to expand the article. You'll see more of Harrisburg when I eventually write an article on the GG1 sitting in the Harrisburg train station that happens to be the Pennsylvania state electric locomotive. --​​​​D.B.^{talk•contribs} 05:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's hope Stott appreciates the gesture. (I was once a DYK regular, but I haven't visited since the new system, and find it flummoxes me completely -- I really must get around to working out what goes where.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of over-bureaucratising processes, but I'm sure I'll be fine with the new suggestions template once I get used to it. What I just can't get my head around is the new queue system -- I like the idea in theory but the system seems a little complex in action and it's hard to practise without screwing things up. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

When I went back and looked, I was surprised to see you were the nominator and the first commenter. I'm a bit tired, but I didn't realize that on the first pass. It looks as if you had second thoughts, or were perhaps afraid of certain repurcussions? A lost set of keys, a missing sock, it all starts out innocently enough...ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The AfD brought attention to the article and the related articles floating around out there in Wikispace. While I know that wasn't your intention in bringing the AfD, and it's not a motivation I agree with, it's a positive byproduct of your actions and the involvement of other good faith editors. I don't think anyone thinks you brought the AfD in bad faith, your comments make that clear. Don't sweat it. The article that was there could have been deleted and not much would have been lost. Instead we're going to have a decent (hopefully) clean-up article with other bits merged in for good measure. So it's a good outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Awadewit just got out of the hospital - the last thing she needs is to have all these messages between you and User:Ottava Rima on DYK that have nothing to do with her on her talk page. Please move your conversation elsewhere for her sake, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I also realize I never thanked you for your helpful comments with my last DYK hook / nomination. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not take what you wrote as critical of me in any way. I was trying to explain that I was unclear in my original request - I actually like that the whole conversation is off her page, as she does not need to worry about that with just getting out of the hospital. I was also hoping the dispute might go away if it were dropped from Awadewit's talk page, but it seems to have a life of its own. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you've left DYK for awhile. Hopefully you'll be back soon. I had a question though, would an article about a seasonal ice skating rink fit under the Christmas collection? If you don't feel like answering, no problem, I can find somebody else. Thanks for the time and hope to have you back soon. Grsz¹¹ 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be an expansion of PPG Place, with a hook stating that the ice rink is more than 2000 sq ft larger than the famous Rockefeller Center rink. Grsz¹¹ 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what I can gather from the situation, why not get a third opinion? Grsz¹¹ 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The one thing that is certain about political bios is that when they are written neutrally the left and the right will both say they are POV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the gnome liberation article. I knew absolutely nothing about garden gnomes or garden gnome liberationists, or the travelling gnome before last night. It's what I love about Wikipedia. You stumble across all sorts of things that are edifying or at least amusing. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have verified the hook that was the centre of the previous concern. I hope you are stilling willing to continue your outstanding work at DYK, even if it means staying away from hooks nom'd by the other editor. A backlog is slowly starting to form, and your return would be outstanding timing. :) \ / (⁂) 11:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I always enjoyed the spoonerisms listed in other languages with the translations and was dissapointed to se them removed. They were so very funny.

I'm not an experienced Wiki editor, but as a seasoned Wiki user, I thought they were valuable, enriching and *entertaining*. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhb101 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Politizer, remember recently when my nomination of the article Irish immigration to Puerto Rico did not make "DYK" because of the "unwritten rules", and you were kind enough to go to my talk page to give me a "Pep" talk? Well, I want to share with you that my following article, Ivan Castro not only made "DYK", but it also established a record with 71,300 hits becoming the #1 "DYK" hook to be viewed in Wikipedia. I just wanted to share this with you. You are a great person and should not let others get you down. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the "cookie". Tony the Marine (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

An IP (who is also an editor named Wiffer who has been disruptive on the Maplebrook School article in the past) has insisted on having a primary sources banner on the article. While the article is heavy on primary sources, I feel like it is inappropriate to have the banner for a couple of reasons:

1. This is a school, and descriptions of classes, facilities, and geography for all schools come from primary sources in articles like this. Wiki-policy is for sources to be reliable in relation to the subject.

2. The info box uses a third party source, and there are a couple of books used as well.

3. The article doesn't make many subjective statements, it is basically a listing of facts.

Before I engage this potentially disruptive poster, I just wanted to get your thoughts. So you know, I've looked for some other third party sources, and there don't seem to be many that are on point and up-to date.LedRush (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast resonse. I, too, will be home in about a week and a half and so we can add my Huangshan book to the mix as well. I thought I'd get my hands on it months ago, but you know how life gets in the way of life...LedRush (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad there are now hard feelings. I'm in the middle of cleaning up the article per your continuing comments, and now I keep getting edit conflicts. Can you hold off adding any more tags until I have a bit of time to work on this? Cbl62 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's weird. I absolutely meant to hit "not hard feelings." Maybe it was a Freudian slip, or maybe one of those mischievous garden gnomes made me type the wrong letter. Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find my keys. Coincidence? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think not on the keys. In any event, I've tried to cleanse the article of what you considered objectionable with a liberal sprinkling of words like "legend", "inanimate", "stories", "prank," and "satirical." However, with the lead-in noting this is satire, I've let some of the liberationist groups speak for themselves in content placed in quotation marks. I hope you now feel comfortable removing the "fiction" tag. I note that there is no "fiction" tag on the Santa Clause article, even though it appropriately leaves some ambiguity about NORAD's annual tracking reports. As we have all learned here tonight based on the gnomes taking control of my typing finger, and ChildofMidnight's missing keys, you don't want to mess with either gnomes or Santa. :) Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First, ensure that the permissions given is explicit on the license (e.g. not merely I give permission, but I grant it under GFDL 1.2 or later or/and Creative Commons 3.0 unported).

Upload the images first as how you would normally. Under permissions section of the infobox, insert {{OTRS pending}}. If uploaded to Commons, forward permissions email to permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org. For uploading to English Wikipedia, forward to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. Then just sit back and wait for the OTRS crew to document it on wiki with a template and reply an acknowledgement to you. Hope that helps! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/WikiStatsBOT#Discussion and comment on how often the DYK hook counting bot needs too update its stats.

Thank you, --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the categories; I moved them to the front as the births/deaths/living people categories appear to be placed in front of any other categories in all biographies. -TonyW (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Easy mistake to make I guess. I could have easily made an error myself so thanks for bringing it to my attention anyway. -TonyW (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the correctly named page. Ehusman (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh! I never even noticed the Move tab before. Thanks.Ehusman (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consider removing or toning down your incivil comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. - Mark 03:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your edits across my watchlist. I am very busy now & will be for several days. But I look forward to working with you in the future. :-)

Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oi, did you see this? Did you men to remove so much content? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the nomination so quickly! As I said at DYK, I prefer your hooks. Indeed, the hook was perhaps the hardest part of the entire process! As my grandparents have lived there since before my mother was born, I've been to Rose Point occasionally since before I can remember, but neither my mother nor I could really come up with something interesting for a hook — to tell the truth, it really is a boring little community today. Apparently it was rather more impressive in its early years. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted a reply to your DYK request at Ashley Day Leavitt. -- Suntag ☼ 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I think the above wording would fit nicely in a template for DYK. -- Suntag ☼ 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I posted a reply to your DYK request at Elections in England and Wales, 1949, Galoter process, Harcourt Mortimer Bengough, and Tom Krieglstein. -- Suntag ☼ 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I made the chnage on Battle of the Severn you suggested, adding a cite and the name change of Annapolis in 1694. Hope that's enough.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The Battle was fought under the banner of the Commonwealth for the Puritans in Providence (later Annapolis), which was the source of the claim. The English Civil Wars had ended in 1651, and the Commonwealth was no more as Oliver Cromwell had become Protector of England. The source is right on as to that point. The Commissioners drew their authority from a defunct governmental structure. It was what made this battle so noteworthy (and ultimately absurd). One side fought for a Commonwealth no longer in existence, the other for a Lord whose powers had been granted by a King whose head was chopped off in 1649. Indeed, support of the King as "Cavaliers" even after he was dead is what earned UVA its mascot, as well as VA's nickname of the "Old Dominion".--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so tedious. I copied the '→', searched for '=' or '->' and pasted. —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just stopping by to thank you for your extensive edits of references and links on Tom Krieglstein. I am still learning some of that minutia of citation and linking. Hopefully your example will better inform me in my next edits. Thanks again,Dkriegls (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for remembering to merge the article into the list and including the image.[:-) --Jmundo (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have added the references in Khedive Palace required for DYK nomination. Thanks so much for your attention. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your cooperation. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No need for me to comment I think, because I doubt that one will go anywhere, but I'll keep an eye on it just in case. Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You have mail. \ / (⁂ | ※) 13:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have expanded the article as requested. Is it too late?! Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to your concern regarding my DYK nomination of Ryszard Reiff, the source cited for the fact that he was the only member does state "Only one member, Ryszard Reiff, a Catholic intellectual, opposed it" (approx bottom of page 99). Hope this clears things up. Terrakyte (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on my DYK nom for Barton Fink. I've made some alternative hook suggestions, including one with a web source. (You can search for "mosquito" on the page and I think it's the second appearance.) Thanks again! Scartol • Tok 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. And thanks for the 'star! Glad you liked the music. Cheers. Scartol • Tok 04:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I used {{DYKre}} at User talk:Daniel Case. Looks good. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 07:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have posted a response to your DYK comments on Colman nepos Cracavist; the nomination is ready for you to review. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 07:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, please take a look at DYK nomination of David Ross (businessman). I'm a little frustrated on that one. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 07:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Politizer, please look at my recent edit to Colman nepos Cracavist. Perhaps you will see now why I was reluctant to add that footnote. Srnec (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• With your approval of Colman nepos Cracavist, the numerous DYK noms that have kept me teather to DYK in defense of them in a state of stress for the past week has been released. Thanks! -- Suntag ☼ 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the cleanup tweaks at Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co.. I think I'm going to remove the 'single source' hat - it's true that all the inline citations come from one article, but the major source is the opinion itself, which is only mentioned under "External Links". I'll create an inline citation or two pointing to the opinion itself.

Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So your just against my religion? Or other religions aswell, your biase for christianity over my religion is obvious from your insulting remark on my page.

So why not let other religions have a turn? Better still, how about a non religion specific picture? Why is one religion favoured over all the rest?--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Because creationism is most closely associated with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and of the creationism that is affecting mainstream media and yada yada is the Christian kind); see the first sentence of the Creationism article ("Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam)") and the fact that the article is devoted almost entirely to creationism.

FSG is acknowledged by everyone to be joke, it's not "your religion," and your messages now are just trolling. If you continue accusing me of this sort of bias I will not respond anymore. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"(often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam)" Yes OFTEN, because most creationists are of those religions! You agree creationism cover most religions that have a god? Do you want to exclude some religions from the creation portal?

"FSG is acknowledged by everyone to be joke, it's not "your religion," " Not only do you continue to call my religion a joke, but you tell me its not my religion. I didnt know you mind reading was real!--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted you to answer a question I would put it on your talk page. Maybe answer the questions on your page and let people answer theirs!--Johnnysmitthy (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Politizer ! Thank you for your message on my talk page and for having nominated this article for DYK. However, my English is not very good (French is my native language). Sorry ! But I will check the English translations of the covers / parodies after all. :) Europe22 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok ! "Solder" is a French word that means "to sell at sale price". Cheers, Europe22 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks about my efforts on the Unjusa article. A bit more to add yet. I must confess that I have no special or in depth knowledge on any of the subject mater covered here, or have any knowledge at all on the Usuki Stone Buddhas. My interest is basically learning more about sites that we visited while on extended trips to Korea (we've been to Japan but only Kyoto and Nagasaki). I took a lot of photos here, and other locations of cultural interest in Korea, and thought sharing what we experienced with others could be accomplished through the Wikipedia project. There is so much that is beautiful and unique in Korea that it is a shame the rest of the world is so unaware it. I am basically regurgitating information that I have gleaned from being at these sites (Unjusa in this case) and other references. I'll look into investigating the Usuki Stone Buddhas after I get through with some of the other things I'd like to do. If I feel I have something that I can contribute, I certainly will.Steve46814 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The only method I have found in the past that works with this person is to cease responding completely. That has worked on AN/I and on other talk pages. This person has the ability to provoke responses that feed into the situation like shark bait. I am very guilty of falling for this but I will now cease. Everything has been said, I think, unless further "polls" are proposed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For perspective:[2] —Mattisse (Talk) 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to get involved in DYK again, helping out. I remember I contacted you not too long ago about how complicated it seems now. Over the last few days I considered helping out with checking articles, sources etc. and rewriting ALT hooks, as I used to be very good at that. However, when I look at the DYK page, it does not seem possible for me to just help out without screwing things up. I am not good with templates and technical stuff. If I get a desire to enter a DYK of my own again, perhaps I will be motivated to read all the directions that now seem necessary.

I looked at a hook to check or write an ALT for and find I can't just do it. If I tried, I would screw up something.

I know you said nothing had changed and it was still very easy, but it doesn't seem that way. There is no way to just join in anymore? (I feel sad about this situation.) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your quick help. Between us it's up - just made an editing error on the template.--Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion do you think the article Jessica Alba could become a featured atricle in the near future? I ask you becasue you seem that you are quick to fix any mistakes in the article. Hda3ku (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much it’s really hard to find wikipedias as yourself that really gives you a good answer to a question. I will contact you if I need any further help. Hda3ku (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC

By the way would you find the tools granted to an admin helpful I would be happy to nominate you. Hda3ku (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the Garden Gnome hook is attracting pranksters to the article. I see you've been monitoring, and I will try to do so as well. Thanks for your help. Cbl62 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Undercover gnomes, perhaps? Or, rather, I guess they're more like gnome anti-liberationists... —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the episode, she CLEARLY said 'Certified' and not 'trained'. You need to rewatch the episode. -- 75.38.251.84 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't even watch the show. All I know is your edit replaced "I'm trained in..." with "I'm certained in..." (not "certified"), and that's not even a sentence. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I made a mistake. Thats why you bring mistakes to the person's attention instead of saying it's not constructive and a test edit. -- 75.38.251.84 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I brought it to your attention with the message I left you. I had no idea your edit was supposed to say something else; I'm not a mind reader. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but could you please take a look at Suntag's alt hook for WJBE? He modified the article and wrote an alt tag that reflects the contents of the article, includes a relevant photo, and has been sitting unloved for more than 24 hours while the nomination itself is aging like a fine cheese. Thanks in advance and, again, sorry to interrupt with the big orange banner. - Dravecky (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you vetted The Swimming Hole, perhaps you would want to set up and run a Main Page hits contest on the DYK talk page similar to this. -- Suntag ☼ 13:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick points on the DYK nomination of the Giant Huntsman Spider article. We've done some cleaning up and added some references. Would you check it again and see if it's up to par? Many thanks --DarkAvenger (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, Gatoclass just did... --DarkAvenger (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your 2 cents would be welcome at Battle of Nitzanim. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your comment at Talk:T:DYK. I hope the changes done now clears it out. Thanks, --Soman (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste the suggestion template over to Next Update is a great idea! I never thought of that. My Wikipedia:Bot_requests#DYKCheckbot doesn't seem to be going anywhere anyways. -- Suntag ☼ 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Tomber la chemise 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! -- Suntag ☼ 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for assisting in the improvement for the article Odex's actions against file-sharing, and please accept my apologies for the previous lack of response and edits due to dealing with real-life issues. I'm pleased to let you know that the third PR for the article is now up, and looking forward to hearing feedback from you so that it can be brought over to FAC soon. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On 18 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laogai Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Politizer! Firstly, thank you very much for participating in the discussion at Talk:Nitzanim as an impartial editor. I will reply to all content-based comments there shortly.

About Gatoclass: I was not aware of tensions at DYK or of other personal attacks, and apologize if my comments worsened the collaborative mood there. However, I still believe that Gatoclass acted in bad faith, both by threatening to oppose the DYK nomination based on his personal opinion ('if the quotes aren't removed, I will move to oppose...'), and by removing the quotes and ignoring the previous discussion on the page (and finally by using the 'X' mark on DYK, which usually means 'not ready', to state his personal opinion, although this is less important). This, on the background of tensions in Israel–Palestine-related articles, where Gatoclass is involved as a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel editor, is especially concerning, just like what you said about my statements on T:TDYK, and led me to believe that he was acting in bad faith. I appreciate the fact that Gatoclass is a frequent DYK contributor and may know better than me what should or should not be on the main page in this section, but as I said, my comments weren't made because of his opposition to the DYK, but because of the way in which it was conducted, especially on the contentious I–P background. I hope this clarifies the issue. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I think these comments just demonstrate your ignorance of how DYK works. DYK reviewers are constantly engaged in assessing articles, and the templates are there precisely to indicate those assessments. Since I believed your article would not be suitable for the mainpage if it included the quoteboxes, and you insisted on reverting after I had explained my POV, I had little choice but to go ahead and voice my opposition.

As for editing the article - I am constantly engaged in editing articles submitted to DYK in order to make them eligible. Shortly before the edits to your article, for example, I made multiple edits to this submission in order to bring it up to speed. 99% of the time users are happy to have me help bring their articles to DYK standard, occasionally as in this case they contest the edits. I haven't acted any differently in the case of your article than I have for hundreds of other articles at DYK, your perception that your article was singled out for some kind of special treatment is simply incorrect. Gatoclass (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?!

For what it's worth, I don't have a strong opinion on whether we should use "Scotland" or "Scotland, UK" - I simply revert the Nimbley6 troll on sight. I believe consensus is to prefer "Scotland, UK" however. From this new user's use of "Doesnt" and "Constuient" I'm tending strongly towards the "thank you for reverting yet another incarnation of Nimbley6"-view. Thanks for spotting this.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm now 100% convinced the user is User:Nimbley6 - or at least a sock of User:Cyrusmilleyhannana. I've added User:Oprahwinfrey24 to a current RfCU, based on Oprahwinfrey24's edits to Leon Jackson here and on other languages' Wikis. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

for your help with the DYK. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just asking if that means that the article is ready for DYK? Is it?? Its my first nomination and i got jackpott the first time! The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Politizer. I've just given a reply at this DYK thread, and I thought I'd draw your attention to it just in case you were still interested for the record. It's amazing how quickly the talk page fills up these days, and I've been too busy to keep up with it much recently. Keep up the good work, Olaf Davis | Talk 23:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

On 19 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tomber la chemise, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. :) 百家姓之四 討論 (Discussion) 02:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've reverted to the last version before he started editing. Nothing he added was useful, and was full of personal attacks. I also left a warning on his page about unconstructive edits. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings about what you did on my talk page. The only problem was that I was trying to do something similar at the same time! I have also put a message on thsi user's talk page. No reply needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I did that because someone just ahead of me pulled the request, but I thought it needed a decline and protect else he'd do it again. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ceedjee, I noticed your comment at Gatoclass's talk page, and I just wanted to say, it looks like a good fact for DYK (although it's a little long; you could trim it down to be a bit punchier), but as far as I can tell the article attached to it isn't new or expanded (DYK articles have to have either been created in the past several days, or expanded fivefold in the past several days). Were you planning on starting a new article on a related topic? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Ceedjee was joking. The Palestinian Civil War is already quite well documented on Wikipedia :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oups...

Sorry, I was not joking.

I sincerelidy didn't know that DYK was only for recently expanded articles !

Thx in anyway !

Ceedjee (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Politizer. I'm not very familiar with the workings of DYK, so I'm dropping a note here-- It looks like Alt 2 has been selected, though I think we agreed on Alt 3. Not a big deal, except that Alt 2 has a typo in it... Also, I was wondering if we might want to substitute "ultranationalist" for "right-wing" in Alt 3, since that's the term used in the source citing the lead. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Politzer. The link to the pink film article is an added bonus-- that article has been one of my long-term projects. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The DYK nomination of German Socialist Labour Party in Poland - Left is about to expire. I have addressed some of your queries. Regarding the source issue, I don't know if your concern should be interpreted as a 'no' to DYK inclusion. It is a problem that the article relies on a single source, but on the other hand it is a published scholarily book, with extensive use of references. --Soman (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your probably right that it is not a notable village - privately owned and so tiny. The revisions I saw the otehr day making it a page more specifically about the falls itself is better. It is a notable falls in the series of famous falls along the Columbia River Highway and I was surprised to see it missing from the list. If I find better references to add I'll look again at updating the village info. - Vanroc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanroc (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Habari Gani, Politizer! Kwanzaa is not too far away, and to celebrate, I am working on the Karamu (feast) article. I have listed possible references at the bottom, and was wondering if you wanted to help out in the construction. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a single source, this is an obscure but significant aspect of the history of comic book collecting. Vishnava had no problem with this when approving it for a DYK.Dgabbard (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding more sources, I made a good faith effort and added a commentary from a documentary that features a section on Ringer, and I did add sections. Can't an exception be made since this is a person who deserves to be documented, IMHO?Dgabbard (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted an ALTERNATE hook for the 9-article DYK. I believe the wording now is such it closer relates to the articles involved. As long as the "200 character" rule could be a little flexible since there are so many articles involved, I believe this should be something closer to what might satisfy everyone. Do you think this would work? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The alt hook looks good to me. The 200 char rule is waived for multinom hooks, BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the 9-article hook came up this morning! Thanks for your inputs. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is one heck of a DYK hook! Congratulations! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Ha, can you tell I don't contribute to DYK that often? Anyway, thanks for your reply. I'm a little confused as to which section I should put my request at now though seeing as it stops at December 11th and goes straight to "December holidays" or whatever. Could you link me to the right section to place my nomination?

Cheers, and happy holidays!

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

God, anyone would think I'm new here. I'm really not, just inexperienced at DYK! Thanks for your help, I've added it now :) Seasons greetings! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility and professionalism regarding comments on this article. With the notability issue passing for now, would you now be willing to modify your DYK comments regarding its nomination accordingly? Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap I totally forgot about this, and nobody left me a note about the problems? Can this be re-added, and I'll get to it first thing tomorrow morning? ayematthew ✡ 02:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! I'll get to it as soon as possible tomorrow morning. ayematthew ✡ 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope to have addressed the problem. Thanks for contacting me. :) --Cameron* 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

Here's your answer. Enigma ^message 05:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for this. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly allowed to write up a co-nom. One from you would be valuable since you two have worked closely. If he transcludes it before it's up though it may be better to just support, but you can write one up, that's no problem. Wizardman 19:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it guaranteed that all nominations will be checked and placed if suitable for selection, or are some missed out or simply not included? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay then :) I was just unsure because the last few times I've submitted for DYK it's been reviewed within a day or so. Just curious! Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, are non-admins welcome to help process the backlog? If so I'll gladly help out. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Politizer,

Thank you for the notice and I am sorry that I'm still fresh to the whole Wikipedia contribution system. Dvelopmentguru (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Politizer, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Politizer,

I am going to try and set a meeting with the writer of the article and direct them to a wiki Asher Roth article as a reference so they can make the article better.

Thank You Again, Dvelopmentguru (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Mars celebrations.jpg

I saw the captions on the Garden Gnome Liberationists photos, and I laughed. Aren't you supposed to keeping an eye on the gnomes to make sure they don't make trouble? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays. I hope you enjoy the rest of 2008 and get 2009 started off right. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Per this, its perfectly okay for people to nom & !vote. In fact, its the norm! Merry christmas :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear you agreed with me on the change. Would you mind taking a look at my hook? It's two entries below yours. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Glad to hear you find the hook interesting. It's what made me write the article. I came across her by accident and the idea of an 11-year-old flying a fighter jet was intriguing, I stamped out the entry all in one day. (I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see the magazine covers and the press coverage) - Mgm|^(talk) 18:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination entry Axon terminals Thank you for re-wording the hook. I made two articles, one was to discuss the new biography Dr. Regehr from a very small Saskatchewan town Shaunavon as a Harvard medical school leader in the field of pre-synaptic calcium dynamics, which is very technical DYK hook. The other to show a new neuro-science technical term article on axon terminals which explores exocytosis release of the neurotransmitter across the synapse. Also too technical. Both are involved in the physiolgical study of cellular neuroscience to explore the central nervous system to help understand neurological disorders, memory etc. Your wording is good and more for a layman to understand. I am not sure, then if both will/can succeed as DYK. Kind regards SriMesh | talk 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate how you mean to verify the double hook for Axon terminals and Dr. Wade Regehr. Like in both articles, as the fact is verified already. SriMesh | talk 09:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no offline refs in the article! Mjroots (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

On 27 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Early left anterior negativity, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cbl62 08:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. One thing I don't understand though is why you have disabled the template for hooks with more than one article? Gatoclass (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO we get very few multi-noms that are authored by different people. If you could include code for multinoms where all the articles are written/nominated by the same people, that would be very helpful. Then you could just leave a note saying that the template doesn't handle code only for multinoms authored by different people. Would it be possible to do that? Gatoclass (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. It also depends on how useful multi-noms are. Is it something you want to encourage? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, multinoms save space, so we generally do encourage them for related articles.

Politizer, your description on my talk page sounds fine, but I think if the code is just going to automatically produce credits for multinoms on the assumption they were all produced by the same person or group, it might be an idea to have an automated note to go along with the multinom output reminding updaters to check the validity of the credit strings before promotion. That would ensure that new users and people unfamiliar with the system will not just grab all the credits and paste them, assuming they are correct. Gatoclass (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

At [3] there is a new list of prisons. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Again with the Wikistress I see. Chinese prison will do that to you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just waiting for the gnomes to bust me out.... —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be a while. From the looks of their article they are busy protesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to the new FOX series Prison Break: Gnome Edition. - Dravecky (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha...the gnomes will have maps of China on their stomachs. (There's no point having the map higher up, on the chest, since they wouldn't be able to see it under their beards.) —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about DYK and transwikied articles. Since you seem to spend some time on DYK, would you please take a look at Westinghouse Desilu Playhouse which I nominated on December 23 and let me know if it is suitable for DYK. Other articles around it in the list have been patrolled; for some reason, this one hasn't. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and notification of the nomination for DYK. I have been away for the holiday and I don't find any comments that describe issues that need to be clarified under the nomination's entry. Maybe they were taken care of in my absence? But if I find any, I'll do my best to clarify them. KarenMerguerian (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this is somewhat an unusual request and perhaps a bit rude of me to ask but you seemed somewhat of a DYK expert and we've dealt before. I have a number of DYK nominations that haven't been reviewed despite being up there for a few days (I realise things are moving slowly along) and am going to soon be in a position where I will have to absent myself from Wikipedia for a number of days. My concern is that I will be unable to respond to any queries if they don't meet the criteria so I was hoping that if I pointed them out that you or another editor who spends time there or even just someone who happens to see this could take a look. If it is done quick enough I will hopefully be able to respond and fix any problems. Just yesterday I was informed that my 2TV nom had a difficulty despite me believing it to be fine, so that's why I'm in a bit of a panic about the rest. I'd do it myself but naturally that would be inappropriate. So I'll take a look at some of the other noms to make up for it.

The links I request clearance cover a range of topics from my more usual TV and music to the more abstract topics of bank loans and suspicious deaths. Here they are: Template talk:Did you know#2TV, Template talk:Did you know#Death of Brian Rossiter, Template talk:Did you know#Anglo Irish Bank hidden loans controversy and Template talk:Did you know#Dirty Epics. I am therefore postponing the creation of at least one article that I intend to be on DYK in future. Thank you in advance for at least taking the time to read this message and have a happy new year. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 08:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You too. Hear you again in the new year. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 15:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool down mate. Getting heated up won't help, it will just put the project and participants in a bad light. Let's try to be cool and address the issues in a sensible way, shall we? We don't want any more incidents like Ameliorate!'s. Chamal ^talk 14:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Politzer, have a good time on your travels and enjoy your break. We look forward to seeing you when you return. Thanks again. Truthanado (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On 28 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suanmeitang, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sandstein 20:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been reluctant to participate in DYK lately because I perceive a decline in the quality of submissions as well as an over emphasis on DYK collecting. The article Suanmeitang is an example of the type of article DYK editors should screen out. Not only is it a translation by one editor, of unknown accuracy and unchecked by another Chinese-speaking editor, but its references are woefully inaccurate and do not pass WP:V and WP:RS. These type of articles will result in a degradation of Wikipedia. There are plenty of bad articles without encouraging people to produce them in order to rack up DYK points. I hope you look into this, so that DYK does not decline further. Perhaps few DKY's per day would be better, than having inadequately screened articles on the main page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, thanks for your message. As you know, I always value your input and respect you as an editor, so I will do what I can to improve the article if you think it is deficient.

As for the translation issue, as I expressed at WT:DYK, I believe that translations are just as reliable or unreliable as any other unreferenced additions, and as such I have added ^{[citation needed]} to parts of the original article that I translated over and couldn't find a reference for. For parts that I could find a reference (what I deemed to be an ok reference; there were other references that I ignored because they were too blog-ish) I added the reference and often reworded the original article's wording. And parts of the original article I totally left out because they were BS. So it's not really a direct translation, it's just using the zh-wiki article as a starting point for writing my own. The verifiability and referencing standards on zh-wiki shouldn't be an issue, since I tried to write this stuff using the standards of en-wiki (which is why I left out much of the text that was on zh-wiki, and added much text of my own).

As for the references, if you can point out more specifically which of the references you think have RS problems and why, I will be happy to look into them more closely. I know some of the refs were from somewhat advertisement-y sites, but I have included some of them anyway to verify information that I thought would not be in a conflict of interest with the publishers of those sites (for example, what suanmeitang is made of or how long it has existed, or the fact that it's considered a summer drink); ie, I tried to use the advertisement-y refs only to make neutral statements. Naturally, since it's a new article that I just threw together for fun, there are sure to be deficiencies and errors, and I'm willing to work with other editors to improve the article (although right now I'm a bit on-and-off wiki). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, about the book snippets (I noticed you made some comments about them)...I don't have time to look right now and I don't totally remember, but I believe at least one of them was to verify something like the fact that the drink is usually drunk in the summer or something. This is something that is sort of common knowledge (I think) in places where it's a common drink, but of course I couldn't just say it myself because it would be OR...but I figured its common-ness was enough to allow me to take that leap in interpreting the book snippet source. Of course, it's not the best kind of source, and it wouldn't pass FAC or anything, but I basically saw it as a way to provide some sort of reference to a fact that a lot of people (although, granted, probably not a lot of en-wiki readers) just "know." Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Individual DYKs vary, and some are better than others. On the whole the DYK program has been a big success and is wildly popular. It's encouraged article creation, and it's promoted interest and exposure to interesting and often obscure subjects. It's a great addition to Wikipedia and highlights many of the best qualities of the project. Your efforts have been a very positive part of the program, and any editor who thinks DYKs should be handled differently or reviewed more carefully can go and take part in the DYK proposals. I appreciate your willingness to carefully consider suggestions, and you're doing a great job with everything except ignoring the distractions. Stop taking the criticisms personally and ignore the small stuff. Some people are going to disagree with you. It's no big deal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I used to take part in the DYK process but I am no longer willing to do so. My personal opinion is that the quality has drastically declined since the days when I was an avid participant. I was shocked looking at the recent DYKs. (I confess I no longer read them, so it was a revelation.) Why is this talk page such an ugly red color? Is this a defect or a supposed "feature"? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And DYK has always been "wildly popular". What easier way is there to get on the main page, which seems to be the obsession of many? And lately DYK "collecting" has become "wildly popular" also. Look at User:Suntag, for example. That is about all he has done and he is running for admin on that basis. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My comment is intended to be encouraging and to reinforce a focus on the fun part of editing. I'm a bit troubled that I seem to have participated in turning your talk page into a critic's corner on DYK. But as long as we're criticizing stuff, all your red ink is giving my nightmarish visions of getting my High School English papers back. :) I think I need a Chinese medicine elixir or some monkey balm to ease the tension... ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I think once I get back from traveling I'll have access to at least one of those books through my university library, so I can check and verify whether or not the "snippet" supports the article text, if that will help alleviate some of the concerns.
As for the red on my talk page, I'm not sure...I might have forgotten the </font> closing tag when I was putting the red message in my edit notice ;) I'll see if I can fix it. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wu Cheng'en, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

please unprotect the page Sakshama, when wikipedia is having articles for techfest, techniche and other technical fetivals. then why not a article for sakshama, a technical festival which was started from a small town of india in the year 2007 and now it is going to celebrate it's third version and it has been said as no #1 technical festival of north india. so i want to write a page for it please unprotect it. you can find more at http://sakshama.org or you can find the same communities on orkut and other social web Aashish K Mahaswary (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You can ignore this; I have pointed the user to WP:RFPU/WP:DRV. He didn't know how to reach an admin and so left talk messages for a page-full of recent changes editors. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on DYK was proven false. There is 14,000 characters on the current page. The fact that you would put it at such a low number, in addition to your recent actions as of late, is highly incivil and very questionable. I have also received many complaints in my email box about you from people who feel that you are doing a disservice to DYK. Must I proceed to having a topic ban of you from reviewing? Or will you cut this off now? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I counted with prosesize.js, the count is accurate, and nothing has been "proven false" unless you take your own word to be the capital-t Truth. I have responded to your comments at T:TDYK.

This morning I tried to leave you a message at your talk page politely saying that I was willing to put this fight behind me and I was hoping we could move on, but you have clearly chosen not to do so. Even though my note at T:TDYK did not at all challenge your hook and did not say it should be rejected (in fact, you can see that I said the hook is fine and may be reviewed), you have instead chosen to continue to pick a fight. Therefore, I humbly ask that you not post at my talk page anymore. If you want to continue fighting or if you ever need to engage in Wikipedia-related communication with me for any reason, you may e-mail me. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for someone to translate and verify refs! Would you mind checking out the French books on Leon M'ba and 1964 Gabon coup d'etat and verifying that it's all true? You have no idea how ecstatic I am right now. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No rush: I just want to have it on the main page by February 17. Best, ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Suntag, I noticed your conversation with Daniel Case, and I just had an idea that seems like it might be up your alley.... I don't know how we would go about actually implementing this or keeping track of these kinds of things, but maybe it would be cool to have a list of DYK articles that go on to make GA or FA. (since the DYK credit template is transcluded in the talk page, the easiest way might be to have a bot that goes through all pages where that is transcluded, and return all pages that also have GA or FA in their {{ArticleHistory}}.) Of course, who knows, maybe such a list would just be embarrassing (what if we find that 95% of DYK articles stagnate and get ignored after their big day?) but if not, it may be fun to think about. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Please revise {{Dyktalk}} with |GA= and |FA= that will populate Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles and Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles if =yes. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Politizer,

I believe you're having a safe and happy holidays.

Here wishing you a happy new years, which is on its way.

Please review the article when you get a chance.

Thanx,

Dvelopmentguru (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Politizer, just wondering about the output of your DYKsuggestion template.

I notice for example that for the Zhao Zongru hook, the template is outputting the following:

| creator           = Nlu
| creator2          = 
| creator3          = 
| creator4          = 
| expander          = 
| expander2         = 
| expander3         = 
| nominator         = 
| comment           = 
| image             = 
| credits           = 
*{{DYKmake|Zhao Zongru|Nlu}}

I can't really see the point in all this. Once DYKsuggestion has outputted the credit string, ie *{{DYKmake|Zhao Zongru|Nlu}}, why do we need all the rest? It seems redundant and it takes up a lot of space. Also, we are experiencing increasing problems with loading times for the page, so the less text the better.

One other thing, I've noticed your code outputs this whole DYKsuggestion thing in brackets {{}}. Is there a reason for that? I can't see why they are needed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I will have to read all that through carefully at some stage, because I didn't understand all of it. However, I really don't see why you need to output any of those fields at all, they don't provide any information that isn't in the credit strings, so I can't imagine why Suntag would want to keep them. And given the difficulty in outputting only selected fields, I think you should just dump the lot and be done with it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm on this topic, it occurred to me a day or two ago that we don't really need the "expander" fields at all. They have only created confusion, so it might be better if we just had "creator" fields to serve as both creator/expander fields.

IMO, we don't really need to be informed whether the article is new or a x5 expansion, because we have to check that in the article's history page anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re your last post, I wasn't suggesting dumping the entire template! I simply meant dump all the fields except the credit strings. Sorry if I failed to make my meaning clear. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear what I have in mind, basically what I would like to see is an output something like this (using the above hook as an example):

{{*mp}} ... that the Tang Dynasty official Zhao Zongru served under six emperors — Emperor Dezong, Emperor Shunzong, Emperor Xianzong, Emperor Muzong, Emperor Jingzong, and Emperor Wenzong?
<!--
*{{DYKmake|Zhao Zongru|Nlu}}
*{{DYKmake|Emperor Dezong|Nlu}}
-->

- So basically the hook and credits can be just picked up and pasted into next update with the absolute minimum of cleanup, making for greater ease and less possibility of errors. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)